Geomancy

[nytek]

Hey guys. I've messed around with geomancy in the past with what was in the equinox and with whichever such stuff could easily be found on the intarwebs. I understand the premise behind it all with making the dots into the figures and how to go about doing it and the general basics like that. Now I'm looking for some well written, preferably modern, and non-boring resources to more thoroughly learn from before I go about finally tackling the subject once and for all. Now ... can anyone reading this recommend me any books they've liked? Cool if so. It'd be appreciated.

Nytek

[Jack Flash]

Hey guys. I've messed around with geomancy in the past with what was in the equinox and with whichever such stuff could easily be found on the intarwebs. I understand the premise behind it all with making the dots into the figures and how to go about doing it and the general basics like that. Now I'm looking for some well written, preferably modern, and non-boring resources to more thoroughly learn from before I go about finally tackling the subject once and for all. Now ... can anyone reading this recommend me any books they've liked? Cool if so. It'd be appreciated.

Nytek

The Art and Practice of Geomancy by John Michael Greer. Introduction by Lon Duquette. Weiser, 2009.

[nytek]

Thanks. I couldn't find it on any site. I guess that means I should buy it. haha

Otherwise, a limited preview of Green's book for anyone else interested: http://books.google.com/books?id=nJL...age&q=&f=false

and this:

Skinner - Terrestrial Astrology Divination by Geomancy

Skinner - Terrestrial Astrology Divination by Geomancy
Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

Thanks for the nudge, JF.

[Jack Flash]

Thanks. I couldn't find it on any site. I guess that means I should buy it. haha

Otherwise, a limited preview of Green's book for anyone else interested:

Thanks for the nudge, JF.

I think I have a copy of Skinner's book, too, if you want me to shoot it to you. Also: It should be John Michael Greer. My apologies! Bit of a problematic typo.

But yeah. I recommend the book. It's better than most so far.

EDIT:

The Book on Amazon.

The Book on Amazon.

[nytek]

I think I have a copy of Skinner's book, too, if you want me to shoot it to you. Also: It should be John Michael Greer. My apologies! Bit of a problematic typo.

Ah, no big deal. I found it anyway so it's all good. My version is limited though ... you have the full version? The one by Skinner was on Scribd for download so I'll save you the trouble there. I would definitely be interested in the other one you mentioned though, for sure.

But yeah. I recommend the book. It's better than most so far.

Which ones did you not like and why? If you can find a moment to contemplate and remember, it'd be appreciated by more than myself in due time.

EDIT:

The Book on Amazon.

The Book on Amazon.

[Jack Flash]

Ah, no big deal. I found it anyway so it's all good. My version is limited though ... you have the full version? The one by Skinner was on Scribd for download so I'll save you the trouble there. I would definitely be interested in the other one you mentioned though, for sure.

Which ones did you not like and why? If you can find a moment to contemplate and remember, it'd be appreciated by more than myself in due time.

I don't have a full PDF of Greer's book. Just Skinner's. Generally, and in all honesty, I haven't taken Stephen Skinner seriously since he commented (in the Goetia of Dr. Rudd) that the Headless Daemon ritual was "just an exorcism." This statement has ironically been perpetuated since then, and is based on shoddy research. After that I just wrote Skinner off my list of authors with trustworthy information. As such I find myself trying to backcheck his sources, and that's a waste of my time.

This is contrasted by the fact I've met Greer and had a few interesting discussions with him on a number of subjects and he's always proven enlightening and quite aware of multiple avenues of thought.

That said: Greer's book is also far more enjoyable to read, and none of its information is based on the 24-page "profile" of Geomancy that the Golden Dawn left behind.

[nytek]

I don't have a full PDF of Greer's book. Just Skinner's.

Ah, alright. *kicking rocks*

Generally, and in all honesty, I haven't taken Stephen Skinner seriously since he commented (in the Goetia of Dr. Rudd) that the Headless Daemon ritual was "just an exorcism."

I suppose -- but then again as much as I personally know the empowerment that ripples through every fiber of my being upon the recitation of that supposed mere exorcism -- perhaps there is still valuable material in the book from a scholarly standpoint?

