More Energy

Jason has a well-thought out and complex post about energy on his blog. He carefully explains how material objects have “energy,” for example.

But why not just say they are conscious? Why use “energy?” It’s not physical energy by any means, and I don’t think he would suggest it is (I hope so, anyway). And it doesn’t behave at all like energy in our physical lives behaves. If I can give something “energy” by painting it with a particular herb, why not simply say I’m making a symbolic link? It gives us nothing to call it “energy,” because energy doesn’t behave that way. Call it communication, then I can think of it in terms of symbols, which is it is, rather than energy, which it is not.

I simply don’t understand why magicians throw up so many barriers and complexity between the idea that we’re dealing with the pervasively conscious nature of matter and mind. Why build all these sandcastles about “energy,” which it is clearly not, when we can talk, instead, about communication, which it clearly and plainly is. Then we can talk about how to communicate more effectively with the underlying consciousness of reality rather than trying to figure out how to “get more energy.” Eat a friggin’ sandwich if you want more energy; study symbols if you want to understand magic.

About these ads

4 Responses to “More Energy”

  1. inominandum Says:

    Thanks for the kind words about my post.

    The reason that we talk energy and not simply consciousness or symbols is that energy is a better fit for some modes of magic. Magic is not one thing that operates by one process be it spirits, mind, energy, or information.

    Its more like a car, there is electric battery, gas, lubricant, and good old round wheels all contributing.

    In the case of the material level that I speak about above, there is more tot it than just symbolism. The energy of an item gets patterned by the symbolism, but it is not JUST symbolism. You can do certain operations with a plastic wand or plastic statue for instance because the symbolism is correct and is the primary operating force. It is not however something that a rootworker would use specifically because it is a “dead” material. It does not “conduct” energy. While I do not think that the various types of energy used in magic are the same as physical energies, there is enough of an overlap to make it useful. In Tibet, various tools are made from specific substances because they conduct energy well. Its that simple.

    The problem gets even worse when we start considering magic done at the etheric level such as Accupuncture or Tsa Lung practice. It is not symbolism that is warming the monks body doing tummo, and it is not an information meridian that the accupuncturist is effecting to heal. Energy is not spot on, but its better than most.

    Read through Bardon and replace the word “fluid” or “power” with consciousness, symbol, or energy and the whole things falls apart. Those things are important but so is energy.

    • I’m clearly not communicating.

      “Plastic” being “dead” IS a symbol. The kind of energy you’re describing does not exist, and often is *NOT* a good fit for anything we’re doing with magic. It’s more often a distraction. The time people spend trying to accumulate Bardon’s fluid could more productively be spent meditating to clear the channel. Then you can use whatever metaphor for “fluid” you like, and it’ll work fine.

      Every time you mention energy you slip into hidden symbolic talk anyway: it’s patterned (by what? symbols or information). It’s raised (by what? Thinking and visualizing). It’s directed (by what? Our wills, which are mental). It seems if you want to actually use this mysterious energy, you’ve got to start thinking about the mind rather than energy anyway. So why bother with the obscurity and why not go directly to working on your real tool, the mind? (Which I know very well that you do and teach effectively)

      I cannot understand, other than “tradition,” why you continue to stick with all this energy talk. What, other than a lot of useless metaphoric baggage, does energy talk *get* us?

    • Also, I think one of the snags is that you think I’m saying “only symbolic” when I’m saying “symbolic.” There’s nothing “only” about a symbol. Being symbolic is what makes things real; everything is a concrete symbol for the idea in the Nous. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t exist.

  2. inominandum Says:

    You write: “Every time you mention energy you slip into hidden symbolic talk anyway: it’s patterned (by what? symbols or information). ”

    Correct. That doesnt mean that the energy or chi or prana or lung or ruach or mana does not exist. It means that it is patterned by something other than it itself. You have identified the very point that I am trying to make. Again we are back to the car argument. “Everytime you mention wheels you slip into hidden gasoline talk anyway: its driven (by what? gasoline or electricity)

    You write: “It’s raised (by what? Thinking and visualizing).” No. That is one facet of it, but not one that corresponds to the more tangible levels of it. What about breath work, various physical positions and muscle contractions, certain vibratory formula, etc. In each post you are ignoring anything that does not fit your argument.

    In Tantra for instance the work done with thinking and visualizing is primarily done in the Kye Rim or generation stage as a preliminary to the work of the Dzog Rim or completion stage. Dzog Rim practices do still have elements of thought and visualization, but are defined as Dzog Rim BECAUSE they involve more tangible energies that need to be moved by breath, muscle, tone, etc. The monk doing Tummo is not raising parts of his body to 117* through just thinking and visualizing, it is through teh manipulation of Tsa Lung and Bindu which usually get translated as channel, energy and drops.

    I do indeed teach that working on the mind is the highest and most important aspect of magic. On one level I completely agree that everything is consciousness but that means EVERYTHING. If we are ready to deal with chi and channels and spirits as nothing but metaphors for mental process than we should be ready to deal with physical appearance in the same way. This is the high view, but until we have really integrated that view into every level of our being, we cannot abandon the relative reality. We can stand in the street and contemplate how all is maya but unless you have that down at a very deep level the car is still going run you over.

    I get that you dont mean ONLY a symbol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: