The Occult - confused...

[fender1499]

Hello

Occult is a fancy way of saying secret or hidden. It can almost be anything, but occult practices are something that you do that there is not a scientific answer for. So yes astral work would fall in that category but than again so would the study of ufos and magick. Is it negative, arent things negative when you make them that way in your head, astral kinda teaches that our thought processes is what makes anything looked at in a negative light. I am a Mason, I guess some of our things that we look at could be seen in a secretive manner or occult studies. Never go by what organized religion believes that are negative or occultic or you would not be able to do anything that you enjoy because there is always gonna be someone out there that dissapproves of something that you might do, just because they do not understand how to live freely and explore our human boundaries.

[Nick]

Hi Beowulf,

I think that your question is an excellent one. What I thought might help is moving it from OBE discussions to another more suitable forum. A couple of different ones came to mind, however I ended up placing it in General Metaphysics . If you feel a different forum would be better, please PM me and I'll move it there. []

Very best,

[MJ-12]

Ij

[Tab]

Occultism is merely the study and practice of the latent powers in man. That makes astral projection, psychokenesis, everything that we do occult practices. I'm not too sure where or when occultism became tangled with black magic and dark practices.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND OCCULTISM.
ENQUIRER. You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?

THEOSOPHIST. By no means. A man may be a very good Theosophist indeed, whether in or outside of the Society, without being in any way an Occultist. But no one can be a true Occultist without being a real Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a black magician, whether conscious or unconscious.

ENQUIRER. What do you mean?

THEOSOPHIST. I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, if an Occultist does not do all this, he must act selfishly for his own personal benefit; and if he has acquired more practical power than other ordinary men, he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal. This is clear.

ENQUIRER. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than other people?

THEOSOPHIST. Far more -- if he is a practical and really learned Occultist, and not one only in name. Occult sciences are not, as described in Encyclopaedias, "those imaginary sciences of the Middle Ages which related to the supposed action or influence of Occult qualities or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic, necromancy, and astrology," for they are real, actual, and very dangerous sciences. They teach the secret potency of things in Nature, developing and cultivating the hidden powers "latent in man," thus giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant mortals. Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious scientific inquiry, is a good instance in point. Hypnotic power has been discovered almost by accident, the way to it having been prepared by mesmerism; and now an able hypnotizer can do almost anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously to himself, to play the fool, to making him commit a crime -- often by proxy for the hypnotizer, and for the benefit of the latter. Is not this a terrible power if left in the hands of unscrupulous persons? And please to remember that this is only one of the minor branches of Occultism.

ENQUIRER. But are not all these Occult sciences, magic, and sorcery, considered by the most cultured and learned people as relics of ancient ignorance and superstition?

THEOSOPHIST. Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The "most cultured and learned" among you regard also Christianity and every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition. People begin to believe now, at any rate, in hypnotism, and some -- even of the most cultured -- in Theosophy and phenomena. But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a belief in Biblical miracles? And this is where the point of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the supernatural, divine miracles included, but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practises scientific Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called abnormal, minus the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises it in the dark, on sincere but blind faith. Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of Occult science -- e.g., Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing physical phenomena, etc. -- without the knowledge of the philosophic rationale of those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a stormy ocean.


From The Key to Theosophy

[Tarconiss]

Seeming that occult DOES mean hidden or secret, isnt it odd at how coincidental it is, with the fact that most people fear what they dont understand.... so... for the 'average' person a few centuries ago, anything 'occult' was seen as bad, because they didnt understand it, and because the Bible states to stay away from the occult. Due to this, and the fear that the churches created, Occultist/Occultism got a bad reputation.

There are both negative AND positive 'Occult' practices, when you put it into perspective. I find it sad that accusations are made before anyone can truely explain both the good and bad in what they practice, and what they've come to learn already.

For the sence of steering oneself away from those accusations I feel that a person could call themself a 'Metaphysisist'. Technically it covers everything that 'Occultism' covers, aswell as the paranormal and such. But it is also less frowned upon, for sake of the none existant bad reputation it has.

