There are two translations of this work, one was done by SL Mathers a long time ago and the other by Greg Dehn called the New translation. The SL Mathers version says the ritual will be 6 months and the New translation states the ritual will take 12 months. Would you say the difference in time is more for committment or for the ritual to be exact you need those 12 months?

I would say for the ritual to be exact you need those 12 months.
sacred magic of abramelin is a pretty committed and dedicated operation. all the prayers and fasting and everything.
that's why I don't use It much so I don't have much to say on this matter.
But from what I know you need to stick with the program and you can get some good results.

I think the new translation indicates 18 months, not 12? But I think that since now that you now the "correct" amount of time, you'll need to abide by it.


The "correct" amount of time was 6 months before since no one knew of anything else.

This post has been edited by ComaOfLoss: Oct 30 2009, 01:29 AM

Sorry, I did mean 18 months. I made a mistake while typing.

The amount of time necessary to complete this work was estimated by the author of the original manuscript to take about 18 months. This figure is not cast in stone. What is cast in stone is the purpose of the ritual(s) is Conversation with your Holy Guardian Angel by which you will be able to achieve mastery over all spirits (mentioned in the book). If you were to achieve this epiphany with your HGA before 18 months is up I don't think that you'd be penalized for cutting short the ritual rigors aforementioned. Unification with the HGA is key though...and to chance otherwise may leave you short changed when push comes to shove. IMHO...of course!

Isn't a small child also needed for the final contact with the HGA or is that not in the new work?

Wonder if other CM work involves more, year in year out if you think about it with all the trials and tribulations of each grade and so on... has to come close... and if you finish basic CM work and make contact with yourself can you skip to the last part of the A.operation? Pick up evokation and make subordinate the devil? (If that's how it goes, haven't read into it for a while .lol.)

I don't remember anything like that being in the book, haven't read it in a while though. Are you sure you're not confusing this with a certain evocation of Uriel where a young child is used as the scryer?

From what I remember the child is involved in the final invokation....?

In the Mathers version, on the first day of invocation of your HGA, you are suppose to have a young child from the ages 6 to 8. Unless, you are proficient with your clairvoyance, and then you do not need a child during your invocation.

Hope that helps.

Greetings!
I have just finished rereading the first three books of the Dehn translation of the Abramelin work. Nowhere does it mention the use of a child (innocent) in any part of the rituals. I haven't read the Mathers translation in quite awhile but...and I am hypothesizing, if Mathers does make reference to this practice it is an addition from another ritual popular at the time (of Mathers and the various occult tomes revisited by the Victorians). The Abramelin work is so adamant about purity and piousness that to involve any other human being in the gaining of the HGA was impossible. The book states clearly that it was not a good idea for women to practice this working, regardless of their sexual non-proclivities! This work is most exacting and quite remarkable if completed! You must be of exceptional Faith!

My prior statement of a definative 'NO!' to both translations is in error as I cannot claim 100% of the Mathers translation. The use of a young child (usually male) for scrying work was mentioned in a number of other texts (ie Dee's works, Grimoire Verum, etc....all, you will note, Mathers had a hand in translation) If someone would be kind enough to point out the book and chapter in the Abramelin work that mentions the use of such a child I would be greatly appreciative! I hate to think that I missed so glaring a mistake and then foisting off bad information to the dear members of this Forum! I humbly apologize if I was in error! No excuses! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/black eye.gif)

Back again!
I have reread the pertinent passages in the Mather translation concerning the Child. They are in Book one, chapter 12 and in book 2 chapter 13.
They do not appear anywhere in the Dehn-Guth translation. This later translation uses the original German texts from the early 15th century and later Hebrew from the early 1700's. Mathers translation was from a French version dated in 1750's. Not that that means anything...except Mathers also translated the material using a 'King James' style of writing that was apparently the rage at the time. There are glaring differences between the two translations. The largest errors are the incomplete and mistranslated French texts about the Magical Squares. The latest translation has them complete at 251 as opposed to (243?)...that pesky recall of mine... This is not to say that Mathers did a bad job to quote the current translators...he did very well considering his source material! But, when all is done...the German is a better translation. It flows. I'd recommend it to all hard-core collectors and practioners! Mathers lists the timeframe to complete the Operation at 6 months, whereas the German texts say 18 months.

