BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

A question regarding invocation

  
 
trouser the trouserian
06:33 / 19.06.03
Do deities have an 'essential' character? By this, I mean, do they have a stable set of characteristics - appearance, emotional impact, ideations, associations etc., that are held to be 'external' to the ritualist, regardless of their cultural bias, conscious knowledge of that deity, etc. There does seem to be a general belief in western occultism that such is the case (reinforced by 'explanations' concerning akashic records, collective unconsciousness, etc.).

My wider question here is "how far does our 'informed-knowledge' (i.e. learning about deities through texts - myths, ritual handbooks, guides to deities etc., influence our direct perceptions of a deity during ritual?

I wonder about this when I read modern pagan/magical 'potted descriptions' of deities that are often [IMO] simplistic, or use culturally-specific models (look at the way the 'maiden-mother-crone' structure gets ladled everywhere) to characterise deities. So for example, if one reads that Kali is a crone-goddess and uses that information as the sole basis for an invocation, surely that will colour one's perception of Kali? I'm not saying it's impossible that working from the basis of Kali as crone, that one won't have an experience of Kali in another modality, but I'm wondering how knowledge shapes one's perception of deity.

Any comments?
 
 
illmatic
08:53 / 19.06.03
Hmmm, I don’t know… hmmm, surely this is getting into the wider question of what is the ontological status of deities ie. are they “real” – and if so, then what are they, and what degree of reality do they possess ( I like Crowley’s comment on entities not being real in the same sense “your butcher” is real – of it’s time maybe, but still acute) This issue is if deities are indeed real in some meaningful way, then it’s possibly that they are going to have some distinguishing and lasting characteristics that carry over into people’s experience of them. There’s been some interesting comments round hee later about the reality or otherwise or deities – can anyone provide some links?

One thing that that often crops up in accounts of relationships with deities is some random image or other receiving in vision or dream later tying into a traditional form, or having some other sort of synchronistic resonance. I’m thinking of the author of a book on Ganesha (Song of the Self) who encounters a form of Ganesh in vision, who has two arms, one holding a club, with a bent leg – a traditional priest later informed him that according to tradition this was a particularly benevolent form of Ganesh who’d never manifested before, and this was therefore particularly auspicious and significant.

Things like this have cropped up in a few accounts of deity work I’ve read – but it’s never happened to me, so it’s only so much hearsay I suppose.

In terms of informed knowledge – in a sense, doesn’t magic only really start “becoming real” when we leave all this behind? If I was working with a deity/element/sepiroth or whatever, I wouldn’t consider my experience “real” as such, until something happened that surprised me, till some odd dream or vision leapt out at me. I haven’t experimented much with invocation, but the conclusions I’ve drawn from my other work are i) it will be different from all the bumph I’ve read about it and ii) it’ll take me some time to get a handle on. I wouldn’t consider such work as genuine/powerful unless I’d had some sense of contact, something that surprised or scared me – the intrusion of something “other” I suppose. This is the point where you go beyond received knowledge - or where this knowledge takes on new meaning for you. How much this might be shaped by my preconceptions I don’t know, but it would be the sense of shock/surpise/awe, or whatever to become important to me.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
09:48 / 19.06.03
Thanks, Illmatic

I was trying not to wander too far into the ontological debate about whether deities are 'real' or not, but rather this issue that deities have distinguishing and lasting characteristics. What prompted my musing on this subject was reading an essay on Kali that looked at the way Kali's salient characteristics have changed over time - from her early appearences in texts around the time of the Mahabharata (destructive battle goddess associated with forest tribes etc.), fast-forwarding to the rise of Mother Kali in the Bhakti tradition (where her destructive/erotic aspects are distinctly muted) through to modern-day Indian depictions of her as Shiva's wife (where she is said to be 'ashamed' of standing on top of him). This led me to wonder that - if deities do have an 'essential nature' at what point in their development can this be taken from?

I too have been thinking about John Grimes' experience as recounted in Ganapati: Song of the Self where he has a vision of an esoteric aspect of Ganesa, and I wonder how common this kind of experience is.

I agree with you on your points regarding informed knowledge v. knowledge arising out of direct experience (gnosis). But I wonder how our preconcieved expectations/knowledge shape that experience in the first place. Does our cultural baggage affect 'magical' experience of a deity?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:29 / 19.06.03
Do deities have an 'essential' character? By this, I mean, do they have a stable set of characteristics - appearance, emotional impact, ideations, associations etc., that are held to be 'external' to the ritualist, regardless of their cultural bias, conscious knowledge of that deity, etc.

