Pure Magick?, Regarding the reliablility information available Options

The Legementon consisting of severale parts being the greater and lesser keys and if iam to understand correctly the ars armadel as well as ars notoria, Ars Nova, Ars notoria, Ars Paulina Ect... so on and so forth. have all been transcribed from an original manuscript. which if iam to understand correctly was the handbook of some wizard's (magician)apprentice.

Now then that i have established this lemme continue on to say that the original gift decended from the heavens by word of mouth from angle and God to and original select few, sources indicate moses as one of these. that would suggest that the 1st generation of magick desenced from these learnered men and through out the years of passing these gifts on by word of mouth were eventualy written down into these grimoires. which then recirculated to the public in the form of the above books that were transcribed by mathers and crowley ect...

if i have followed this correctly thus far then i have thus drawn the following conclusion, although these books provide us with a key into envolking, summoning, conjuring sprits these books are side notes of apprentices and learning students and as such obscured by thier though of what they Believed the magical way was according to thier master that obscuered the way from what they learned from thier master, though provideds an acceptable cerimony for summoning beasts its rituals may be unintentionally marred due to misunderstanding or mistaught principles handed down through the first generation of magick to where we are now....

and so as the arbatle of magick suggestes that the only way to truly learn the way is from the angles and the sources them selves....

my question to you is then these books which have become the basis for which many of us have tried to draw our understanding of conjuring. is at last nothing more then the foot notes of the original wizards that once walked the earth...

at lest that what ive gather thus far by reading over the manuscripts am I'm just wondering what you guys think on the subject am i understanding this correctly did i miss somthing along the way? i by no means profess myself a master or a wizard, but a student that is carfully trying to understand this sacred art that has been handed down to us...
youre comments thoughts concerns?

The keys of Solomon are professed to have originated with Solomon the King, although I believe the earliest copies come from 1500-something. I don't think I have ever heard that they came from moses, although there is another book supposedly attributed to him, I think they may actually be called the 'books of moses' or some such. i haven't perused them in several years now. I would not say these books are necessarily footnotes of apprentices, although that may be the case - they are fairly complete, and are workable as they are.

I do support the idea, however, that the 'only' way to learn magic is from angels/spirits, etc. I put 'only' in quotes because there are obviously principles of magic that have already been given to mankind, and have been used for ages - however in this day many of those appear to be incomplete or misinterpreted through the ages. None the less, I am myself currently gathering and constructing th ematerials necessary to work with the lesser key within the next couple of months, and this is a subject of primary interest to myself - learning techniques of magic directly from the spirits therein. In the past much of my own magical education has come from spirits of one sort or another, but being a kind of internal communication, they have been primarily internal techniques. Ritual magic, and the possibility of binding other spirits (there is some discussion of this in the Abra-melin books) is a goal for the lesser key experiments.

However, if I understand you I think you are suggesting that these books are somehow incomplete and not workable based on the assumption that they are 'marred' and misinterpreted from generation to generation leading up to the manuscripts we have available now. As I understand it, these books - the lesser key at least - are workable as they are, with no apparent blinds or misleading elements. This is according, however, to one of our members here, Imperial Arts, who you might care to look up for a perspective on this work specifically. I intend to collect more publically verifiable evidence when/if my own experiments are successful personally, but as for anecdotal evidence, his is very compelling.

peace

[quote name='Vagrant Dreamer' date='Aug 3 2009, 12:16 PM' post='43501']
The keys of Solomon are professed to have originated with Solomon the King, although I believe the earliest copies come from 1500-something. I don't think I have ever heard that they came from moses, although there is another book supposedly attributed to him, I think they may actually be called the 'books of moses' or some such. i haven't perused them in several years now. I would not say these books are necessarily footnotes of apprentices, although that may be the case - they are fairly complete, and are workable as they are. [quote]


I suppose that the 6th and 7th books of moses could be considered as somewhat incomplete, but it only lacks the basic foundation that any student learns from other systems like the GD material for an example. So 1+1 can easily = 3 in that matter I suppose. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/search.gif)

This post has been edited by Vovin: May 29 2015, 06:13 PM