Newbie Sorcerer Options

well as far as i am concerned i am just beginning learning magic and i want to lear about sorcery..i read some of the threads here regarding about sorcery but i dont know what should i study 1st and is there such magic that does not include rituals for example like in the harry potter you just have to say some magic words..

well as far as i am concerned i am just beginning learning magic and i want to lear about sorcery..i read some of the threads here regarding about sorcery but i dont know what should i study 1st and is there such magic that does not include rituals for example like in the harry potter you just have to say some magic words..

Greetings,

When i was younger i had this illusion about magick that it consists of reciting a few secret names that will grant you power. I no longer believe this to be true. There are no few magick words that if spoken will get you results. YOU the magickian must empower the ritual with your emotions,energy, thoughtforms and WILL.

The words won't get you what you want,

ITS YOU THAT WILL.

Peace

This post has been edited by Alexodeus: Aug 2 2007, 01:13 PM

ALL magick involves ritual to some degree. It's only a question of what form it will take.



Here's some more reading on the topic:


Wikipedia -- Magic (Paranormal)

Wikipedia -- Magick (Thelema)





You might also want to read the book True Magick: A Beginner's Guide by Amber K. It provides a nice survey of most of the major magickal traditions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wizard.gif)



My advice is to find a system that is both practical and appealing to you. Since you're just starting out, I would suggest you keep things simple (IOW, don't toy with forces that you do not understand. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

This post has been edited by The Sorceress: Aug 2 2007, 11:44 PM

thanks for all the advices you gave me its a real help...but are there e-books or sites w/c i can also check:?

are there e-books or sites w/c i can also check:?

"w/c" = ??????????????


I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)






As for e-books, you might try Googling "magick" and "e-books". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

well as far as i am concerned i am just beginning learning magic and i want to lear about sorcery..i read some of the threads here regarding about sorcery but i dont know what should i study 1st and is there such magic that does not include rituals for example like in the harry potter you just have to say some magic words..

Consider looking into the true qabbalah for the truth about magick words and magickal utterance - it's not as simple as just saying words. However, hard work and years of dedication really do pay off... there is no truly instant path to magick.

peace

Consider looking into the true qabbalah for the truth about magick words and magickal utterance - it's not as simple as just saying words. However, hard work and years of dedication really do pay off... there is no truly instant path to magick.

peace

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)

Consider looking into the true qabbalah for the truth about magick words and magickal utterance - it's not as simple as just saying words. However, hard work and years of dedication really do pay off... there is no truly instant path to magick.

peace

uhhh..... yeah. well obviously there is no instant path... that much i agree with. i just dont like your take on "truth". i believe everything to be at the same time false and entirely true. to the individual mind, whatever they happen to genuinely believe is entirely true. in a world of multiple individuals there is no truth. unless you genuinely believe there is... anywho, in a world of multiple viewpoints ideas are verified by other entities.we communicate. we confirm. but what exactly are we confirming? we are merely stating that our view of the universe aligns with theirs. if bob and tom stand on either side of jim, they would agree that the person they both see is definitely jim. they both see different sides of jim, but their views can be compared and found similar enough to say its that person.

anywho, the "truth" is, while maybe not indeterminable, rather difficult to see. i think i may see the truth in seeing this "truth" about the "truth". but maybe im wrong. i mean how can i, a single unwitting being amidst an existence of eternal and unbounded life, know more than my own perspective? to genuinely know is... questionable.

so if ones view is incomplete, how can one possibly KNOW the "truth"?

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

are you really going to get so hot on me for stating my opinion? i never said you were wrong. as a matter of fact i said i was unwitting and couldn't possibly know anything about the truth, and stated my simple opinion on truth. i cannot make that any clearer. i was merely talking about truth, and was not disputing your beliefs. i even said that if a person believes in something then it is truth. and you did strike on something in your little speech. i was talking about viewpoints right? well i said with one individual what they believe is true. that is logical.if there is nobody else to state otherwise, then yes. what they say goes. and now for what you struck on. about a good lot of people and how they cant be wrong? i believe also that multiple people can, when they verify with each other, make truth refined. things become clearer. with multiple viewpoints, things are seen better. i was merely putting emphasis on the individual mind. and how did you get me saying you were wrong out of that anyway? also on "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?" well... dont you believe in intuition? what about the akashic records? the great subconscious that connects all people? clairvoyancy?how about gut instinct? come now. dont tell me if someone spouts something off about something i dont know about i cant at least go "wait... that doesn't sound right." dont you ever get those intuitive feelings?

are you really going to get so hot on me for stating my opinion? i never said you were wrong. as a matter of fact i said i was unwitting and couldn't possibly know anything about the truth, and stated my simple opinion on truth. i cannot make that any clearer. i was merely talking about truth, and was not disputing your beliefs. i even said that if a person believes in something then it is truth.

