From the Llewellyn Magick Blog, September 12, 2016:
Here’s another one from the Solomonic FB Group files! Somewhat recently, occult scoundrel and esoteric hooligan Nick Farrell posted the following comment to a thread about the Holy Guardian Angel (or “HGA”):
“I think the HGA is a big dumbed down modern con-trick. Sure Abramerlin featured him, but it was more of a gimmick, It was a pick part of Crowely’s ideas and of course Crowley was right about everything especially when it comes down to livestock. Now you get everyone asking you about HGA as if it is a vital thing… or worse your divine self (it really isn’t). I know… not a popular thought but there you are.”
Not a popular thought indeed! It was hardly just Crowley behind the HGA push in the Western Mystery Tradition. Israel Regardie picked up that flag and flew it in his work, and from those guys it was picked up by—well pretty much everyone else. (Except the Neopagans—but we’ll get back to that in a bit.) Especially among the Golden Dawn and Thelema crowds, the concept of achieving “Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel” became paramount. It was billed as the highest achievement of the adept, the “thing” toward which we should all be working. Without it can nothing else be accomplished! It is our Western version of Enlightenment.
That’s a very lofty philosophy, and I can’t blame those early Golden Dawners (yes, including Crowley) for sensing something vastly important at the heart of the Abramelin Rite. I certainly did!
But now we run into a snag. As wonderful and transcendent as the HGA may be, we don’t actually find him everywhere, do we?
Read the Rest at: http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2016/09/re-evaluating-our-re-evaluation-of-the-holy-guardian-angel/
Greetings fellow conjurors and spirit-workers!
You might have noticed a new blog, recently posted by Frater Barrabbas, entitled My Problem with Grimoire Purists and Strict Traditionalists. Even if you haven’t read it, you might recognize it from Facebook thanks to the prominent image of a braying jackass right under the title of the post.
SIGH – here we go again…
To put it all as briefly as possible, it seems our Frater has had it with the “never ending argument between those who espouse the literal adaptation of Grimoires as they currently exist and those who follow a path of eclecticism.” And he’s here to champion the eclectic path, dammit.
As one who does not practice the grimoire tradition, he sure seems to have a lot of opinions about it. He’s even written several articles on what he perceives to be “problems” with the grimoires. And that boggles my mind – because I doubt he would be so forgiving if I were to point out my “problems” with his chosen path. (Not to say I have any – I am willing to admit I know very little about it – but I am led to wonder how the shoe might fit on the other foot…)
Now, I have no beef with Frater B himself. And, to be fair, he has posted on Facebook that the inspiration for his recent post was an encounter with a particularly arrogant jackass who felt his way (or their way – I’m not sure if it was one person or a group, though I’m betting in either case it was rabid Lisewski fanboys…) was the only way to accomplish magick. And, I’ll side with Frater Barrabbas in saying those types are insufferable – I’ve kicked a number of them out of my own Solomonic group(s).
So what is it that makes me heave a sigh over his post? While he states at the beginning that he is only fed-up with that certain type of occultist – the rest of the blog is a diatribe against the grimoires themselves, not just a few practitioners who make jerks of themselves.
My initial thought upon reading the very first line of the article was “Exactly where is this never-ending battle taking place?” I certainly hear about it a lot – but where is it happening? I like to think I have some involvement in the global community of grimoire enthusiasts, and I haven’t seen groups of us sitting around talking about how stupid we think all other flavors of occultism are. (And Jake Kent slagging off magickal orders doesn’t count.) I’ve never once seen any of us compare wand sizes – at least not in a negative way. Are there arrogant jerks to be found out there? – yep! Same as with any group. And, just like those other groups, they don’t make up the majority and they aren’t tolerated in polite company.
He goes on (still in the first sentence) to make a distinction between those who “…espouse the literal adaptation of Grimoires as they currently exist and those who follow a path of eclecticism, experimentation and creative adaptation.” As if these two things are mutually exclusive. As if the grimoires are not themselves eclectic or do not demand experimentation and creative adaptation on the part of their practitioners. What grimoires has he been reading??
