hi,am new to black magic,can you tell me pls how can i invoke eny spirits?what do i need to do?
try these out first
[url=http://www.becomealivinggod.com/newsletter/]http://www.becomealivinggod.com/newsletter/[/url]
First off all you can do what I asked you to do in a pm:
[url=http://becomealivinggod.com/forum/new-magician-help/introduce-yourself-to-members-of-the-forum/]http://becomealivinggod.com/forum/new-magician-help/introduce-yourself-to-members-of-the-forum/[/url]
According to demonolators evocation is very disrespectful. Therefore they are invoking demons. I know that S.Connolly in âComplete Book of Demonolatryâ is describing such ritual.
And why would evocation be disrespectful?
And why would evocation be disrespectful?
Iâm not a demonolater but from what Iâve red they worship demons, not threaten them (as a master) to manifest (of course this is my point of view).
Uh, i donât consider myself threatening them if i evoke them. Just the opposite, i consider myself a demon worshiper more than that. It sounds extremely stupid that anyone would threaten demons, how could it possibly do any good in the long run⌠or even the short ?
To evoke is just summon the demon outside you, when invoke is summoning it inside you⌠I donât get how evoke would be more disrespectful.
2 Likes
Probably someone much more experienced should discuss it with you. I can only quote few sentences from the book (page 159):
Invocation â The act of calling on (a higher power) for assistance, support, or inspiration. Ceremonial Magicians say this is the internal, but by the definition this would technically be external because the actual definition suggests a power outside the self. However, since we are each a part of the divine and all that is I can see where they get their âinternalâ definition. Invocation is what we Demonolators do. Evocation â The act of summoning (like you might a servant or subordinate) an entity (implied: against its will. Also implied: Demons are servants.) CMâs say this is the external, but by definition the implication of evoke is both internal and external and suggests something the magician creates from or evokes from himself or forces from another source.âŚand one more from page 188:
Invocation vs. Evocation â Demonolators invoke as opposed to evoke because evocation suggests conjuring an entity against it will. Invocation is more of a personal âinviteâ, prayer, and allows the Demonic entity the right to its own free will. People who evoke Demons generally end up running back to Christianity after some scary experiences. Demons do not take kindly to attempted âforcedâ attendance.âŚalso notice that E.A. Koetting is saying in his vid about Universal Circle (from 3:25)
2 Likes
If this is true, then we must make invocation as higher priority than evocation.
1 Like
The quoted text honestly sounds like itâs coming from an overly opinionated individual whose knowledge is very little for the most part. Heâs probably quite knowledgeable in what he does, as in invocation, but in terms of the intellectual development of magical knowledge, he seems quite lacking.
The only difference between evocation and invocation is the following:
Evocation is the act of summoning to visible appearance a spirit, demon, angel, or other entity for the purpose of conversing with it, putting a task to it, or whatever the desire may be. There is no inherent hostility in evocation. This demonolator seems to have forgotten of the very nature of spirits. They are never in just one place at one time. When summoned, itâs not like they are just being yanked out of the Astral Plane and being thrust entirely in to this plane.
Invocation, on the other hand, is the act of calling into oneself a desireable trait of a spirit, a power of a specific spirit, or to call a whole spirit into one self to assimilate oneself with that spiritâs personality due to adoration and admiration of that spirit and desiring to become more like it.
Whether it is true or untrue that all demons or other entities are infact already part of us, or not, evocation and invocation remain as I have said.
TLDR;
Evocation = Calling a spirit to visit you.
Invocation = Calling a trait of or a whole spirit itself inside you.
3 Likes
I have found that the differences between evocation and invocation can easily be blurred. E.A. doesnât seem to make a distinction between them in his teachings, so if you are interested in either practice follow what he calls âevocationâ and choose to only invoke if you want to.
An evoked entity will appear outside of you and you will âhearâ its voice in your mind, while an invoked entity will appear to you in soul travel (not in the physical) or will come to you as a feeling, and will speak through you. I have found it possible to do both - to evoke the entity before you while allowing it to speak through you. So the terms evocation and invocation seem to mostly be used conceptually to differentiate between inviting something in and inviting something near. That is probably why E.A. doesnât bother differentiating.
