|
|
  |
 Natural Magick As Opposed To Cm, What is natural magick opposed to CM? |
|
|
| Vilhjalmr |
 Jul 6 2010, 11:24 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 181
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Medrengard
Reputation: 2 pts
|
QUOTE(kaboom13 @ Jul 6 2010, 08:21 AM) 
Oh. Well, that isn't impudent and narrow minded. He sounds like many dead white guys that we no longer read or actively promote. There really isn't any difference when it comes to anything vaguely magical at all in the grandest scheme of things, but probably Agrippa's idea of nature magick is anything involving people dancing around naked and intoxicated, or sacrificing animals ie. Things we consider to be maybe tribal (with a nod to shamanic influences?)
That's a good idea, and I didn't think of it. Upon further consideration, however, I feel both my suggestion of witchcraft and your suggestion of shamanic ideas is incorrect - I have read that Agrippa was a stalwart Christian, unorthodox as he may appear. In any case, medieval Europe was a poor place to espouse shamanism and witchcraft!
--------------------
Für Wodin!
|
  
|
|
|
|
| Imperial Arts |
Jul 7 2010, 07:32 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 307
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Las Vegas
Reputation: 18 pts
|
The arbitrary distinction Agrippa makes between Natural, Celestial, and Ceremonial magic is a trivial matter. Simply stated, Natural magic refers to processes accomplished by observable phenomena of nature with which we can interact, Celestial magic refers to magic founded in astrology or numerology, and Ceremonial magic refers to practices derived from theological ideas rather than from any observable or tangible phenomena. Even more simply stated, these are works of the senses, of intellect, and of faith, respectively. Such a distinction does not in itself give any indication of one form of magic being any more or less moral than the others.
My copy of Agrippa (the pink Kessinger edition) contains several supplementary articles, including a letter addressing your concern over the potential immorality of ceremonial magic. I do not have a desire to type the whole argument here, but a summary runs as follows:
"Cornelius Agrippa to the Reader"
1. The obscure nature of the subject is likely to attract people of "disordered judgment and some who are perverse," who will claim that Agrippa teaches evil.
2. That a magician is not a superstitious and devilish sorcerer, but a "wise man, priest, or prophet."
3. That the ignorant, who will not accept magic as a noble pursuit, ought to simply turn away and forget about the subject lest it cause them mental or moral outrage.
4. That if anything be found offensive in the work, leave it alone and realize it is included as part of a general study of the subject and not as a practical instruction. Agrippa recognizes that much of what is contained in his books are "superfluous things, and curious prodigies," but that there are some works of magic that can do genuine good.
5. That he wrote the book while still very young, and later had hoped to correct his errors, and for that purpose sent the whole book to abbot Trithemius. The book was intercepted en route, and passed around with much scandal attached. The author had hoped to edit the work considerably, but felt it best to lay the whole work on the table lest someone use any part of it as blackmail. Agrippa apologizes if anything should cause offense to the reader.
Such was Agrippa's defense.
Other writers on the subject (Crowley included) are quick to denounce all practical magic as evil, under the presumption that one ought to focus instead on the unification of personal desire with that of the divine. One who follows the true will, according to such authorities, need not meddle in spells and talismans as his or her actions are supported by the force of destiny. Waite went so far as to denounce all ceremonial magic, whether for practical or divinatory purposes, as a path to wickedness and delusion. Mathers' writings are chock-full of holy aspirations, but his personal occult record was replete with sympathetic magic, curses, and witchcraft, all of which led to his downfall and death.
For myself, I could only say that you are responsible for the alignment of your own moral compass. If you find something objectionable, don't do it!
Although many religious authorities would differ in opinion on this subject, I do not personally believe that you can be considered evil for attempting to do something good. Examine your motives and your methods, and decide for yourself if your morals permit it.
Finally, if you are truly religious, ask some of your religious authorities or someone close to you whose philosophy you respect. If you cannot discuss this subject frankly with them, ask yourself why not.
This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Jul 7 2010, 07:35 PM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| Kath |
Jul 8 2010, 09:55 AM
|
Zelator
Posts: 220
Age: N/A
Gender: Female
Reputation: 8 pts
|
QUOTE(Vilhjalmr @ Jul 7 2010, 01:13 PM)
I respectfully disagree with your first assertion; I'm most familiar with the shamanism around Kamchatka, but it didn't seem anything like Christian ritual to me, and I think it'd be a mistake to over-emphasize whatever residual similarity Christianity may have had with shamanism. The defining features seem to be things like animal guides, nature worship, elaborate (but very different even between shamanistic regions) cosmology, and entheogen use.
When I was a devout christian myself, I found that they engage in a great deal of subtle group-based energy work, egregore work, ancestor worship, etc. They just use different terminology for it all. These aspects go back the the earliest christian church. Just because they choose to use different terminology, and then promote their own practices while condemning anyone using terminology outside their sect (ie religious xenophobia), doesn't mean they actually *are* doing something different.
--------------------
‘Εκατερινη  γνῶθι σεαυτόν Audaces fortuna iuvat |
|
|
|
|
| Lee |
Jul 8 2010, 03:06 PM
|
Neophyte
Posts: 22
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Lebanon
Reputation: none
|
Don't you just hate labels ?
Natural magick and ceremonial magick meet at some place ... magick
In a Nutshell,
Ceremonial magick is the practice of the art in a group and it's a general term under which kabbalah/hermeticism/... are lumped. A ceremony consists of some banishing rituals, centering ,circle casting,channeling energy ...
Natural magick is more of a folkloric system,in which the practitioner would use objects found in nature (stones/plants/...) , the elements and Spirit. A spell doesn't have to be in a circle , Nature is considered sacred and you can work just about anywhere.
The difference between these two systems is that one is strongly reminiscent of Abrahamic dogma and the other is more folk/pagan in nature, more malleable to work with.
IMO you shouldn't take Agrippa or any other author's word as truth- nothing is written in stones-, if he thinks something is against the god he's talking about, don't accept it as such. Question it , and see what did he mean and if it is "rational" in your opinion. You're "totally" free to throw the idea away.
We're talking magick , which is bound to "your will" only.
just my 2 cents.
--------------------
 "People are like stained-glass windows they sparkle and shine when the sun is out, but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is light from within." Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (1926 -) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
Similar Topics
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