I don't see much of a moral problem 'for' a person who practices what they do, unless if it is for something that will inturn, intentionally be used against another person in a negative way. But if someone practices something, for a positive reason, then the only problem is the 'outside' issues that OTHER people have. If the accuser's aren't willing to sit down and talk about these things with the person they are accusing, then it is  only 'Thier' problem, because they are going against thier own morals of compassion for others, causeing themselves negative intent by that point, over a trivial issue.

So who is really to blame? I say 'Don't blame anyone' in this instance, because it's just something that will not solve anything. If one has directly confronted or has been confronted by a person, with the intention for accuseing you or them of something, I guess you 'could' rightfully blame someone.... But think of it... is there really any point to doing that?... What does putting blame on someone accomplish?... What are you blameing/being blamed for?.... Does it directly effect you/them?.... Big woop... one has been blamed..... what now?

I guess im just ranting by this point. Anyone else understand what I'm getting at though?

To answer the original questions; It depends more on what practices a person decides to study/perform. And with that, a persons individual thought process and personal beleifs and intent is what decides wether the act of being an 'occultist' is evil or holy/bad or good.

To accuse 'all' of the 'occultists' of being 'evil and wrong' is wrong in itself. But so is the act of harboring negative thoughts towards those people that made the original accusations.

Two wrongs 'may' settle a difference, but it does not make it right or just, for either party.

[pod3]

Well, I wasn't gonna actually say Christianity, but the background of the poster was obvious.

Research choice passages of the Bible, with several translative concordances, in the interests of deCatholicizing the scope of it. You will find ALL interpretations of responsibilities, sex, drug usage, and psi to clearly misconstrued.

Also, branches of the Thelemic Order will become clear by their markings. Speaking of which, Tab, Blavatsky called the devil the light of the morning star!

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by pod3

Tab, Blavatsky called the devil the light of the morning star!

You need to read that page again buddy, because you missed something big.

quote:
The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning," or manvantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma.

she was explaining that in the origins of the christian dogma Lux or lucifer was the first angel or being but this was changed as the being worshipped as God by the christians could not possibly have originated after what is considered by christianity now to be Satan. I think there was more on this in the book, I'll try to find it.

[Radha]

Remember that the romans were followers of mithras.  Never heard of mithras?  If you read the tenets of mithrism and those of christianity, they are mostly the same.  They just took mithrism and built a mythology around jesus of nazareth and away they went.
Also something to think about.  A "God" is a word used to denote a source of something.  In ancient times the various names you'd see depicted the original Source, and then various ways that Source expressed in this universe.  Do the romans worship a God of good...or a god of evel?  Or both?  Remember Janus...the God depicted with two faces one black and one white...one evil and one good.  What if the romans tried to serve both gods.  More than food for thought here for serious researchers.
In the East, man was taught how to find Source WITHIN.  Not via a priest.  In the west the romans did all they could over the centuries to destroy anyone and any teaching that taught man that he could stand in the presence of Source without a priest.  When a priest stands between you and the Light...he only puts you in the darkness of his shadow.  That is and always has been the romans game.
What if you found out tomorrow that the so-called "occult" as it was originally taught was what jesus of nazareth actually taught.  And that the romans have worked so hard to destroy it in order to keep you in the darkness and under their control?  It would be quite a shock really and much too much of a shock for most.
Lux
Radha

[Beowulf]

Hello,

I was just curious on what people's views on the occult were. It seems very intriguing, but I'm hearing about some negative experiences when people become involved in it. What exactly is the occult? From one camp it seems to be the answer to the mysteries of existence, and I believe one of their practices is astral projection. However, from another camp, it sounds as if it is strictly about the use of black magic and the conjuration of the more negative side of the universe that should be avoided at all costs.

How exactly do we fit into all of this? Are we considered occultists because we practice astral projection? I understand that literalist religious groups frown upon such practices and upon the Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, etc... however, what are the more moderate views toward the occult and its secret societies? Can astral projection confirm any of their beliefs (that we know of)?

Basically, is the mystic tradition inherently evil? or does it teach truth and enlightenment? or yet is it a little from column A and a little from column B? []