I try not to crucify authors over the stuff that I don't agree with if possible. Crowley has changed his stance several times throughout his career after all, and I've seen so many throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I guess you could also say from one limited standpoint that the Middle Pillar ritual is "just a way to empower the chakras", rather than something which vitalizes and empowers one with the proper state of Godliness required to work magick more effectively. Also, does he mean an exorcism of the practitioners lower qualities or something? I'm not sure of the context but I'm curious to see what you feel he meant rather than me assuming I know without reading the literal passage.

Regardless of that, at the same time, clever as it is to link the 72 angelic entities to the supposed demonic counterparts ... assuming the popular belief is false, and that the Goetics are not really bastardized versions of the fallen Gods of the past (given their very different descriptions), in the same way I've seen several hispanic-blooded people named Jesus ... then beyond that I don't know if I really can appreciate the whole demon-exorcist thing that book seems to cultivate anyhow. I mean, if the people in the days of yore were able to drastically change the Gods and Goddesses so much by expectation ... then what prevents the modern mind from expecting to see a God or Goddess and seeing that instead if it's your intent to produce that result? Otherwise in terms of exorcisms Jehovah is just a word to me, not the supreme being and creator; a word I have yet to invoke in any of my workings.

Why assume the demons are all malevolent creatures set against working your will? They've been building powers for who knows how long and in my mind they would be itching to use them in a way that is challenging. They could just as likely feign defeat as truly be moved. Moreover, particularly if fallen Gods, then what do they really have to do with Jehovah? The magickian in my opinion is already in possession of all the divinity he needs being a complete microcosm. I personally think we're beyond that exorcist mentality speaking oh-so-humbly for everyone in this aeon as well. heh So it seems like one thing compiled upon another, even if it's not "The Goetia of Dr. Skinner" after all, regardless of context, I won't be buying that book and it does make me a bit more critical on the topic of his Geomancy material. That said I'm kinda glad to make the digression.

After that I just wrote Skinner off my list of authors with trustworthy information. As such I find myself trying to backcheck his sources, and that's a waste of my time.

Yeah. Granted what you've said, then at best you take things with a grain of salt. And at worst...

This is contrasted by the fact I've met Greer and had a few interesting discussions with him on a number of subjects and he's always proven enlightening and quite aware of multiple avenues of thought.

Encouraging... do you remember any of the topics (roughly, even)?

That said: Greer's book is also far more enjoyable to read,

And straight forward...? As in, the information is readily accessible and able to be put into practice? Or is it something which is more of a stepping stone? After this I'm going to check out the google books version tonight or tomorrow. I'm just wondering your take so I can compare as I go.

and none of its information is based on the 24-page "profile" of Geomancy that the Golden Dawn left behind.

And I have to wonder what those "certain safeguards", were, as well.

[Jack Flash]

Ah, alright. *kicking rocks*

I've got a buddy who might know if it's online yet. If it isn't in PDF yet, then there's only a matter of time before someone scans it. I'll do some digging.

I suppose -- but then again as much as I personally know the empowerment that ripples through every fiber of my being upon the recitation of that supposed mere exorcism -- perhaps there is still valuable material in the book from a scholarly standpoint?

Well, at that point Skinner is discussing the difference between Crowley's Bornless One ritual and the original Stele of Jeu. He claims Crowley "changed the VM" so that the practitioner could step into the shadow of God (or the Bornless One). This is, in fact, correct. However he follows it up by claiming that the Stele is "merely an exorcism." Even if this is just an opinion, is demonstrably incorrect. I'd repeat things I recently talked about, but it's quicker just to toss a link if you're interested. I followed it up again with a short discussion on the Agathos-Daemon just the other day.

That said: Dr. Rudd's form of the Goetia is what it is. Crowley, I think, claimed it was bullshit. But I'm not sure I'm remembering that bit correctly. In any event, the book is great for what it is, just like Poke Runyon's ideas. Even if I don't agree with an author, I'll eventually try and get around to reading what they have to say.

I try not to crucify authors over the stuff that I don't agree with if possible. Crowley has changed his stance several times throughout his career after all, and I've seen so many throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I guess you could also say from one limited standpoint that the Middle Pillar ritual is "just a way to empower the chakras", rather than something which vitalizes and empowers one with the proper state of Godliness required to work magick more effectively. Also, does he mean an exorcism of the practitioners lower qualities or something? I'm not sure of the context but I'm curious to see what you feel he meant rather than me assuming I know without reading the literal passage.

