I feel that the middle pillar is useless

[Mashreqi]

What is your opinion about the middle pillar
When I do it I don't feel any change
What replacement ritual do you suggest

 

[Faria]

There is no 'lord', that's primitive superstition for people manipulated by conditioning and egregores.

Whether or not there "is" a Lord is irrelevant. A large portion of western magical rites do involve names of God, especially those drawn from the Bible and adjacent literature. Here and elsewhere you have expressed disdain for these rituals, and your argument (at least in this thread) is your sputtering about "egregores" and so on. It looks like your beef is less with the rituals or magical techniques and more that they include these cultural elements (like belief in God derived from the Bible) that you disfavor.

It's amusing to me because I can sympathize with this viewpoint to some degree, since a lot of what religions teach is crap. But the sympathy ends there. If a Hindu or Zoroastrian or Muslim wants to do the Middle Pillar, my advice is to do it in Hebrew and commit to doing it that way, or don't do it. I don't think God really cares one way or the other, but I do think it's important to avoid redesigning rituals to match personal tastes.

Person A says, "I have done The Middle Pillar Ritual every day for the last year and am wondering about the results."
Person B says "I have modified the Middle Pillar Ritual to suit my intellectual and aesthetic preferences, and have done it every day for a year, and am wondering about my results."

We can talk to Person A and have some understanding of what they've been doing. When Person A looks back at their own work, they have some standard or reference by which to evaluate it. Person B could be doing... anything... and we have little way to tell heads from tails, especially if the names and so on are just whatever they made up. Doing the actual ritual lets everyone, most importantly the practitioner, have a solid idea of what they are doing and how. As I said earlier, when people start to fiddle with the names and procedures, before long they end up doing something wild and weird, and then shortly after they do nothing at all. Sticking to the thing you hate is the way to make progress. It amuses me that people would toss all of that just because they don't like the Hebrew God-names.

Why should anyone care about your belief when people who knew him say the exact opposite?

Why indeed? It's not my problem if they ignore me.

You're just making shit up.

I prefer to think of it as sound judgment based on observed patterns.

You're a great magician? Your intuition is so shitty you keep insisting people here are things they aren't. You've done this multiple times with me.

Am I? Says who?

You aversion to religious materials in magical practices, and the pseudo-intellectual terms you use to explain your aversion, is something that I have only seen among "queer" people. Not homosexuals per se, but "queer" identifying people who felt rejected by mainstream religion.

 

[ewiz]

I was unaware that typing some words on a screen 'dictates' everyone else's experience. If it disturbs your conventional occult sensibility, you can just disregard it. A wiser move would be to deeply think about what I'm saying and start trying to stimulate your higher intuition and really examining conventional occult energies. And, most important of all, wake up.

I was trying to discuss the energetic aspects you were bringing up, and was just asking for an explanation of the terminology you're using, because without that you're basically speaking gibberish as far as I can tell. You claim to know "What iis actually occuring when it is performed", but can't explain your definition of the buzzwords you're throwing around. You seem to be pretty easily worked up for someone claiming some advanced level of mastery over energy work practices. There's no conversation to be had if we can't point at exactly what we're talking about buddy, you need to wake up.

 

[Beyond Everything]

Am I? Says who?

It was implicit. You claim to have spent years doing the Golden Dawn garbage 'correctly'. In any event we can agree- you don't have any spiritual power.

You aversion to religious materials in magical practices, and the pseudo-intellectual terms you use to explain your aversion, is something that I have only seen among "queer" people. Not homosexuals per se, but "queer" identifying people who felt rejected by mainstream religion.

This is what I mean. You have zero intuition. None of this has anything to with me. Essentially what I am talking about is way beyond your ability to understand on an esoteric level.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 10:48 PM

I was trying to discuss the energetic aspects you were bringing up, and was just asking for an explanation of the terminology you're using, because without that you're basically speaking gibberish as far as I can tell. You claim to know "What iis actually occuring when it is performed", but can't explain your definition of the buzzwords you're throwing around.

