- This topic has 39 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There was an escapade by ron jeremy on subject of evocation and invocaton. believe it would be congruent, but could not find quote.
bill mistele:
‘I usually practice evocation. That is, I create a place where the spirit
can manifest freely in my presence. I do this primarily through
concentration and meditation. When I am working with other
people, I like to verbalize aloud a poetic form of what I am doing
through my concentration. The following is more of an invocation.
It is a way of calling out as in a prayer and it works when your
feeling is deep enough or there are enough individuals present who
pour the energy of their souls into the effort.’
(http://www.lava.net/~pagios/gabriel2.html)
bardon defined it as inductive and deductive method of accumulation, but did not care to learn which is which.… to deal with it a detailed reaction this is the way I see it:
Difference between invoke and evoke has nothing to do with whether things are found internally or externally but with whether they *end up being encountered* internally or externally. In invoking you become, in evoking you converse with. So the end result is NOT the same, it is different.
For example when Glenn encountered Shiva (it was not really either one because it was not deliberate on his part but) it was evocation. Shiva was something ‘outside Glenn’ which Glenn ‘spoke to’. He didn’t ‘become Shiva’. The key is that consciousness of oneself is lost in invocation in favour of consciousness of the spirit.
In Bardon’s system the inductive/deductive thing is nothing to do with spirits it is used only for energies. In his system spirits are by far more commonly evoked than invoked but both ways are used for gods, this being advanced work of step 10.
In Glenn’s way of giri or feeding spirits the spirit is outside oneself or else giving gifts would have no meaning. When you ‘are’ the spirit it would be giving a gift for yourself. Plenty of evocationalists give gifts too.
In Mistele quote above he is not referring to the same thing but is talking about the method by which the spirit is persuaded to come. Bardonian evocation focuses on making a space which the spirit naturally wishes to enter. ‘Invocation’ as he speaks of it here means ‘calling within’ strongly, but the spirit could still manifest exteriorly or interiorly.
Why is this so important to you anyhow? What about it all? 🙂 And what do you mean by your last sentence – *who* was it who ‘did not care to learn’? j
Yeah, i see the views are twisted. So…
Freedom. Souverignity. Earth way.
Yours is heaven way definition.Language frames.
Hence a distinction between invocation should have a reason, a paradigm.
After realizing the reasons the words itself are not important.
Hence my i and not bardon’s i did not care to learn which is which.Frames can also be paralel. This allows for artist.
There is point in your approach. Yet you allow things that i find odd.
The ration of presented definition is that a servant of god when evoking god is not a servant then. Your classification allows one to be god and still be a servant.
You also are referring to active communication where i prefer the passive communication. Passive because it needs to be grounded. Seeing it is a bonus.
Bring the spirit down, not project the earth up.
Above example of Shiva. It was an encounter.
If he casted a spell onto shiva to make an effect here on earth that would be an invocation.
However if he fed (gave his juice, earth to) the gods of heaven, that would be an abomination of his godhead heaven axis. In his strategy you feed to later start drawing. Only both are full act. Forming an antenna.
And when the spirits moved (through) him to make an action or a technique, that is an grounded evocation in one act.
In your frame if you perform an goal-defined operation either in evocation or invocation, AFTER coming back, does it matter whether it was done through invocation or evocation.This is further complicated by differentiating between shen , chi and ching, where fully, every energy that is is also spirit (shenching or shenchi).
So the fulcrum is lower dan tien and not upper dan tien, as the juan li poster of i ching shows (http://www.tao-garden.com/universal/detail.php?pro_id=P50) versus cosmic healing II cover photo (http://www.tao-garden.com/universal/detail.php?pro_id=B04).>>Yours is heaven way definition.<>The ration of presented definition is that a servant of god when evoking god is not a servant then. Your classification allows one to be god and still be a servant.<>You also are referring to active communication where i prefer the passive communication. Passive because it needs to be grounded. Seeing it is a bonus.
Bring the spirit down, not project the earth up.<>Above example of Shiva. It was an encounter.
If he casted a spell onto shiva to make an effect here on earth that would be an invocation.<>However if he fed (gave his juice, earth to) the gods of heaven, that would be an abomination of his godhead heaven axis.<>And when the spirits moved (through) him to make an action or a technique, that is an grounded evocation in one act.<>In your frame if you perform an goal-defined operation either in evocation or invocation, AFTER coming back, does it matter whether it was done through invocation or evocation.<<BTW this is not a 'frame' because all we are doing here is defining words, I'm not defining my worldview. But what do you mean by 'AFTER coming back' since I never talked about going anywhere? I don't come back, I never left!
You didn't answer my question: what are we talking about all these fiddly definitions for? Why do you care about it?
j
From ‘The Encyclopedia of the Occult’ by John Michael Greer, standard work and extremely peer-reviewed:
EVOCATION. In ritual magic, the process of summoning a spirit into manifestation external to the magician. It is distinguished from invocation, which is the process of summoning a spirit (usually a god or divine aspect) into the magician.
That’s the end of it dude, that’s the whole entry. Nothing about active or passive, nothing about earth and heaven, nothing about servitude, nothing about what actually happens once the evocation or invocation is done, nothing at *all*. That’s how everyone uses the words. If you wanna use ’em differently fine! But I’m gonna go on using them like this. j
… although I feel like you just came prematurely haha j.k. Yeah the moon is so glorious today, a silver ember of love, happy basking love j
I’ve always liked your style jernej – your substance… is constantly about pi+i to the minus 1th power degrees away from where I think it is! 🙂 j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.