Crowley's opinions alter at each grade, and that makes sense due to his comments about the variances of truth in the Elemental Grade system of the GD/OTO/A.'.A.'. ... That said, I also think that tossing the baby out with the bathwater is dangerous.

When Skinner discusses the ritual, he is refering to it as a literal exorcism only. But it's a gross misrepresentation of the process, and what's being done. Err. Hell, I'll quote myself:
"The Stele of Jeu is a ritual that is quite simply an invocation of the Agathos-Daemon. I say this based on the last lines: “I am the Headless Daimon with sight in my feet; I am the might one who possesses the immortal fire; I am the truth who hates the fact that unjust deeds are done in the world... I am the one who begets and destroys; I am the favor of the Aion; my name is a heart encircled by a serpent; come forth and follow.” (Betz, P. 103) The purpose of calling this spirit into oneself is so that one gains dominion over all other daimons. One could expel them or command them in any way that one imagines, so long as that link is established."

Regardless of that, at the same time, clever as it is to link the 72 angelic entities to the supposed demonic counterparts ... assuming the popular belief is false, and that the Goetics are not really bastardized versions of the fallen Gods of the past (given their very different descriptions), in the same way I've seen several hispanic-blooded people named Jesus ... then beyond that I don't know if I really can appreciate the whole demon-exorcist thing that book seems to cultivate anyhow. I mean, if the people in the days of yore were able to drastically change the Gods and Goddesses so much by expectation ... then what prevents the modern mind from expecting to see a God or Goddess and seeing that instead if it's your intent to produce that result? Otherwise in terms of exorcisms Jehovah is just a word to me, not the supreme being and creator; a word I have yet to invoke in any of my workings.

I often argue that the sigil of the entity in question is all that matters, and that it could be looked at as a symbol set of astral "place markers" indicating the type of entity, the point in the astral at which it's kind are located, and the associations with which they are empowered to deal in. The names can largely be ignored. I am not entirely convinced that if we both conjure Agares, we are getting exactly the same entity. It could be that the relative power of the practitioner drags in more powerful or less powerful entities. (Some of which may be Princes of their sort, others of which may not.) In general, the fact you're dragging a chunk of astral space to coincide with your own space is a testament as to why getting an Evocation to Physical Manifestation is so bloody hard.

That's my theory, anyway. It has nothing to do with the names and I am perhaps slothful in not paying due attention to the significance of names.

Why assume the demons are all malevolent creatures set against working your will? They've been building powers for who knows how long and in my mind they would be itching to use them in a way that is challenging. They could likely feign defeat and moreover what do they really have to do with Jehovah? The magickian in my opinion is already in possession of all the divinity he needs being a complete microcosm. I personally think we're beyond that exorcist mentality speaking oh-so-humbly for everyone in this aeon as well. heh So it seems like one thing compiled upon another, even if it's not "The Goetia of Dr. Skinner" after all, regardless of context, I won't be buying that book and it does make me a bit more critical on the topic of his Geomancy material. That said I'm kinda glad to make the digression.

I disagree with the treatment of the Goetia and other 'diabolic' grimoires in general by the present populace. It isn't resonant in specific individuals, but the idea that we need to walk around blasting everything we see and shouting Godnames seems recurrent amongst morons.

Encouraging... do you remember any of the topics (roughly, even)?

When he visited and lectured in Fresno, I attended an afterparty for him hosted at my mentor's house. We all proceeded to get quite smashed and he and I ended up arguing (politely) about the merits of Kenneth Grant. I held that he was fun, and Mr. Greer - being a scholar - held that he was stark raving mad (which is probably true). About a year later we talked about 'magical devices' (such as machines) and his love of them. I can't recall all the Victorian devices he brought up that were designed to show one auras, glimpses into the outside, kill an individual and so forth... But it was all quite lively and a good time. The last discussion we had was with a super-hot Thelemite female from Slovenia (or somesuch), and we were discussing Crowley's sex magick and P.B. Randolph. He also single-handedly smashed some of my love for Spare when he pointed out that Agrippa was using essentially the same formula for his 'number square' sigils, just that it was a slightly different manner.