Yeah. In my experience at any rate, in fact I would probably go as far as to say that if you’re not having regular experiences which objectively confirm to your personal satisfaction this consistency of personality, then you're doing something wrong.

I won’t go into details, as I prefer not to discuss my work in any level of detail in public forums, but in my experience – entities have what I would describe as an essential ‘psychic flavour’. It’s almost like a noise or colour manifesting in your head, but it isn’t visual or auditory as such. It’s as if you have an extra ‘sense’, which is used for multi-dimensional interaction and communication. Sounds absolutely nuts I know, but that’s the nature of the business.

If you’re doing regular entity work, I’ve found that you start to be able to recognise the distinct ‘vibe’ of different entities as they start to come on. Sometimes entities may show up unexpectedly in dreams or in general work, and you can recognise the distinct personality of the entity you’re dealing with as clearly as you could recognise, say, the posting style of a barbelith regular without looking at their sig. It’s not through any learned cues that you recognise at an intellectual level, such as symbolic associations or mythological references. It’s more of an emotional, empathic recognition of a particular personality engaging with your own.

But aside from this kind of sense recognition, I’d imagine that most people who do this sort of work with any regularity, will probably have their stories of being instructed by an entity to get them a fairly odd or obscure offering which makes no sense intellectually, but they later discover there’s some connection between said object and the entity which they couldn’t possibly have known about. My work over the last few years has been filled with all sorts of stuff that you just couldn’t make up if you tried.

However, this does nothing to alter the fact that entities do seem to change and develop over time, take on different aspects, and come to mean different things to different people. But the essential nature, the essential ‘vibe’ seems to remain the same. It’s just overlaid with different aspects, different cultural filters. I tend to think of the structure of this as being vaguely tree-shaped, the different aspects of the God or Goddess are like branches of the tree, but the source is the same. It’s still the same core entity you’re dealing with, but at the same time it’s not – it’s an aspect which relates to you in the time and place that you’re living in. Entities seem to learn things from us, in a similar way to how we learn things from them. It might even be the nature of the bargain. It’s a complex living vibrant process, and it’s all about feedback, relationships and interaction. The personality of a God/dess can be as remarkable and surprising, and as consistent and inconsistent as any other living personality.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
23:37 / 19.06.03
In my communication with beings of a celestial nature, I'd say yes, gods and goddesses often appear based on your own know and perception of them. I mean a couple of things by this. Deities always have some sort of pattern to them. Love is always a goddess, not a god. There may be a Cupid like figure as well, but there is always a love goddess except in monotheisms. Hermes or Mercury wears magic shoes and a cool hat, no matter which Greek or Roman story you read about him. There is always a chief god (very rarely a goddess, but I blame that on patriarchal societies). So, yes, I'd say there are certain rules to how gods appear.
However, you're perception affects it too, I think. I've spoken with Hermes several times, and he always appears as a twenty something athlete, clean shaven at all. This is the late Greek and Roman view of him. However, earlier Greek priests and artists saw him as bearded and around forty. I've just never seen him that way, but I suppose you could. So, I at least, say perception has something to do with it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:01 / 20.06.03
Having done work with a fair number I tend to find that the atmosphere of a space changes as a deity arrives and that they tend to be recognisable through that atmosphere. Kali always makes me feel prickly and there's almost an uncontrolled wave of power around her. I don't like invoking her because she feels aggressive and I haven't done any work with her for around four years. Hecate feels a lot older and more controlled but slightly euphoric. I always had an aversion to altars and shrines and I suspect it has something to do with her. She's terrible, I swear she just calls to people. The wiccan earth goddess was always too soft but hungry and so very strong. So yes, I think deities do have an essential character and more to the point I think you can gain a sense of just how right they are for you simply through brief invocation.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
07:28 / 20.06.03
Wow, thanks all. Your points have brought up quite a lot of stuff for me.

