Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Book

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Ultimate Book

    I am not entirely sure why people haven't compiled scriptures of magic from the other religions. I thought of a design as I was daydreaming as sort of a design with the symbols of Taoism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, as well as symbols of Mjolnir, the symbol of Hermes and The Ankh of Life from the Egyptian Religion. I know all of them have ancient magic and I wondered why people can just put all the incantations, spells and magic into the book. I feel as if people will have a greater understanding of spiritual power if it was compiled into one book and they can learn from other faiths as well. Other faiths can always learn from each other.

    #2
    Re: The Ultimate Book

    Because if you're trying for a single uber-system of magic/whatever, it wouldn't work unless you stripped out most of the context of the originals.

    Heka isn't the same as the magic found in, say, Greece (although yes, the folksy elements would seem similar). Christian/Gnostic magic is not the same as Celtic. These systems operate on different assumptions, different cultural contexts, and different religious beliefs.

    And if you're not trying to put all of these magic systems together into one uber-system, there's still the problem of learning a system fully and deeply. Often, understanding what makes any one culture's magic tick is a years-long, or even lifelong, effort. Unless you have hours every day of every year to study all of the things you want to bring together, you'll be hard-pressed to make it work for you as you would like. If you brought them all together in the "ultimate book", you'd have a book that's thousands of pages long. Not many people are going to read a book that's 1000+ pages long.

    People from other faiths and systems can and often do learn from each other, but I don't see what that has to do with compiling "scriptures" of magic. I can learn about all sorts of different things without "compiling" them into what I do, if that makes any sense. I don't need a whole bunch of information in one place at one time. That just dilutes and confuses everything.
    Blog: http://thestarsafire.tumblr.com

    Kuchi wa wazawai no moto (the mouth is the origin of disasters)

    Comment


      #3
      Re: The Ultimate Book

      Satu pretty much nailed it but I think you'd probably wind up with more of an epic encyclopedia than a 1000+ page book, what with how intensive most religions can get o___o

      Comment


        #4
        Re: The Ultimate Book

        What Satu said.

        Plus... cultural appropriation. When you take a practice out of it's original cultural context you change that practice and it becomes something other than it was originally. If you're then calling it the same thing that it was called within it's context... that's cultural appropriation. Some people don't mind doing this, but I do.

        A universal book of magick smacks to me of what Michael Harner did with Core Shamanism. It would be a useful tome to have, but there is no possible way that a person could use just one book to respectfully study a number of cultural traditions. You could use it to gain an overview and give you direction for further study, but you couldn't use it as the only source of information and knowledge, not without taking those practices out of their cultural context and changing them.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: The Ultimate Book

          Not to mention that, just in terms of sheer quantity, you'd end up with a whole series of massive encyclopedias. It'd just turn into a confused jumble, as others have said, too much relies on the context of the specific system.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: The Ultimate Book

            It would be a huge book, sadly it would be not much more than a magical version of wikipedia.
            Sacrifices would have to be made in the content, and by having so many different systems next to each other you would run the risk of the reader misinterpreting content due to previous chapters or just dismissing content out of hand because it does not appeal as much as previous content.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: The Ultimate Book

              I think overall it is better to have many texts on different forms of magic and its applications/origins, than one composite form.
              That said though, an individuals rituals and practices can draw upon many sources if they are understood

              Comment


                #8
                Re: The Ultimate Book

                I think some misunderstand me. Obviously you wouldn't take every single scipture from every single religion and put it into one book. The book would be too long. You take a little from Taoism as well as Zoroastrianism and other religions. You take certain exorcism spells, holy spells and healing spells involving incantations, potions, herbs and crystals. You take a little from each and put it together. Any faith that you practice would probably be in that book so you wouldn't have to hunt down a certain type of book.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: The Ultimate Book

                  Originally posted by Alienist View Post
                  I think some misunderstand me. Obviously you wouldn't take every single scipture from every single religion and put it into one book. The book would be too long. You take a little from Taoism as well as Zoroastrianism and other religions. You take certain exorcism spells, holy spells and healing spells involving incantations, potions, herbs and crystals. You take a little from each and put it together. Any faith that you practice would probably be in that book so you wouldn't have to hunt down a certain type of book.
                  Still wouldn't work if you wanted to maintain the integrity of the originals in any way, shape, or form. Taoism and Zoroastrianism, for example, are two different systems that derive from two very different cultures and are based off very different assumptions. If you took two very similar religions or magical systems, or those that were known to have been integrated in the past (such as Greek and very late [ie: non-pharaonic] Kemetic), then it might work.