And straight forward...? As in, the information is readily accessible and able to be put into practice? Or is it something which is more of a stepping stone? After this I'm going to check out the google books version tonight or tomorrow. I'm just wondering your take so I can compare as I go.

So far the book is entirely straight-forward. Within the first three to five chapters, he's described all of the Geomantic figures and how they relate to one another, the typical problems one might face with older 'Geomancy' books, and how one can discern patterns in the Geomantic shield after you've finished you're reading and calculations.

On the other hand, the classical Geomantic shield I'm using I haven't seen yet. But it could be that I, uh, skipped it and should re-read the last chapter. I may have been a bit... intoxicated when I sat down to read it.

[nytek]

I've got a buddy who might know if it's online yet. If it isn't in PDF yet, then there's only a matter of time before someone scans it. I'll do some digging.

Ah, thanks. I've already checked several spots pretty thoroughly myself. Then again I've suddenly come across certain e-books only after having given up in frustration. Hmm ... I wonder if Humots from the GV does e-books as well... heh

However he follows it up by claiming that the Stele is "merely an exorcism." Even if this is just an opinion, is demonstrably incorrect. I'd repeat things I recently talked about, but it's quicker just to toss a link if you're interested. I followed it up again with a short discussion on the Agathos-Daemon just the other day.

Great links. I enjoyed them. As for Constantine, I guess we can thank Diocletian for that for the most part.


lol

Though on the other hand sacrificing puppies and bulls eventually does get old... the ancients really took the blood thing too far. More is better but damn. :| Maybe I'll PM you about all that. I know I've already broken the mod-commandments.

That said: Dr. Rudd's form of the Goetia is what it is.

Well no matter what I'm not knocking anyone's chosen mode of working if they get results. I'm just saying from my own personal point of view, no, demons aren't our friends or anything but they're not all out to get us either and need to be subjugated. Yeah, they seem to pretty much only know power. Still why does power need to come from without and blast things into submission as you said? It just seems kinda weak to play the exorcist all in the name of a waning God to me. I'd rather align myself with the forces of darkness than to work against said forces and thus I walk the path of the fencepost between light and dark. It's all about respect with me.

In any event, the book is great for what it is, just like Poke Runyon's ideas.

The way he speaks kinda creeps me out though with the bug eyes and all that.

Even if I don't agree with an author, I'll eventually try and get around to reading what they have to say.

Same. It's rare that I ever would read an author and agree totally even if I consider them more expert than myself by virtue of experience, and likewise I wouldn't expect any one person to totally agree with my points of view either. It's just asking too much or so I feel.

Crowley's opinions alter at each grade, and that makes sense due to his comments about the variances of truth in the Elemental Grade system of the GD/OTO/A.'.A.'. ...

Well that's a given for sure. I meant that furthermore there are a few items he's totally reversed his position on. I have no clue what those certain things are not thinking it important enough to remember them, but they were rather large shifts most would be embarrassed to make as authors in this field.

That said, I also think that tossing the baby out with the bathwater is dangerous.

Definitely. Though sometimes I will be first to admit that the baby is a stillborn and the bath water was skimmed directly from the Ganges. Yes. My metaphors are colorful sometimes. I know.

When Skinner discusses the ritual, he is refering to it as a literal exorcism only. But it's a gross misrepresentation of the process, and what's being done.

"Exorcism" ... that's such a weird way of looking at it to me still. You should email him maybe.

Err. Hell, I'll quote myself:
"The Stele of Jeu is a ritual that is quite simply an invocation of the Agathos-Daemon.

That's why I could see it as an exorcism of the lower qualities in a very rough sense, even though to me it's more like calling down an aspect of the divine to fill your personality up thus empowering you with such an authority as the HGA or God or whatever is perceived to be capable of possessing for his/her/itself.

I often argue that the sigil of the entity in question is all that matters, and that it could be looked at as a symbol set of astral "place markers" indicating the type of entity, the point in the astral at which it's kind are located, and the associations with which they are empowered to deal in. The names can largely be ignored.

I can kinda vibe with that. I see the sigil as a physical representation akin to the letters that form the base for the concept behind a word. Likewise, I view a sigil as something of an astral-telephone of sorts. Still the names give me something else to grasp onto in my experience... How's that go?: "...for by Names and Images are all Powers awakened and reawakened."

