|
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
--------------------
|
Natural Magick As Opposed To Cm, What is natural magick opposed to CM?
Stjerne-kropp Natural Magick As Opposed To Cm Jul 5 2010, 11:52 PM
Jul 5 2010, 11:52 PM