In respect to the use of the Child in regards to the Rituals...according to Mathers the Child shall be between 5 and 8 years of age, an innocent. It is they who will inform the practioner as to the presence of the HGA and relay this info by word and by showing a silver disk to the mage with characters drawn on it. It is Conversation with the HGA, by proxy This flies in the face of the basic tenents of the Operation (IMHO) by utilizing someone who can speak with angels because they are innocent! Damned if you do, damned if you don't! Ah well... the text in both translations was quite clear in one regard...no one over the age of 50 can perform this Operation! *sigh* I don't know if I feel somewhat cheated or vastly relieved! 50 was quite awhile ago!...and as is somewhat obvious, senility has set in and a rather 'convenient' memory! LOL! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wheelchair.gif) !

Do you not think that the apparent ageism and sexism is more a sign of the times during that era? Perhaps the age thing is a warning, assuming people past that age may have weak hearts but its strange that women "can't" undergo the practice... a 50 year old back then of course was probably in a very much diffrent state than now (said questioningly).

ah, and people wonder why fans of traditional western esoteria are about 99% male...

but anyway, personally I feel that the best solution for a glass ceiling is to make a lot of broken glass, rather than to whine.

Greetings!
I never said, "can't..."
I alluded to the aspect of virginity of the woman. The book goes to great lengths
to tell the aspirant about the taboo of having menstruating women present during the ritual. It appears that only women that are virgin may be considered 'pure' enough to take on the working and, even then, it's not a good idea.
This is still carried out in various peoples around the world!
These manuscripts date back to around 1368 to 1420 AD...well after the Patriarchal takeover had occured...
To play 'Devils advocate' here...
Men and Women handle/channel energy quite differently. They are not the same physiologically! (duh...)
It stands to reason that they would be best to deal with Magic differently...not in all things but a few.
I will create a topic in Fight Club as I find that this will be likely to detract from this topic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

In regards to the two translations, the incense mixtures and the anointing oils are different.

Mathers Translation for Anointing oil:
1 part myrrh in tears
2 parts fine cinnamon
1/2 part galangal
1/2 total weight good olive oil

Mathers Translation for Incense:
1 part incense in tears
1/2 part stacte
1/4 part cedar

Dehn Translation for Anointing oil:
1 part myrrh
1/2 part cinnamon
1 part cassia oil
1 part galangal root
1/4 part combined weight good olive oil

Dehn Translation for Incense:
Equal balm (cedar)
Gummy galbanum
Pure storax

I know the Dehn translation is more complete than the Mathers translation, but does this mean if you followed the Mathers version you were wrong in your works? In reference to the oils and incense.

This post has been edited by Farmgal: Nov 7 2009, 03:53 PM

Am of diffrent opinion... if a system is universal it has to work for everyone unilaterally, or how ever that work is spelt, in fact (and this is my opinion here) there is no occult conduct that isn't universal and if there is its flawed as its being so is central to occult mandate which is universal law.

Greetings!
I'm not sure that I'm following you Mchawi. The differences in the two translations are vast. The Mathers translation were correct for the source papers he was using (ie the French) but the Dehn Translation was taken from the original German transcripts and do not include a lot of the 'Victorianisms' that the Mathers translations have. It would be like deciphering the plans for an atom bomb from the originals as opposed to the copies on the internet. The dogma, though, is quite stringent (save, again, for the Dehn translation...which doesn't include all the supposed Victorianisms included in the Mathers addition.) The more copies placed between the original manuscripts and the later translations can have a distinct altering of effect and purpose to the original. This system was not to be used in a variety of ways. It is not the same as a lot of the 'Solomonic' styled grimoires in many respects... Please set me straight as to the way that you are looking at this for I fear that I'm misinterpreting your meaning! (Thanks! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

The recipes are easily straightened out...
In the Oils:
The only real difference is that the Dehn uses cinnamon powder AND cassia oil. In many formulae these are used interchangeably. Cassia (i think) being an inferior form of true cinnamon. Also note that twice the amount of olive oil is used in the Mathers translation...whereas only half of that is used in the Dehn version...the cassia oil making up for the difference. The effects should be the same but a Traditionalist would use the original formulation.

In the Incense:
In the Golden Dawn scripts good quality resinous incense tears were used in most formulae. In this case they would probably use olibanum, frankincense, myrrh or even mastic.
Mathers favored this because of ease of aquisition. A lot of old incense formulations fall back on this way of handling this.
So the Dehn translation calls for galbanum instead of the ubiquitous 'incense' of the Mathers copy.
Stacte and Storax are synonymous.
The Dehn copy doesn't give a measured formula for the incense...just as long as the ingredients are used.