You don't seem to get that all of these things are far beyond language to encompass. That's why I can only point fingers for people to psychically/spiritually investigate- if they are able (and most are unable). If you were to describe your conventional occult practices, you'd run into the same problem of definitions. You'd say you worked with a spirit, someone could ask you to define that. You'd say a non-material being, and the definitions would be circular. That said, a higher subtle body is at least a concept present to anyone even cursorily familiar with broader esoteric traditions. So you're just pointing out your general ignorance here.

You seem to be pretty easily worked up

This is entirely in your own skull.

 

[Faria]

what I am talking about is way beyond your ability to understand on an esoteric level.

You can say that, but what I see is someone who is upset that some of the major magical systems use religion-based terminology. You are certainly not alone in that opinion, but nothing you're on about here is some expert level esotericism. You are butt-hurt that Bible stuff occupies a space where you'd rather find the secrets of the universe. If the Middle Pillar was not connected to Hebrew God-names, you'd not be so negative.

 

[ewiz]

You don't seem to get that all of these things are far beyond language to encompass. That's why I can only point fingers for people to psychically/spiritually investigate- if they are able (and most are unable). If you were to describe your conventional occult practices, you'd run into the same problem of definitions. You'd say you worked with a spirit, someone could ask you to define that. You'd say a non-material being, and the definitions would be circular. That said, a higher subtle body is at least a concept present to anyone even cursorily familiar with broader esoteric traditions. So you're just pointing out your general ignorance here.

I know a lot more than you think you do, but what point is there for me to argue that? That's what you do. And it looks silly.

 

[Beyond Everything]

but what I see is someone who is upset

As I pointed out- your intuition is nil. You repeatedly make statements about me that don't comport with reality. I can see how you could decide Regardie wasn't practicing the Golden Dawn rituals though lol

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 11:14 PM

I know a lot more than you think you do

Well, you didn't understand about the transmutation into a higher subtle body, which is the apex of esoteric development. But I'm sure your other knowledge is invaluable lol

 

[ewiz]

Well, you didn't understand about the transmutation into a higher subtle body, which is the apex of esoteric development. But I'm sure your other knowledge is invaluable lol

I asked for what that means to YOU, not for anything else. You don't know how to read.

 

[Soror Epihania]

What is your opinion about the middle pillar
When I do it I don't feel any change
What replacement ritual do you suggest

I don't have much experience in the GD Middle Pillar. I've done a variety of soul alignment practices from various witchcraft traditions. The focus is on coursing energy through the lower soul centered in the pelvic area, the middle soul around the heart and ribs, and the upper soul within the skull. I usually approach it through visualizing fire in the earth's core rising into my feet and up my spine, gathering in each 'cauldron' on the way and bringing them into alignment, then shooting through the crown of the skull up into space.

These days though I mostly focus on pranayama for vitalizing the central channel. I do bhastrika breath then ujjaya while holding mahabandha. A simpler method to start with could be inhaling, feeling the prana go into your nostrils, down ida and pingala and gathering around the base of the spine. Then exhale and feel it curve up into sushumna and through the chakras.

 

[Firetree]

That's like saying the health condition of a person promoting a particular diet is of no relevance to assessing said diet. That sounds like wilful blindness.

So now, according to you ; ad hominum = willful blindness . Your view is immaterial as you have no way of gauging what you require as standard from an author . The only way to gauge things is therefore from their content .... internal validity .

I've repeatedly defined it. The approach towards transmutation into a higher subtle body. If you're oblivious to this -as you manifestly are- that is not my problem.

How on earth are you going to gauge if I or anyone else has done or achieved that ? Especially since 'higher subtle body ' can mean just about anything .... I am sure though YOU have specifics , which probably apply to what you perceive about yourself .

The problem is people have no inner initiative, no creativity, no higher intuition, no connection to their Inner Self. They just ape what these books tell them to do. They never inquire into the source of these things nor do they take a critical look at the energies they are involving themselves with.

I see ... and you have assumed all that about ALL of us and ALL people ?

I suppose one would have to assume and believe that .... otherwise the illusion of being 'beyond everything' would ....

