In my statement I made no discussion on the nature of truth itself. This discussion regards specifically the use of magical words, and so I spoke what I understand regarding that practice. And while the True Qabbalah, as a subject with a name (whether it is the 'truth' or not, this is the name used as reference in order to find material regarding it), largely discussed in the western tradition by Franz Bardon (by no means the inventor of this science), is not the exclusive method of learning the science of magical utterance, that is, magical words, it is a readily available text for those in this part of the world who have no private adept to teach them. It is decidedly more difficult to learn from a book, being a matter of spoken words.
As to the truth of the nature of magical utterance, unless you have another tradition in which magical words are simpler, and can express the basics of that tradition here, are you in a position to refute the nature of that truth?
As a momentary deviation from the topic at hand, consider this: if two people understand two different 'truths' relating to one thing, be it an idea, place, etc., then perhaps one of them is wrong. Believing in something might make it 'true' to you, but it does not make it universal, or applicable, and through experimentation one can even prove that 'truth' wrong for themselves. Most simply choose not to experiment and learn the validity of that truth. The scientific method is not just for the classical 'sciences'. If you believe something to be true when you have not tested it, then you are a fool. (the general "you", not you specifically.)
Similarly, if one person says that something is true on a particular matter, and you have no experience with that matter, how are you to know that what they say is true or not? How are you to form any sense of truth, if you do not have your own 'truth' to put on the table in opposition?
The 'true' nature of 'truth' is ultimately unspeakable, unthinkable, and can only be known in the silence of both the mind and the mouth. There is, ultimately, only one truth to be known. You may not yet believe it, and for me to say it may seem an act of arrogance. For long years I resisted the ancient traditions and the 'truths' that they proposed, believing that 'ancient' equated 'outdated'. However, if the thousands of adepts, ancient wise men, gurus, and religious and spiritual icons have all repeated this same thing - that there is ultimately only one original truth (not that, there is one way to view the world, but that as a thing, there is only one Truth, and all else is illusion), then who are we to believe ourselves so advanced, so fully grown and aware, that we know better than they? When their entire existence was ultimately committed to helping us realize experientially that same ultimate silent truth?
So, the use of magical utterance, according to any tradition based on the same principles (and with some long, hard research akin to the kind that I have done over the course of my magical career, you will find the same thing), may in itself be an illusion - that there is any change, any movement outside of the original movement, that divine current which creates, sustains and ultimately destroys all of creation, is itself a grand illusion. However, that does not change the fact that at the physical level, as a physical being, without the ascension that comes with completing this physical stage of the Great Work, there are basic laws and principles governing magical utterance which according to all cultures with a tradition regarding this act are similar if not the same. And that, as physical beings at this stage of development, we must then apply those laws and principles in order to speak magical words properly, in order to bring about magical effect.
If you can prove otherwise - and I, and many others, have proven this again and again to ourselves and one another - then please do so. If not, then you are not in a position to refute my position on the truth of this subject and it's application.
peace V
--------------------
The world is complicated - that which makes it up is elegantly simplistic, but infinitely versatile.
|