Don't mistake my manner of discussion with 'hotness' or anger, or anything even akin to an emotional state at all. You stated your opinion, which you are free to do, but I believe in response to a misunderstanding of what I had proposed before. I simply meant to clarify my stance on the subject of truth, as you could not have adequately received that stance from the post you responded to. You haven't been here long, and I would take no offense in any case, but you may find that I never speak out in haste or anger/irritation. Clarity is all I meant to espouse, and I did not mean to appear offended.

and you did strike on something in your little speech.

The best way to enter into constructive discussion with myself specifically, is to avoid giving the impression that I am speaking with a petty individual. If you cannot keep your emotions under control and discuss with rationality, I cannot respect your opinions to the point of discussing them. There's already plenty of that here, and as a moderator I'm personally tired of seeing the forums devolve because of it. Keep it respectful.

i was talking about viewpoints right? well i said with one individual what they believe is true. that is logical. if there is nobody else to state otherwise, then yes. what they say goes.

I think that what one individual believes is not necessarily true - just because you perceive it as true doesn't mean it is. It means it is part of your personal reality, but reality is not truth, it is illusion. What a person believes is true, may very well be a delusion, or even a hallucination. The truth of the effect or the reaction to that delusion or hallucination may be true, in the sense that it is real, but that doesn't make it a basis for the logical association of other so called 'truths' in an effort to create a paradigm for experiencing reality. If one of those so-called 'truths' is a delusion or hallucination, then the entire paradigm becomes warped. If it was a physical thing, like a lense, that you could see and touch, it might look something like a lense that was shaped poorly, with perhaps a single 'patch' that is melted or cloudy - instead of clarifying the world when one looks through it, it warps the world into something unrecognizable, makes it more difficult to navigate instead of more efficient.

and now for what you struck on. about a good lot of people and how they cant be wrong? i believe also that multiple people can, when they verify with each other, make truth refined. things become clearer. with multiple viewpoints, things are seen better. i was merely putting emphasis on the individual mind.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said:

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?

Not that they "can't be wrong" - but that until we are at least as developed as they are, who are we to contradict them? It goes back to, if you have no experience in some matter, how can you refute the truth of what another person says?

and how did you get me saying you were wrong out of that anyway? also on "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?" well... dont you believe in intuition? what about the akashic records? the great subconscious that connects all people? clairvoyancy?how about gut instinct? come now. dont tell me if someone spouts something off about something i dont know about i cant at least go "wait... that doesn't sound right." dont you ever get those intuitive feelings?

Intuition, the akashic records, and the collective unconscious, clairvoyancy, and gut instinct, are all different things. What I learn from accessing any of these things, I test and compare with other more substantial or 'solid' information. I don't take it at face value, and when my intuition alerts me to falsehood in the so called 'truth' that I am offered by another, I don't take that at face value either, because I feel that reality - including my own ego as a part of that superficial reality - is a lie, and is made up of lies. Therefore while from this physical perspective what my mind, my intuition, tells me is 'true' or 'untrue' might be accurate in relationship to this level of existence, ultimately I can't trust it, because it only knows how to lie. I can be mindful of it and take it into consideration, but I must recognize that I am not all knowing, and I cannot know for sure, yet, that my own subconscious is in some cases directing my experience based on past behavioral patterns, to simply be in conflict with what I hear or experience that in actuality is true, or to believe or be sympathetic to what is not true. Until you are a fully aware being (or anyone else), neither can you.

I never refuted that you said I was wrong - you didn't say I was wrong, and I didn't say you said that. You initiated a debate:

but what exactly are we confirming?..... so if ones view is incomplete, how can one possibly KNOW the "truth"?

I responded, clarifying the basis upon which you were asking these questions, which bore no indication of being rhetorical given that you opened by presenting an alternative opinion on the nature of truth - about which I didn't say anything to begin with.

peace
V

i suppose i misunderstood. i do my best to keep emotion out of my thoughts and conversation but i suppose it may have seemed like i let some get in, and maybe i did. i realize i am dealing here with someone quite intelligent, and although i obviously misunderstood and distorted the conversation, i myself am intelligent enough to know to apologize. i might have just been subconsciously wanting to argue with somebody so i could let off a little steam, because my dog died the other day. i hope you understand i wasn't looking to cause a fuss and upset the forums.