You want to say it's completely irrelevant to look at the very orders that utilized these practices the most thoroughly.

I am clearly saying that people other than you have felt their own effects from them . Your opinion is good for you but it doesnt apply to everyone .... can you see how you operate under this dynamic and project it out on to others here ?

Or that Regardie's final assessment of his path is that he'd have rathered not been involved in magic at all. lol

I'd like to see that cited in context . Regardies also declared that Crowley 'was kind ' . Things quoted out of context and un cited have little value , especially as a tag on to what you said above it . I know he viewed magic not as supernatural superstition, but as a practical scientific method for psychological integration self development and working with the unconscious .

BUT

He argued that psychological self-awareness must precede any legitimate spiritual or magical work, Something Crowley appears to have lacked . ... You picked the very person NOT to cite here .

AI search for your 'quote' ;
There is no record of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ever stating that he "would rather have not been involved in magic at all."
Throughout his life, even during periods of deep frustration, Regardie maintained that the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was the supreme mechanism for psychological and spiritual development. Christopher Hyatt, a close associate who conducted some of the final extensive interviews with Regardie before his death in 1985, noted that while Regardie expressed immense disappointment with the occult community, he never regretted the magical system itself. [

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

]
Regardie did, however, voice severe regrets and strong rejections regarding specific aspects of his involvement in the occult world,''

as I said ; C o n t e x t .

The very person all of you are dutifully aping in performing these rites in the end didn't think it was worthwhile.

Cite it then . he has written numerous books detailing its use practice and worthlessness . You one off hand comment against all of that no way stands up .

Just waving that away sounds like cultish behavior, in fact.

What ? Waving away a comment by you that is clearly biased, agaisnt the record and against what most people know and have summised and not listening to your unreferenced out of context comments (if they were ever made in the first place ) makes us look like cultists to you ?

I would say to agree with you here , one would have to be a a cultist ... in a cult dictated to, by you .

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 12:39 AM

It's an occult site, genius. These things can't be defined scientifically. All I can do is use a finger to point to experiences and the latent possibilities of what humans can achieve. The vast majority of posts here could be questioned in the same way.

So you cnt answer your own terms defintions but instead think you can insult your way out of it .

Brilliant !

Pointing out Regardie said he wouldn't have been involved in magic if he could do it all over again is not UPG. Referencing the juvenile conflicts within the original and neo-gd groups is not a matter of personal revelation.

where did he say that ... cough it up !

 

[Beyond Everything]

The only way to gauge things is therefore from their content .... internal validity .

What a bizarre viewpoint. As if we can't look at the condition of the person who is propagating a certain practice.

Especially since 'higher subtle body ' can mean just about anything ...

lol You've spent how many years involved in the occult? And you have no clue what the ultimate achievement is?

AI search for your 'quote' ;

Stop relying on AI. It's in the book Israel Regardie and the Philosopher's Stone.

 

[ewiz]

Stop relying on AI. It's in the book Israel Regardie and the Philosopher's Stone.

Can you quote exactly what leads you to believe that Israel Regardie would have rather "not been involved in magic at all" or that "Regardie said he wouldn't have been involved in magic if he could do it all over again." Because I don't find anything like that in this book.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:05 AM

In An Interview With Israel Regardie - His Final Thoughts and Views, he calls GD style magic one of the loves of his life, and he continued to advocate and teach it in all of his published work.

 

[Beyond Everything]

Can you quote exactly what leads you to believe that Israel Regardie would have rather "not been involved in magic at all" or that "Regardie said he wouldn't have been involved in magic if he could do it all over again." Because I don't find anything like that in this book.

I don't have the book on hand, however if you access on Amazon pg 11, Mark Stavish discusses Dr F. Santee's declaration that he would not have been involved in magic at all, and says 'he uttered similar thoughts that we find Regardie stating here'. If some of you have trouble with plain, simple English I can't do anything about that.

What's also funny is that Regardie at times expressed fairly stiff opposition to (abrahamic) religion, while he couldnt figure out how to develop himself without using the egregoric religious energies of the GD rituals/middle pillar. I've seen posters here with a similiar cognitive (and energetic) dissonance- criticizing the religion while touting LBRP's and all that rubbish.