I wish aspiring magicians would avail themselves of a âclassical educationâ in magic. EA and every other modern author on occultism isnt the be all and end all of a magical education. The Golden Dawn, especially the writings of Israel Regardie, are an excellent bedrock in the magical arts. Invocation is, traditionally, specific and wholly different form what we call evocation. I believe the Golden Dawn called it âthe assumption of Godformsâ look into that. Invocation in its classical sense is relatively passive, and a form of controlled possession with the goal of some of the Assumed Godforms wisdom, knowledge or power to stay with the magician.
In the Alexandrian Craft we invoke the Goddess into the High Priestess and the God into the High Priest, at Esbats and Sabbats in varing degrees, so the God/Goddess is present in some sort of active physical form for the purpose of worship, petition or magical outcome. Out of the 21 festivals, the invocations are performed by the High Priest onto the High Priestess and vice-versa, only once in the year is a self invocation performed.
Having said all that, my evocation practice usually results in a semi-possession so the lines are somewhat blurred.
Well I had zero education in magick apart from kiddiesâ fiction books and I still managed it 
⌠albeit through a lot of false-turnings and probably taking far longer than it would under any structured system, but whatâs relevant is that when I found those things they turned out to look to me like 90% filler and 10% method, so I think thatâs where some of us get the perception that filling your head with those older books isnât necessary to learning and practicing effectively.
IMO what you need first and foremost is the ability to communicate with spirits well enough to get verifiably good information, and the rest flows authentically from there, not some strangerâs gnosis with a bunch of their worldview filtering the good stuff.
As far as Iâm aware the OP hasnât been studying long with any system, so comparing one method with another canât really apply to him.
Invocation is, traditionally, specific and wholly different form what we call evocation. I believe the Golden Dawn called it 'the assumption of Godforms' look into that. Invocation in its classical sense is relatively passive, and a form of controlled possession with the goal of some of the Assumed Godforms wisdom, knowledge or power to stay with the magician.âŚ
Having said all that, my evocation practice usually results in a semi-possession so the lines are somewhat blurred.
I think a lot of times when thereâs a mish-mash of channelling, invocation, evocation (in which the magician sees and hears the spirit outside themselves) we could do with a less contentious term like âSummoningâ (or, maybe something more accurate, lol) because I donât think itâs always perfectly fine to use a word in new meanings and be left with lack of clarity over what the OLD meanings are defined as, and the lines between in/evocation are also quite blurred in practice for a lot of us.
I agree what what you are saying Eva. It doesnt hurt to read and study beyond EA, and as his works are primarily practical some theory from multiple sources rounds out a magician.
Also, some/most of us are not fortunate enough to have spontaneous communication with spirits since our childhood, although we wish we had. Even though a lot of books, including EAâs, do have a lot more filler than practical instruction it is my assertion that a broad education better serves the magician than a narrow one, even if it is only the knowledge of where to find information when needed.
[quote=âAlpha Scorpii, post:14, topic:4216â]I agree what what you are saying Eva. It doesnt hurt to read and study beyond EA, and as his works are primarily practical some theory from multiple sources rounds out a magician.
Also, some/most of us are not fortunate enough to have spontaneous communication with spirits since our childhood, although we wish we had. Even though a lot of books, including EAâs, do have a lot more filler than practical instruction it is my assertion that a broad education better serves the magician than a narrow one, even if it is only the knowledge of where to find information when needed.[/quote]
About that iâm glad someone else has noticed the amount of filler in books, (EA is still awesome of course) but sometimes when reading this kind of books i just canât help to think âwhy am i told thisâ 
of course its nice to read professionally written filler stories, but sometimes when you would just want to read what is practical for you its different thing.
I donât think anyoneâs saying otherwise, I mean most of my own stuff came direct from spirits (and core shamanism, which is predicated on going direct to spirit, and scorns the grimoire & trad. magickal formats to an excessive degree), the rest is scattershot from whatever I think is most helpful to a task, and also I havenât even done any of the courses here or read all his books, so Iâm not making any suggestion of that nature.
For me, getting the practical stuff down is more important that loading up on background FIRST, but the background holds depths and complexities, though I think we probably all differ on where those lie - right now Iâm dissecting the LBP into Enochian language instead and finding different and useful stuff there, so my take on that would differ from say looking at it from a Xian perspective.
The only area where I see a clear advantage to the methods here is dispensing with the heirarchical/interpersonal stuff that came along with a lot of the old âordersâ in the pre-internet days, that stuff seems innately anti-magickal and itâs an almost inevitable feature of human life, especially when dealing with issues round faith, and a personâs beliefs about the nature and destiny of their soul, etc.