My recommendation is to use the Traditional method...
BUT, with this in mind...
If you use the Mathers copy, and you've only used the Mathers copy, the introduction of another copy can only cause you confusion and self-doubt. As in the Goetic operations we've had discussions about the methods used to perform these works, and our Imperial Arts tends towards a Traditionalist style...with positive results!
Your own mental state can make or break a success in evocational Magic. The two formulae are not that different from one another to make a difference, IMHO! The Dehn version though has a far better collection of the squares than the Mathers and the mistranslations of the old Hebrew have been corrected!

[quote]

Just noting on the sexism apparent in the texts as you mentioned, partly thought that you advocated it in saying that men and women think diffrently wheseas in my opinion occultism follows universal law and hence there is no distiction between the two sexes.

Alright. Thank you for your response!
I'm not necessarily advocating sexism in Magic practice. This was why I started a thread in Fight Club. You'll find my rebuttal there concerning this topic.

A question... how would you get around the whole small child part of the ritual?

It seems absurd to live in retreat for such a period and have someone lend you a babe toward the end while you're in what would be a dishevelled and unsightly state. Not that the absurd isn't a feature of gotiec styled workings but going by the state of todays society the child is more likely to relay some scene from the tellytubbies or an MTV video than anything worth while... its unfeasable and bordering unethical to involve a child.

This post has been edited by Mchawi: Dec 24 2009, 01:45 PM

As I have stated in this thread before...the only place that mentions the child is in the Mathers translation from the newer, modified French translation. The original did not mention the child. Ever. Now that doesn't mean that it is incorrect to use a child but it is not at all necessary! The child is used as a vessel of innocence/purity in order to communicate with your HGA (Holy Guardian Angel), the feeling being that an individual of only the highest level of purity can/could converse with the angels....IMHO-HOGWASH! The very idea that you would use an innocent in order to TALK with YOUR HGA is absurd! BUT...it was (this idea) all the rage with the faithbased magic-users. The entire foundation of this ritual is to gain conversation with your HGA and, thereby, are given the keys to safely deal with the infernals et al.

If you are a traditionalist you must be either a Christian or a Jew in order for the letter of the ritual to be followed. Alas, I'm neither of those faiths. IMHO, I believe the HGA to be the synthesis or amalgam of you with your higher self (though this may be debated for ever) and the underlying principle of divinity. This giving you a better 'stance' when consorting with the infernal/recalcitrant spirits...safely. If you find that you cannot contact, converse with or generally envision your higher self or an Angel, then perhaps you'd better reconsider the whole ritual. No whining about abstinence either! If you can't control your sexual drive for the time required then you will fail at this or any other ritual calling for discipline. Magic has a way of weeding out the faint of heart. *grin* (then, of course, you could be old and physically incapable of sexual calesthenics *sigh*, and thereby this becomes moot! *grin*)

So, you don't need the child. It is a faithbased 'blind' (and something rather perverse IMHO)! There are enough methods/techniques that you can use to work your way around this.
i've found that learning to induce a lucid trance state (ala shamanic technique) adequate to skry the information necessary. Good Journey! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Thanks. Have an excellent long term and terrible short term memory .lol.

Have become re-intrested in the ritual and intend to train myself ''specifically'' for the six month sojourn which I'll probably save for and take in another country, talking a few years ahead of myself but there you go. A good account of it is, ''The sacred magician'' by William Bloom, a journal of his successful attempt at the ritual... have to get the latest version and not the original 70's edition apparently, unsure why.

Peace
.M.

May as well post this here seeing as its already appropriately titled.

Nick Ferrel considers the evokation, the binding of negative forces toward the end of the operation to be a blind stating that one is to evoke their positive counterparts instead. Intresting take. Not sure of his golden dawn adaptation of the rite;

http://nickfarrell.info/nick-farrell-abram...olden-dawn.html

The binding of negative forces, subduing those aspects of yourself does seem to make more sence and makes for a more tantilizing experience. Couldn't come that close to success and hash it up on a theory right at the end but the rite does say that you should insist on the demons taking kerubic forms... if I'm right, haven't got or read the book as of yet.

Apologies for thread hikacking.

Peace.
.M.