 

[Firetree]

What a bizarre viewpoint. As if we can't look at the condition of the person who is propagating a certain practice.

No it isnt .... what, you never heard of an ad hominen as being insufficient evidence ? !

Especially when one can not gauge the actual effects something is having on the person touting it ! OR worse still, misquotes and 'claims' supposed said effects AND with no presentation of your source or validity whatsoever .

lol You've spent how many years involved in the occult? And you have no clue what the ultimate achievement is?

Of course I do ... for me . I am asking YOU to define your own terms ... which, instead of doing it , you resort to your usual egotistical attempted attack on another person to try and divert attention away from the issue that you didnt answer .

Stop relying on AI. It's in the book Israel Regardie and the Philosopher's Stone.

So site it then .
AI comes with references as to where it got that info . Besides its a supplementary tool , I have read enough of the material to know were Regardie stands on this, and what his complaints are , which you seem to have conflated out of context to suit your ends .

Also you avoided answering any relevant questions or accusations and even these ones you did are immaterial to the issue .... from several posters now .

 

[ewiz]

I don't have the book on hand, however if you access on Amazon pg 11, Mark Stavish discusses Dr F. Santee's declaration that he would not have been involved in magic at all, and says 'he uttered similar thoughts that we find Regardie stating here'. If some of you have trouble with plain, simple English I can't do anything about that.

What's also funny is that Regardie at times expressed fairly stiff opposition to (abrahamic) religion, while he couldnt figure out how to develop himself without using the egregoric religious energies of the GD rituals/middle pillar. I've seen posters here with a similiar cognitive (and energetic) dissonance- criticizing the religion while touting LBRP's and all that rubbish.

He doesn't say anything in this book about regretting his magical work or wishing he could do things differently. This book is entirely about alchemy and not his whole body of work. It seems to have some strong psychological interpretations of alchemy, which he later amended his introduction in the second edition, to say he shouldn't have insisted so strongly on psychological interpretations because there's more to it than that. I admittedly didn't read the whole thing, but perhaps you didn't read it either if this is the source for your argument. We don't need some random amazon quote, the actual quote you're putting in Regardie's mouth would be good. Thanks.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:23 AM

The book is available on Anna's archive.

 

[Firetree]

I don't have the book on hand, however if you access on Amazon pg 11, Mark Stavish discusses Dr F. Santee's declaration that he would not have been involved in magic at all, and says 'he uttered similar thoughts that we find Regardie stating here'. If some of you have trouble with plain, simple English I can't do anything about that.

So your reference to Regardie saying that is , someone else said it , and a third person said it was similar to what they thought Regardie was saying

And then YOU mock US about not understanding ?

What's also funny is that Regardie at times expressed fairly stiff opposition to (abrahamic) religion,

yes... he was a post Victorian analyst, for goodness sake ! In that field, this conclusion would have been obvious (and still should be ! )

while he couldnt figure out how to develop himself

There you go again ; hurling insults that hint at your own superior development .

without using the egregoric religious energies of the GD rituals/middle pillar. I've seen posters here with a similiar cognitive (and energetic) dissonance- criticizing the religion while touting LBRP's and all that rubbish.

Maybe they realise inner method and content need not depend on outward cultural form .

A lot of this is really basic ... one so advanced and beyond everything should have realized this waaaay back .

 

[Beyond Everything]

No it isnt .... what, you never heard of an ad hominen as being insufficient evidence ? !

According to what standard? You do realize any claim of any sort about occult effects can be said to lack sufficient evidence? If you combed through your posts you would find cases where you make various claims that do not have evidentiary backing to the standard you are attempting to apply to the one case you don't like. That would be its own fallacy of special pleading.

Especially when one can not gauge the actual effects something is having on the person touting it !

You've surely made claims here that involve occult forces. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard? lol You're full of shit, in other words.

The problem is that the lemmings of the occult world can't assimilate the fact that they've wasted years soaking in egregoric energies and not truly developing themselves.