Iâve known people who were in some kind of âorder,â had a major argument with the wrong people, and it kind of ended their entire magickal progression, or at least threw them seriously off-beam and thatâs just never right. Anything that breaks that model open is a good thing in my opinion.
Also, some/most of us are not fortunate enough to have spontaneous communication with spirits since our childhood, although we wish we had.
Fuck, I know that I wish I had - because for me, it wasnât spontaneous AT ALL, it was hard worked for and with many moments of doubt over my own sanity since I had no concept that such a thing would really be possible!
Also, ongoing suspicion I may be damning myself to an eternity in hell, always fun for the under-tens to deal with. :\
Youâre not talking to someone framing herself as a nonchalant gifted genius here, to whom talents drop like birdshit from her fingers; youâre talking to someone who was a sad lonely frightened kid, and desperate for more out of life than the chaos and stupidity I saw going on round me, and I certainly paid for my magickal âself-educationâ in terms of time, angst, and every possible emotional high and low.
... it is my assertion that a broad education better serves the magician than a narrow one, even if it is only the knowledge of where to find information when needed.
On that weâre very much in agreement, Iâm working a kind of online Bibliomancy thing right now, trolling through old posts on here, WF & SA, plus random plotlines from Dr Who (just when you thought you might be talking to a SANE person! lol!!) and itâs actually working very well.
Any system has innate limitations (why Dr Who and not Dallas, well just a matter of taste!) and yeah, itâs always good to look outside your current ideas and teachers for more whenever possible. 
1 Like
Sometimes the filler is important for âhypnoticâ or immersion reasons, like the BS testimonials in âThe Might Book of Spells and Ritualsâ, NAP and others. The importance of suspending disbelief and accepting this obvious crap adds to the immersion and ultimately the power of the practical side of the works. The Golden Dawn, and Crowleyâs works, contain very little if any fluff, every word is carefully chosen and has meaning and importance beyond what we may initially think.
My go to grimiore on Evocation ATM is The Book of Azazel which IS 90% filler, my thinking is that EA and every other author is in it as a business, to earn a living, to a lesser or greater extent, and no one is going to pay a book price for a 3 page pamphlet which a lot of these books can be distilled down to. But again the immersion that the filler supplied is priceless and to distill it down to the purely practical does the magician a disservice.
Eva, from reading a lot of your posts I would say that you are a somewhat gifted genius and I know you have struggled but you have so far succeeded, and you are highly regarded 
Also I didnt suggest that anyone join an Order, just exploit the Orders, GD in this case, documents. But I DO recommend that every aspiring magician joins a âye oldeâ Magical Order, GD, OTO, BOTA, AMORC, AA, whatever, as an adjunct to their personal magical practices, which if joining an order one should keep their sorcerious pracices well under the fourth power of the Sphinx.
Yes, i do get that.
Interesting point, yes - I think it has to be to your personal taste, which is why people get worked up about whatâs best as though it were factual, when in fact itâs a matter of opinion.
Which also basically sums up why I chose Dr Who for my Bibliomancy-style trawls, and not Dallas.
I like that show more than almost anything and therefore donât have any mental resistance in place to the possibility it has useful things for me tucked away (fractal universe) behind the plotlines.
I should add that by âfillerâ in structured systems a few posts up, I was referring to the requirements of older magickal orders in real life, the heirarchical and political stuff, not style in prose or anything about the presentation of things in as few words as possible, for which I myself would make a VERY poor example of minimalism!! O_o
I have found that sometimes the âfillerâ in these texts is the most important part of the entire thing.
First, I should note that when I first got into magic I had the opposite opinion. I got very annoyed at going over pages and pages of praises for deities, long-winded rituals, or stories about evocations rather than instructions. I knew, deep down, it should be simple and easy to lay out (which is true). But, I must say that at that time in my life I was not successful at any of my magic practices.
Since then, Iâve learned the strong role emotional states play in magic. Getting yourself into the right âfeelingâ is more important than any step by step part of the ritual, and most rituals are designed to help you do that. Since it is hard to explain the right emotional states, stories of how evoking felt, rituals meant to put you in certain mindsets, and praises meant to place you in a position of both power and respect actually help allot.
Ultimately, once youâve learned the right state to be in while performing a particular kind of magic, you donât need any of that âfluffâ anymore, but discarding it when you are new is a big mistake.
For me, now that I know, I still like the fluff. It tells me if who Iâm reading has two-clues about what theyâre talking about.