                  You also run the risk of cultural appropriation by picking out the "pretty" pieces, stripping them of their cultural context, then using them as if there wasn't any meaning attached to them. Kind of like wearing a "war bonnet" as a Halloween/Samhain costume. What you're talking about is eclecticism, and the way you're talking about it makes me think of eclecticism of the worst kind: the disrespectful, appropriative kind.

                  There are many great things to be learned from the religions and magical systems of the world. That, I cannot deny. What I can deny is that it's a good idea to take a little bit from here and there in a manner that can at worst be disrespectful and appropriative and at best confused and silly. Eclecticism can (and is!) done well, but I think you need to reflect on your idea a lot more to get to that point.
                  Blog: http://thestarsafire.tumblr.com

                  Kuchi wa wazawai no moto (the mouth is the origin of disasters)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: The Ultimate Book

                    I agree with Satu, but I have an idea.
                    A person can take a book, and divide it into sectors about different magic types.
                    A sector for witchcraft, Kemetic spells, ancient Greek & Roman spells and so on. Each sector will describe the principles of the magic and how it works.
                    In addition, the book can be divided into parts that describe the magic type of every part of the world (Europe, Asia, Africa etc'..) and every part will have the suitable sectors within.
                    "Fair means that everybody gets what they need. And the only way to get that is to make it happen yourself."



                    Since I adore cats, I might write something strange or unusual in my comment.Cats are awesome!!! ^_^

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: The Ultimate Book

                      Originally posted by Satu View Post
                      Still wouldn't work if you wanted to maintain the integrity of the originals in any way, shape, or form. Taoism and Zoroastrianism, for example, are two different systems that derive from two very different cultures and are based off very different assumptions. If you took two very similar religions or magical systems, or those that were known to have been integrated in the past (such as Greek and very late [ie: non-pharaonic] Kemetic), then it might work.

                      You also run the risk of cultural appropriation by picking out the "pretty" pieces, stripping them of their cultural context, then using them as if there wasn't any meaning attached to them. Kind of like wearing a "war bonnet" as a Halloween/Samhain costume. What you're talking about is eclecticism, and the way you're talking about it makes me think of eclecticism of the worst kind: the disrespectful, appropriative kind.

                      There are many great things to be learned from the religions and magical systems of the world. That, I cannot deny. What I can deny is that it's a good idea to take a little bit from here and there in a manner that can at worst be disrespectful and appropriative and at best confused and silly. Eclecticism can (and is!) done well, but I think you need to reflect on your idea a lot more to get to that point.
                      You don't have to exaggerate for one thing... How it taking away the culture? All of them have used spells. That's kind of obvious. I'm not disrespecting any of them. All it is is just a collection of spells and incantations. How am I disprespecting any of them? It doesn't matter if the cultures are different. Different religions always have some similiarities whether it involves head deities, magic/science gods or exorcisms or blessing spells. The way they do it is different but the result is still the same. If anything, I'm showing respect by acknowledging them, unlike others who would dismiss it as superstition or fake.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: The Ultimate Book

                        Originally posted by Alienist View Post
                        You don't have to exaggerate for one thing... How it taking away the culture?
                        Seeing as several people have already posted "how" in this vary thread, why are you asking again?

                        Originally posted by Alienist View Post
                        I'm not disrespecting any of them. All it is is just a collection of spells and incantations. How am I disprespecting any of them? It doesn't matter if the cultures are different.
                        And that's how you're disrespecting them. Those spells and incantations are the result of their cultural context. That you apparently don't seem interested in learning the importance of that context strikes me as very disrespectful.
                        "The doer alone learneth." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: The Ultimate Book

                          Originally posted by Alienist View Post
                          You don't have to exaggerate for one thing... How it taking away the culture? All of them have used spells. That's kind of obvious. I'm not disrespecting any of them. All it is is just a collection of spells and incantations. How am I disprespecting any of them? It doesn't matter if the cultures are different. Different religions always have some similiarities whether it involves head deities, magic/science gods or exorcisms or blessing spells. The way they do it is different but the result is still the same. If anything, I'm showing respect by acknowledging them, unlike others who would dismiss it as superstition or fake.
                          I'm not exaggerating.