So, from the very outset, Frater B is setting up a straw man. He casts grimoire purists in a light of close-mindedness and blind adherence to rules and traditions. He makes a very minimal effort to suggest we aren’t all that way, but he then goes on to explain how my system fails in every conceivable way…??? Did I miss something?
Yes I know how it is with blog posts – you have a thought to share or a rant to make, then everyone with any connection to that subject matter whatsoever is going to take everything the wrong way and jump down your throat. And it is not my intention to act in such a manner at all. I know he had a bad experience with a jackass and wanted to post about it. What I find unfortunate, however, is that the bulk of his post seeks to tear down my tradition in and of itself, showing how his own ecclectic path is “better”, more “in touch” with modern humanity, and the grimoires are dusty old relics with which we are largely wasting our time. (As I said, he’s posted anti-grimoire material before.) So… SIGH.
It is entirely possible he didn’t mean it that way – but, brother, that is how it came across. He has even recently mentioned the stir his post has created; though I’m not entirely sure he gets why. So, let me take things point by point:
– Almost right away, he discusses how the results of one’s magick are more important than whether one’s “magical tools are perfectly fashioned according to the dictates of the tradition or that the rites and liturgy employed are accurate and valid.” And, here he shows just how much he doesn’t get my tradition.
My tradition also puts supreme importance on getting results from our magick. (Surprise!) However, what Frater Barrabbas is casting in the light of slavish following of pointless details, we happen to call “the protocols our spirits demand in order to work with them.” If my spirits tell me to set up my altar a certain way, or to perform a certain ritual, or to use some specific tool made in a specific manner in order to get a certain result, then you can bet I’m going to follow their instructions – I don’t care how loudly Frater B and his eclectic buddies stand on the sidelines and shout “But you don’t have to!” For some reason, he thinks our dedication and willingness to put every effort into our work with our spirits is a bad thing, a sign that we just follow rules without understanding, that we essentially don’t understand magick at all. When an archangel tells one of us how to prepare a proper offering in the proper way, we should apparently tell the archangel to shut up and accept some McDonald’s take out because that’s what we have on hand. Strictly adhering to the details of the archangel’s instructions is, apparently, stupid.
Even more than this, he outright states that the material used to fashion tools and the methods of fashioning them are purely esthetic and have absolutely no bearing on the efficacy of the magick: “Whether the wand was made out of alchemical gold engraved with rare arcane symbols and glyphs or it was just an unusual stick found in the woods, the magic generated doesn’t seem to vary much.” This is one of the places where he illustrates how little he understands my path. He thinks we believe it matters if the wand is prettier or more expensive. He doesn’t even consider that Spirit A may *require* us to use a golden engraved wand, while Spirit B might *require* us to use a stick we found in the woods. And it is what the spirits want that is important here.
– Next, Frater Barrabbas slips right back into straw-man territory, by attempting to knock down yet another “popular” argument that “…the magicians of the previous age knew what they were doing and the grimoires that they wrote represent a true tradition of magic, and that now, after centuries of neglect and omission, we should pick up what they unwittingly passed down to us and use that above all other methodologies or techniques to work magic. In fact, it has been implied that we would be better served if we tossed out all of the current magical lore collected over the last hundred years or so and started fresh with one of the more older grimoires.”
I’ve never heard any such argument. Yet again, this arises from the fact that Frater B doesn’t practice this tradition. His arguments are close, but they miss the point in the end. We don’t think magicians of previous ages were some kind of super-beings who knew everything. We do, however, know that magicians of previous ages inherited their knowledge from ages before them, who got it from ages before them – all the way back to the most primitive tribal shamans. It was an unbroken line of human experience that developed naturally over thousands of years. Then (in the West), along came the medieval Church and outlawed it all, followed by the Age of Enlightenment that declared it was all superstitious nonsense. Then came the psychological model of magick to replace it.
