>>aspects of the Spiritual Science (so to speak), because we need to make
>>different changes. But the science is the same, and the method will be
>>pretty much the same -- silence of the body and mind, introspection,
>>invocation, fervent prayer.
> so Crowley postulated in Book 4 (among other places.) well the first 3, i
> don't remember him specifying anything about fervent prayer. and the point
> was ultimately to unite subject and object. not sure how much this says for
> the commonality of human experience, however.
I mention fervent prayer as another way of saying the maxim "Enflame
thyself in praying."
I read somewhere an account of the power of the enoquian alphabet that
said the effect was less in how you pronounced it, and more into how
much you put in it. I think the concept is the same, and I was very
surprised to read something like that about enoquian, having heard many
times how important the pronounciation is. (Perhaps this particular
author was mad.)
Anyway. I agree with you when you say that everyone has his own work to
do, his own path. But we are used to thinking how we are different and
unique -- these days I've thinking about how we are also the same.
The changes we effect in ourselves with our magic maybe different given
the different needs of our different personalities, but the body where
we effect these things have basically the same structure and functions
and internal workings.
This is the answer, I think, to the question "Why does the magic of one
person works for another person?" Magic being so much a personal thing,
I could conceive that every magician would be forced to develop from
scratch a complete system that would work for him, because other
people's systems were developed for *them*. Such is not the case. On the
contrary; the simple methods of Yoga, or even the very rich collection
of buddhist meditation practices, have worked for a lot of people.
Even if we argue that it works for different people because they are
induced at believing the method will work, "learn the nature of the
pentagram and then it will become powerful for you", even then the
"suggestion" becomes the method, and we still have one method working
for more than one person. This scenario would be even more impressive,
as different methods would be concentrated in the great method
(er. Sorry if I use weird words, I am not a native english speaker.)
Someone said before that the existance of different religions and
cultures in the world is evidence that we are not as similar as I
propose we are, but this ignores the fact that all the different
cultures were produced in a time were communication between different
regions was very difficult. Europe has one culture, Asia another, Africa
another; each with minor variations and some sort of major similarity.
Today we see frustrated attempts at union, but we have just started with
our great global community. And today we see things like international
meetings of leaders of different religions -- that would probably kill
each other some centuries ago. (Or perhaps not.) If you are lucky to be
raised outside one specific religion or another, it seems weird choosing
between one or another, after careful observation -- they may give
different answers, but they ask the same questions, they try to solve
the same problems, universal human questions about life, existance, god,
I think it was William James in his "Varieties of Religious Experience"
that showed for the first time how similar the religious experiences of
different religons and different cultures were. All of them very
intimate, all of them overwhelming the ego (or lower consciousness if
you prefer), all of them leaving behind the sensation of something
bigger than life, and sometimes the sensation of increased wisdom, and a
greater certainty about the reason of one's life and what is for one to
do with it.
I have faith one day we will be capable of formulating this that I
called the core of the method in a perfectly scientific way and then
proposing and executing experiments to demonstrate its effect. Saying it
is impossible because of the "personal experience" doesn't satisfy me
anymore -- this would also be reason to say psychology as a science is
impossible, and there it is, working good medicine and saving us all
from the desire to fu** our mammas.