                          When you magpie shiny things from a culture, strip those things of their context, then parade them around like everyone owns them, you cheapen the value of those things. That reflects directly on the culture, who might feel the stuff you magpie'd is very valuable. Certain things have MEANING to a culture, and taking them causes harm to the culture. Again, I bring up the example of "war bonnets".

                          Add to the fact that a lot of cultures have been marginalized thanks to things like colonialism and racism and all of a sudden eclecticism can take a much darker meaning. It becomes a struggle to retain identity, something that becomes difficult by people taking different pieces of the pie and, ultimately--and often despite their best intentions--changing those things. It's difficult to see if you're outside the culture(s) in question. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of it or tell people who bring it up they're exaggerating.

                          If you wanted to do something like a side-by-side comparison of a handful of religions and/or magical systems, and a few suggestions on how you might get started worshipping or practicing, I could see that. But from what I understand, you want to take the choicest bits and make a sort of system out of them. In taking the choicest bits, you miss out on, once again, context. You miss out on the underlying cultural concepts that make those bits work.

                          All cultures have used spells in one form or another, but, as I've been trying to tell you, these spells aren't the same. Ancient Egyptian spells are not the same as Greek, or heathen, or Celtic, or Taoist, or Canaanite, or Hindu, or Shinto. They have specific beliefs connected to them. They need to be considered, something I'm not seeing in your conception of the "ultimate book".

                          Similarity is not equality. Lightning and lightening are similar, but they are not equal.

                          Acknowledgement does not equal respect. Me acknowledging your presence by, for example, stealing something that has meaning to you, is not respectful.

                          The difference between cultures matters. These differences shouldn't divide us, but we shouldn't mow them over for some kind of unified theory.

                          Eclecticism, as I've said before, can work. It tends not to work when the eclectic person ignores culture and context in favor of "similarity". My recommendation would be to research those cultures that had close contact with one another if you want to go forward with this project. Look into how the Romans interacted with the Greeks, how the Greeks interacted with the ancient Egyptians, and if you can, dig up some information about the lower ancient Egyptians' exposure to Sumerian culture via trade. You will, I think, have much better success if you try to "unify"--can't think of a better word right now--those systems that actually saw extensive contact with one another.
                          Blog: http://thestarsafire.tumblr.com

                          Kuchi wa wazawai no moto (the mouth is the origin of disasters)

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: The Ultimate Book

                            I think part of the problem we are seeing is that it looks like you assume all religions operate with the same spiritual mechanics and magics.

                            There is not one single magic, a ritual or spell from one faith will not work in another unless you have understanding in how it works.

                            to use a movie analogy,watch the mummy. You know the bit where the dodgy guide is trying to save himself from. Imhotep? None of those invocations were the right magic.... In the end it was only because Imhotep spoke Hebrew that the guide survived... Not because he was covered with lucky charms.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: The Ultimate Book

                              What's interesting is that this debate, or at least similar debates, have been raging on since the pre-Christian times. Many cultures, most notably the the Greeks and Romans, really couldn't care less about cultural context. They conquered, adopted and adapted foreign cults to fit their own perspective. Any serious Kemetic can write you a book about how Isis isn't Egyptian and the Romans were terrible people.

                              Even the Heathens got in on the action. There are tons of stories of early Germanic kings accepting Christ but worshiping him as a war god who beat death. In their case it was probably a matter of ignorance in regards to Christian doctrine, but it also shows the attitude of most ancient pagans. The origins of the god or spirit are irrelevant. Just because your god is not my god does not mean he is not worthy of my devotion.

                              Countless deities have been take out of their cultural context by various groups, but it doesn't seem like they've ever cared very much. In fact, it doesn't even seem like the original culture cared too terribly much.

                              When people ask me questions about eclecticism I usually give them this rule. It's fine to worship deities from different pantheons because every god is worthy of respect. However, it is proper to worship them in a way that is specific to their culture of origin. For example let's look at Odin and Zeus. We can say that they are both similar in certain aspects but definitely not all. Just because they are similar does not mean it's okay to treat them the same way during rituals. Human blood is extremely taboo in Hellenic practices, but historically it was used quite often by the Norse.

                              It's almost like an old play. You wear one costume when you're playing Ragnar and another costume when you're playing Marcus. It's not wrong. It's not fake. It's proper.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X