A few of us have found that psychological model lacking, and are looking back to before that massive break in human tradition and asking, what were they doing? And, somehow, that means we are worshiping those people and declaring them infallible?? We are, in fact, wrong for having issues with any form of occultism that developed after the Golden Dawn? We should all be Thelemites or Wiccans, and that’s it, Jack!?
– The next paragraph contains more of the same, though it stands out for including a line toward its end declaring the grimoires do not produce the impressive results their practitioners claim. As he does not practice or even understand the fundamentals of my tradition, how could he know this? Did he just pick up a grimoire once and “try it out” and got nothing for his efforts? He believes making the tools properly is just esthetic nonsense, and doesn’t grasp the concept of following spiritual protocols. Thus he was hardly experiencing my tradition – yet his limited grimoire experience (or lack thereof) was a good enough reason to declare an entire tradition a load of bunk?
– Next, he enters into one of the most overused and tired arguments out there: the grimoires were written in the medieval and renaissance periods, and thus do not represent our modern culture. Because, certainly the magick and methods presented in those books only apply to that time and place. Only in medieval Europe did people need protection, healing, prosperity, love, and all sorts of outdated nonsense like that. Only in the Renaissance did anyone need to seek out and connect with the spirits of nature, and learn the secrets of magick from them. You can only summon the Archangel Michael, or the demon Bael, if you are a serf living on a farm or a nobleman living in a castle keep. Does this sound as silly to you as it does me?
Without a doubt, I’m the first one to insist you need to understand something about the time and place a text was written, if you want to understand what is written. (I dedicated the first half of my Secrets of the Magickal Grimoires to that alone!) But it’s a pretty far leap to say that no text can have meaning or application outside of the time and place it was written. Some things are timeless – and magick just so happens to be one of those things.
– From there, he goes into an explanation of how the grimoires are actually eclectic themselves, and how even a single grimoire (say, the Key of Solomon for example) will usually exist in several conflicting manuscripts. In other words – the grimoire tradition is not, nor has it ever been, about the blind following of pointless rules. It’s always been about experimentation and finding what works best. And that entirely contradicts the point he is trying to make. Does he really think we grimoire mages hold up a manuscript that exists in dozens of different forms and declare it “infallible”?? Has he overlooked the massive efforts some of us have put into restoring old texts, correcting talismans and sigils, completing unfinished word squares, hunting down lost or corrupted rituals? Yes. Yes I think he has.
In this same section, he puts quite a bit of effort into illustrating how we only possess a fraction of the grimoires that actually existed, and therefore can’t really know anything about the tradition anyway. I’m sure this information will come as quite a shock to Claire Fanger, Richard Kiekhefer, Elizabeth Butler, Stephen Skinner, David Rankine, Jake Kent, Owen Davies and others (including yours truly) who now must recall all of their books and essays and theses because, suddenly, they don’t really know anything about the medieval grimoire tradition. Again, it sounds silly because it is.
After that section, Frater Barrabbas comes back into sensible territory again – making perfectly agreeable statements about magick, his thoughts on Satan and demons, etc. I don’t have any problem with him there – though I think he also doesn’t really “get” the role of demons in the grimoires (it’s something I’m teaching and lecturing on currently). But I don’t take personal issue with anything in these final sections of his blog.
Again, I’m sure most of his post was motivated by running into a real dumbass who claimed to be the Grand Solomonic Master before whom we should all bow. But, a large bulk of what he had to say was against the grimoire tradition itself, painting both it and its practitioners with a very inaccurate brush. I don’t blame him for not understanding some of the nuances of how my kind of magick works – but my feathers ruffle over his attempt to present himself as an expert on a subject matter with which he does not have experience, and clearly has very little understanding.