I am not entirely convinced that if we both conjure Agares, we are getting exactly the same entity.

Well, that's hard to say given differing accounts. True. Still with complex entities like your Lucifer or your Michael, I've noticed that the different sigils bring up different aspects which are further revealed in inspired meditation on said sigils and their specifics.

It could be that the relative power of the practitioner drags in more powerful or less powerful entities. (Some of which may be Princes of their sort, others of which may not.)

Or we can get their lesser representatives coming in their guise for whatever reason ... I notice that whenever I perform my HRU invocation before a tarot reading I always get a spirit with a different but similar energy signature ... sometimes very different than the last but all maintaining a certain homogeny throughout.

In general, the fact you're dragging a chunk of astral space to coincide with your own space is a testament as to why getting an Evocation to Physical Manifestation is so bloody hard.

I'm going to get so horribly far off topic in my own thread here, but this is something that is just really starting to click for me finally due to persistence and study. I think doubt and fear play the biggest part in that kinda failure (physical evocation). Magick takes place on the physical and not in it, in my view, if that makes sense. I feel that most of the crutches of evocation are for the subjugation of your mind and not the spirit.

Furthermore expectation is what's hard to cultivate for most if I guess and different systems go about this cultivation differently from using prayer and fasting to other methods like studying mythology and the likes.

Finding a system of evocation that works for you or designing one is extremely important in my mind... then more specifically we have certain ritual implements; the circle helping to differentiate between subjective and objective reality for you, while the triangle limits the space of your focus and is a set aside platform for the spirit all the same. Without those items dissolution comes quick in my experience or nebulous results.

With the bare minimum in place just provide a material basis like blood or incense and you're off to the races ... and perhaps some light chemical lubrication if you like. Lastly I've found open-eye trance training to help greatly also and the training of the will in terms of guiding the spirit into the triangle. Nothing has helped me more than preparatory immersion -- or maybe it's tied with my samadhi lamp.

That's my theory, anyway. It has nothing to do with the names and I am perhaps slothful in not paying due attention to the significance of names.

Well as you know a person could even go into gematria with the names but eh ... I never got along much with that practice for whatever reason save here and there. I just use the name as another tool to get results more than for analyzing it intellectually via transliteration or creating telesmatic images of spirits with it. A name just has an energy signature behind it; something to fling my will towards. You know?

I disagree with the treatment of the Goetia and other 'diabolic' grimoires in general by the present populace. It isn't resonant in specific individuals, but the idea that we need to walk around blasting everything we see and shouting Godnames seems recurrent amongst morons.

Well, it works I guess. There is plenty of proof of that on the net and passed down as wisdom through the ages in books. I personally just think the approach is dated is all I really meant to say. Personally on most days I'd agree with the last line of your comment but I know that the exorcist-mode types have their own good arguments as well as the sincerity and results to back it up. The comfort of tradition has it's merits too as much as I hate to admit that.

When he visited and lectured in Fresno, I attended an afterparty for him hosted at my mentor's house. We all proceeded to get quite smashed and he and I ended up arguing (politely) about the merits of Kenneth Grant.

Must ... resist ... the urge ... to get further off topic. Though I did ask you this stuff in all fairness.

He also single-handedly smashed some of my love for Spare when he pointed out that Agrippa was using essentially the same formula for his 'number square' sigils, just that it was a slightly different manner.

Maybe I'll PM you about that. I admit I've only thumbed through Agrippa for some strange reason. Regardless Spare seems to have all but mastered some of the things I've gotten hit or miss results with if the accounts are true. Certainly he's praiseworthy for many a thing.

So far the book is entirely straight-forward. Within the first three to five chapters, he's described all of the Geomantic figures and how they relate to one another, the typical problems one might face with older 'Geomancy' books, and how one can discern patterns in the Geomantic shield after you've finished you're reading and calculations.

Alright then. That's basically the review I was hoping for.

On the other hand, the classical Geomantic shield I'm using I haven't seen yet. But it could be that I, uh, skipped it and should re-read the last chapter. I may have been a bit... intoxicated when I sat down to read it.

heh Well, I always say the first reading is just to familiarize yourself anyway and not for much else so I guess we're attuned there one way or another.