Gypsy - I know what you mean about the distinct 'vibe' of different entities - I have tended to experience this as a "foreshadowing" of proximity/presence of the entity I am in relationship with, which tends to trigger in me particular upsurges of emotion which I have come to recognise as being consonant with the current stage of my relationship with that entity. And these emotions (& other experiences) change over time, so for example, the emotions and ideations which I first had to deal with in my early experiences with Kali changed as my relationship with her deepened. Illmatic's point about the intrusion of something 'other' struck a chord with me, as I have come to view on one level some of my deity-related experiences as confrontations with a psychological 'other' that allows me to work through personal conflicts that have welled to the surface at that point in my life. I'm not trying to suggest that my relationships with deities are primarily psychological, but reflecting back on my experiences, I can see a link (in retrospect) between either consciously deciding to work magically with a particular entity (or the converse, where a particular god/goddess turns up and demands attention) and the welling up of a particular emotional issue for me that requires resolution or identity work. Does that make sense? So for example, when I first encountered Kali in my early 20's, the contact with her impelled me to start dealing with my feelings about death, self-change, etc., and a few years later, helped me to deal with my sexuality, feelings/projections about women, anger, oh and a whole heap of other stuff.

Now - I guess like most other magicians - I view my own experiences with entities as personally authentic. What I have found is that when I've discussed my experiences of particular entities with other magicians, I've found that some have had completely different experiences of, say, Kali or Isis, whilst others, there seems to be commonalities of experience. Where it gets really interesting for me is that where there is a commonality of magical experience, there is often a commonality of psychological experience.

There's more, but I'll hold it there for now.
 
 
illmatic
07:57 / 20.06.03
This has brought up a lot of stuff for me as well, very inspiring discussion. I need to take some time to digest it all fully. Will have more coments and questions later.

But one for now, for Gypsy Lantern, have you found any overlap between personal psychological "stuff" and your experiences with the deities you work with ie. do they consistently manifest as very distinct from your personal psyche?
 
 
illmatic
09:53 / 20.06.03
To clarify - in my relatively limited experience of working with deities, I've found that they are likely to manifest in a way that chimes in with my personal psychology - ie. if I were working with Kali, I might dream of Kali manifesting as my mother. I've made this example up, but it's the kind of thing that has happened to me. Do the entities you work with manifest in a similar way, or do they come across as very seperate from your psyche?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:39 / 20.06.03
have you found any overlap between personal psychological "stuff" and your experiences with the deities you work with ie. do they consistently manifest as very distinct from your personal psyche?

I’m not sure if you’re asking whether the entities I work with manifest behaviour that’s markedly different from my own, or if you’re asking whether I feel that psychological processes going on in my own head have a degree of impact on the way that entities manifest. I’ll try to answer both.

Firstly, yeah. Certain entities I work with are extremely different from what I might consider to be my default personality. It’s not too unusual for me to manifest completely different mannerisms and speech patterns during a heavy overshadowing.

On the second point, I think it kind of works in reverse. I’ve found that working with entities that, on the surface of things, I may not seem to have much in common with, has actively brought out a whole load of messed up psychological stuff that I wasn’t even aware of consciously in any sense. Part of the process of developing the relationship with the entity is about working through all of that. I think that in building a relationship with a God or Goddess, you tend to become more like them, to identify points of commonality between what they are about and what you are about. Which can be a rough ride if the entity in question, on the surface of things, is extremely different from you. It can potentially throw up all sorts of crazy stuff that you’ve locked away, shut outside of yourself, or for whatever reasons actively resist identifying with.

I often tend to take a monotheistic approach to polytheism, in that everything in existence inclusive of the Gods is a part of GOD, which can be thought of as the Quabbalistic KETHER. Everything that exists is an emanation of this principle at various levels of density. Therefore, according to this model, the process of building relationships with Gods and Goddesses could be considered a process of becoming more like GOD. Incorporating all of the aspects that you left outside when you were building the house of the self, to coin a phrase.

Maybe. All we can really do is theorise about this type of thing, and you could just as easily consider all of this from the perspective of the psychological model, wherein there’s some element of ‘Deep Mind’ that is unconsciously guiding you to work with these entities in order to resolve certain emotional issues that you may have. In practice, I don’t really think it makes much difference, and the way in which you frame the experiences becomes a kind of intellectual quibble that has very little to do with the processes of magic.

However I think it would be missing the point to actively try and select Gods or Goddesses that you feel you have little in common with, and then try and build a relationship with them to overcome a perceived psychological blockage. If you are approaching entity work from the psychological perspective (which I generally don’t, I hasten to add) then what happens ought to naturally grow out of your practice. If this sort of thing needs to emerge then it probably will of its own accord, and by its very nature shouldn’t be forced or hurried along by conscious intervention.