In the end, I would say this:
Hey, Frater B! Let’s make a deal – I won’t try to explain your tradition to others, and you don’t try to explain mine. Sound good? 😉
From the Llewellyn Magick Blog, April 20, 2016:
When I began my occult path—so many years ago now—there were two things I lamented above all else: 1) that Western culture had abandoned its official belief in magick, and 2) that what little remained of Western occultism had abandoned the Old Magick in favor of post-GD psychological models. I would have to say, in some sense, my entire career as an author/teacher and all-around very public occultist has been dedicated to setting those two things right again. I wanted to live in a community of people who believe in magick—and therefore place real value on what I do, rather than viewing it as a quaint or outright weird hobby. And, of course, I wanted to see the Old Magick revived for Westerners; for us to put away all the mental masturbation and “self-help” and reconnect with Nature as humans should. This seemed like a noble cause, so I set my sails and began my journey.
Yet, as often happens with age and maturity, I have learned and experienced more than my young self had. I have gained new wisdom and a decidedly broader perspective. My ship has sailed, the movement I wanted to start—but, in fact, had already started by the time I joined it—can’t be stopped now. The Old Magick is coming back, via several different channels. Even if I hung up my pen and never wrote another word, it wouldn’t change a thing now. And, now that it is clearly too late to do a damned thing about it, I have serious concerns…
Read the Rest at: http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2016/04/why-im-worried-about-the-revival-of-the-old-magick/
You, courageous seeker (if this applies to you), are merely pointed toward an entire genre of (extremely obscure) occult literature and told, “There lie the true secrets of magick. Good luck.” So, realizing you’re pretty much on your own, you take the most logical first step: look for a copy of the Key of Solomon in order to get an idea of what the system looks like and requires. But wait! Do you mean the “greater” or “lesser” Key of Solomon? Or did you mean the Hygromanteia (aka the Magical Treatise of Solomon)? Maybe you’d like the Key of Solomon the King published by Mathers, or do you prefer the Veritable Key of Solomon published by Skinner and Rankine? I could go on
From the Llewellyn Magick Blog, February 16, 2016:
Those who take an interest in Solomonic and grimoire occultism face a rather unique dilemma. Anyone who undertakes a specific path/tradition—such as the Golden Dawn, Thelema, and even Wicca—generally has their work cut out for them. Literally. Someone before them has taken the time to design an entire course of work and study for the new student to follow. You will read this text and that one, you will perform these rituals and meditations, and you will pass this test before moving on to the next stage—there really isn’t any room for confusion on that point.
This, however, is not the case for the student hoping to learn the ways of Solomon or Enoch. You, courageous seeker (if this applies to you), are merely pointed toward an entire genre of (extremely obscure) occult literature and told, “There lie the true secrets of magick. Good luck.” So, realizing you’re pretty much on your own, you take the most logical first step: look for a copy of the Key of Solomon in order to get an idea of what the system looks like and requires. But wait! Do you mean the “greater” or “lesser” Key of Solomon? Or did you mean the Hygromanteia (aka the Magical Treatise of Solomon)? Maybe you’d like the Key of Solomon the King published by Mathers, or do you prefer the Veritable Key of Solomon published by Skinner and Rankine? I could go on, but you can see for yourself right here. And, mind you(!), these are only a few of the manuscripts attributed specifically to Solomon—so this doesn’t include the host of grimoires attributed to other authors. All of them purport to teach you how to summon the spirits and work the spells, and they are all certainly similar to one another, yet they are also very different.
But we’re not done confusing you yet! You see, we old-timers are going to give you a solid gem of advice before you even get started: Follow the damned instructions! Don’t skimp or take shortcuts, don’t alter things to the way you think they should be; trust that the author of the grimoire knew what he (or she) was doing and follow the instructions as given. Then, you’ll delve into your chosen grimoire(s) and discover the punchline: the instructions aren’t complete! At least, they aren’t in the greatest number of occult texts. Most of them were written as working notes for practicing magicians, and it was assumed a lot was already understood by the student before even picking up the book.