Of course I do ... for me . I am asking YOU to define your own terms ... which, instead of doing it , you resort to your usual egotistical attempted attack on another person to try and divert attention away from the issue that you didnt answer .

I already answered this to another poster. If I said something about 'chakras', you wouldn't ask me to define the term. The higher subtle body has plenty of references in esoteric tradition. If you're too dim to grasp this, it is not my problem.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:28 AM

We don't need some random amazon quote, the actual quote you're putting in Regardie's mouth would be good. Thanks.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:23 AM

Look, if you want to be in denial about what Mark Stavish wrote, that's up to you. Anyone who can comprehend basic English can read it and decide for themselves, Pg 11

 

[ewiz]

According to what standard? You do realize any claim of any sort about occult effects can be said to lack sufficient evidence? If you combed through your posts you would find cases where you make various claims that do not have evidentiary backing to the standard you are attempting to apply to the one case you don't like. That would be its own fallacy of special pleading.



You've surely made claims here that involve occult forces. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard? lol You're full of shit, in other words.

The problem is that the lemmings of the occult world can't assimilate the fact that they've wasted years soaking in egregoric energies and not truly developing themselves.


I already answered this to another poster. If I said something about 'chakras', you wouldn't ask me to define the term. The higher subtle body has plenty of references in esoteric tradition. If you're too dim to grasp this, it is not my problem.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:28 AM

Look, if you want to be in denial about what Mark Stavish wrote, that's up to you. Anyone who can comprehend basic English can read it and decide for themselves, Pg 11

You didn't answer my questions, just like you're still not answering questions.

You are the one who needs to defend this point with a real quote from Regardie himself, copy it and paste it here. It should be easy since you've been arguing this since you joined the forum. I didn't read Lisewski and Stavish's book about Israel Regardie's book, I only looked at Regardie's book. You said Regardie is the one who said these things. Where?

 

[Firetree]

He doesn't say anything in this book about regretting his magical work or wishing he could do things differently. This book is entirely about alchemy and not his whole body of work. It seems to have some strong psychological interpretations of alchemy, which he later amended his introduction in the second edition, to say he shouldn't have insisted so strongly on psychological interpretations because there's more to it than that. I admittedly didn't read the whole thing, but perhaps you didn't read it either if this is the source for your argument. We don't need some random amazon quote, the actual quote you're putting in Regardie's mouth would be good. Thanks.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:23 AM

The book is available on Anna's archive.

An interesting conclusion that a few advanced practitioners have ended up with , including myself . Crowley also noted similar in his 'final word' (on if magical results were subjective or objective experience ) that 'at this stage we are not willing to say ' .

My take is it is mostly psychological ..... but not always . Or like when someone declares 'It is only their/your imagination' I have to answer ; not ONLY their imagination .

 

[Beyond Everything]

You are the one who needs to defend this point

Is the English on pg 11 not comprehensible to you? I can't help you.

Maybe they realise inner method and content need not depend on outward cultural form .

It is extremely foolish to believe that these energies are not a part and parcel of the 'outward cultural form'. There is no separation, they are all intermingled egregoric energies.

 

[ewiz]

Is the English on pg 11 not comprehensible to you? I can't help you.

From page 10 (not 11) of Israel Regardie & The Philosopher's Stone by Lisewski:
"I bring up Santee because he ran in many of the same circles as Regardie. Crowley, and Frater Albertus and was a contemporary of theirs and it is said that he met the first two men when in London . Yet like Albertus at the end of his days, when the lodge he had built and put so much energy into was going to meet its ultimate test of being able to survive without its founder, he uttered similar thoughts that we find Regardie stating here . If he had to do it all over again. Santee said he would forget magic and focus only on making money. As a physician Santee had a comfortable life, but it is also clear, that for all his occult skill and talent, in the end. he believed that the results did not justify the time and energy he put into it."

This is a quote which Stavish is attributing to Santee, not to Regardie. And having combed through Regardie's work I don't find anything like this at all. Be my guest and try to find it before repeating this nonsense any further. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.