I think there’s an overlooked pitfall in magic where you can become obsessed with an almost competitive approach to psychological reprogramming, or ‘Extreme Sports Klesha Smashing’ if you like. It’s one of the flaws that I find in the psychological model of magic, if your entire framework is based around psychological reprogramming, then where does it stop? I think it can be quite easy to fall into an obsessive cycle of creating psychological straw men barriers that you can then knock down with the power of your magical will. Quite seductive in its own way, and just another ego prop disguised a something else. I personally find that psychological perspectives on magical processes are useful and interesting, but are probably best kept in the background if they’re to be effective.

I feel like I’ve digressed horribly from the original question. I’ll stop there.

I tend to find that the atmosphere of a space changes as a deity arrives and that they tend to be recognisable through that atmosphere.

That’s pretty much how I would describe it as well. I think that one of the defining things is when other people pick up on the changed atmosphere. It’s a very tangible thing that becomes difficult to put down to suggestion when other people, not involved with magic, enter my flat and become blatantly aware of it – before they even get near the room where things happen.

And these emotions (& other experiences) change over time, so for example, the emotions and ideations which I first had to deal with in my early experiences with Kali changed as my relationship with her deepened.

This is what I’ve found myself. Relationships with entities are not static, anymore than relationships with people are static. The nature of the relationship grows and develops, and this can seem to change the frequency of the vibe that characterises contact.

Must leave it there for now as I should really be working.
 
 
Seth
10:20 / 21.06.03
I think that one of the defining things is when other people pick up on the changed atmosphere.

This happened a lot in American and English churches in the early Nineties. There was a thick presence in some congregations, as if the air had taken on a different quality. A lot of people commented that it tasted sweet, or that the air had become fragrant (my church rarely uses incense). You could look around a see a lot of people licking their lips.

Most of the manifestations are well documented (shaking, inability to stand, involuntary vocalisations, animal characteristics, ecstatic states, Charismata). What hasn't been commented on is the localisation of some of this phenomena. From the platform you could observe specific pockets of activity, sometimes effecting only five to ten people in a small space. Other times it was like watching a wave of manifestation flow from the front to the back of the hall, or from side to side.

A lot of people who I knew very well were permanently changed by the experience, in many different ways. It marked a large-scale resurgence of interest in medieval myticism and the individual's direct encounter with the divine. Some people have attributed what was happening to the dynamics of large groups, or suggested that many of those present either faked or forced their manifestations. That's a fair assessment in a lot of cases: this was a complex movement that seemed to effect some people and not others. There's no denying the classic patterns of encountering a divinity that were reported by some, however (regardless of whether it's an experience of the higher or deep self or an external being).

The reason I bring this up is that it's potentially an excellent example of a particular divine presence being experienced in a diversity of ways by a broad demographic in a single geographical location. There were roughly classifiable types of manifestation. Often a single person would consistently exhibit the same phenomena; sometimes it would vary, week to week or in the course of the same meeting. The phenomena were attributed to the ministry of the Holy Spirit by those who were of a more mystic persuasion. Looking back with my current skills and perspective I would have liked to have tested this theory, to have performed some diagnostic work exploring the numerous reports of angels - whether they were of the sort that minister or the sort that accomany the manifest presence, or both.

I roughly agree with the GL's comment of a monotheistic polytheism. I imagine the Holy Spirit over the congregation as water poured out into individual vessels, displaying characteristics appropriate to the nature of the vessel. In the end, I don't see that the relationship with divinty is that much different to any other kind of relationship. It's a complex of interactions, associated memories, projections, and hopefully a growing rapport, simultaneously a means of understanding factors that are internal and external to oneself. No relationship can exist without boths parties constructing an internal model of the other person, and no relationship can up maintained without that model being continually expanded and upgraded.
 
 
Quantum
12:59 / 04.12.03
I have been touching on this for an article, and am moving toward the opinion that deities are more real than us. They have a distinct character that we can't fully comprehend as they are more complex than us, which leads to us seeing facets of the God that appear different from person to person but reflect a higher unity.
To quote myself shamelessly;

We are to them as fictional characters are to us. We seem convincing, but ultimately just evocations of real things, just as a character from a book will never reach from the page and take our hand.

I love Seth's line;
"I imagine the Holy Spirit over the congregation as water poured out into individual vessels, displaying characteristics appropriate to the nature of the vessel"
he put the point much better than I did.
 
 
EvskiG
13:19 / 04.12.03
Another metaphor might be light through a stained glass window. The light takes on the color of each individual piece as it shines through.
 
  
Add Your Reply