Now, here is where the student will encounter some real controversy. There are a few Solomonic practitioners out there who will insist “grimoire hopping”—that is, either switching between grimoires, or drawing material from one text to “fill out” another—is a bad idea. Instead, one should pick a text and dedicate to it. They will say there are differences between the instructions in different grimoires, and therefore we shouldn’t assume their procedures can be easily shared between them. Not to mention a great number of grimoires, themselves, claim to contain the real secrets of magick while other grimoires are vain foolish attempts at the same—so apparently even they didn’t want you to mix their systems together.
Except, they totally mixed the systems together themselves—a lot. They regularly borrowed conjurations, prayers, talismans, words of power, ritual tools, magick circles, and more from one another. In fact, they did so much appropriating it is often difficult to determine which book copied from another, or when they might both have been drawing from some as-yet-unknown older source. And they didn’t keep the things they borrowed pristine, either. They made aggressive changes—lengthening or shortening conjurations, changing names of God, altering spirit hierarchies, changing the required tools and furnishings, adding bits in, taking bits out, etc., etc.
So, I’ll understand if you find yourself confused and exasperated. You shouldn’t mix systems or deviate from the instructions, except you actually have to. Yet, trust me, there is no change, addition or subtraction you can make to your chosen system that will not result in someone, somewhere, telling you that you’ve done it wrong. I can’t entirely blame those of you who have decided the Solomonic mages can go to gehenna with their convoluted tradition. However, before you begin to wish the Roman Church had succeeded in burning all the blasted grimoires, let’s see if we can’t untangle this knot to some extent.
Read the Rest at: http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2016/02/grimoire-hopping/
From the Llewellyn Magick Blog, January 5, 2016:
Now that people have realized Abramelin is a workable grimoire, instead of some far-removed literary device, the two “versions” of Abramelin have caused some concern. It’s not that the technical instructions are that different between the two, but the difference in the length of time is striking. Instead of working through three short phases of two months each, we discovered that you were intended to work through three long periods of six months each. The French wizard who had adapted the Rite had severely shortened it—and that seems like the kind of thing you absolutely shouldn’t do with something as important as this. Therefore, I’ve been seeing this question posed again and again over the past few years: is it possible to attain the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel in a mere six months? Should one even try?
The French author seemed to believe it wasn’t necessary to spend a year-and-a-half in seclusion and prayer, and shortened it to six months instead. But was he right to do that? Is it detrimental to the ultimate goal—the Knowledge and Conversation of the HGA — to take such a short-cut? Or, if it is ok to shorten the length of purification, how far can we take it? How about just three months? Three weeks? Three days? Three hours? How much is not enough?
Read the Rest at: http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2016/01/6-or-18-months-how-long-o-abramelin-how-long/
Greetings Angel Workers!
I have been told that the new anthology from Nephilim Press:
will be released soon. 🙂
Some time ago, I was asked by Scarlet Imprint to write something about demonology for their anthology entitled Diabolical. So, I wrote a lengthy essay called The Spirit Magick of Abramelin – giving a detailed overview of the system of goety found in the final book of that grimoire. (More recently, that same essay was published in Hermetic Virtues Magazine.)
Later, I was asked by Nephilim Press to write something about the Holy Guardian Angel for their new anthology – Walking With the Angel. So, I decided to give them the exact opposite, and outline the Abramelin system of angel magick. That is, the specific instructions for continuing work with your HGA over a lifetime – instructions which are present but scattered in the original text. Instructions that have remained hidden and unexamined for hundreds of years…
Plus I give a lot of insight into my own performance of the Abramelin operation (specifically its ending) and how I developed my relationship with my HGA over the years that followed.
I’m in very good company in this anthology too! There will be entries from Inominandum, Rufus Opus (in his publication début), Scott Stenwick, and more.
If you want to read the introductory paragraphs of my essay, click here.