The Occult, are you a believer?

["Skeet" McD]

What is the line between religion and the occult?...Is it a matter of where you personally fall, I wonder: if it is my belief, it is religion, if it is yours, it is occult superstition?

Oh boy, Vi: here's a can of vipers!

There's a good deal of rough truth in your "my religion/your superstition (and vice-versa!)" dichotomy, no matter what you make of it. Even those of the "Truth is a trackless land" school are unlikely to find all beliefs equally valid, no? (and yes, that's an honest question)--and once you become a believer of a particular system (that would be...."me" for instance) you inevitably become much more fully involved in that sortation.

But, at perhaps a more approachable level...I think your first question was answered earlier in this thread--with no appreciable disagreement, as I remember. While the term "occult" is used very--IMHO, too--freely in day-to-day speech to serve as a synonym for a variety of paranormal/spiritual/Satanic/fill-in-the-blank phenomena...it actually means "hidden" and is generally used specifically to mean a higher, secret kind of spiritual knowledge available only to adepts, illuminati, whatever...

Taken this way, "occult" knowledge can--and does--exist within individual belief systems (a number have already been mentioned in this thread: Sufism in Islam; Kabbalah in Judaism; Gnosticism in historical Christianity, etc.)

Don't know if that helps...but it's the best I can do.

"Skeet"

 

[Viola]

I was thinking something similar: that it can exist within other religious belief systems.

I know many fine women, especially older women, (in my own personal experience, covering the range of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, but I'm tempted to think its broader than that) who would be tempted to give you a smack in the ear if you described them as "into the occult" or but as far as one or more of: protective amulets, belief in angels, or communicating with the dead, etc. are right alongside with it. Its an aspect of their religiousness, not necessarily an effort to Tamper With Things Man Is Not Meant To Know.

I hope this makes sense and does not offend anyone.

 

[stephen1965]

Stephen1965 you assume a great deal I am not sure what evidence you base your assumptions on.

The people I surround myself with clearly strive to be "awoken" or enlightened. To have an epiphany regarding the issues they are dealing with is the norm. It is based on education. Not only intellectual education, but, education of the heart, mind and soul.

This is where balance and equanimity meet the touchstone of all grown which is challenge. In my world it is impossible to exist without being "awakened".

I don't think I'm assuming or believing anything. For all I know you and the people you surround yourself with are already enlightened or are part of an esoteric school. From what you say about 'heart, mind and soul', it is entirely possible. I really wouldn't be able to tell at this moment but I don't think it is possible for the 'whole of humanity' to be 'enlightened' (in the sense of enlightenment being the ultimate in man's possibilities). There is evidence against that being the case and IMO the odds are stacked against it.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Is someone who believes in angels, religious talismans, etc. an occultist?

I ask because it pertains to me personally.

Many beliefs stem from the beliefs of the faithful, not those who see themselves in some sort of Satanic or anti-religious light. Get back in the name of Jesus, etc.

Viola this may be a way to approach your thoughts.

In his 1878 Essay on the Development of the Christian Doctrine John H. Newman wrote: "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure3, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison4, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church."

It is interesting to note that John Newman was a Catholic prelate -

And Jaques Cousteau buttresses the aforementioned "where there are few species, like at the South Pole, the ecosystem is fragile. The greater the number of species, the stronger the ecosystem. And the same applies to culture: Monoculture is fragile. If cultural diversity is lost, the human species will become extinct."


Constantine in 325 AD began the process of converting the official religion of Roman Empire from Paganism to Christianity. It seems he modeled Christianity on many customs that were familiar and acceptable to Jews and Pagans at that time. Please also note, that in those days, religion and belief were intertwined with superstition.

Whether this is my perspective or not is immaterial. This stuff is pretty incendiary. To voice my thoughts would be asking some angry posters to my house with pitchforks and torches. lol lol lol

 

[Viola]

Constantine in 325 AD began the process of converting the official religion of Roman Empire from Paganism to Christianity. It seems he modeled Christianity on many customs that were familiar and acceptable to Jews and Pagans at that time. Please also note, that in those days, religion and belief were intertwined with superstition.

To quibble, I don't think much of Constantine's efforts were to model anything on Jewish custom of the time, but rather to distance Christianity from that tradition. Certainly Christianity had references to Jewish belief (Passover-Easter, Shavout-Penecost, etc) but I wouldn't say close resemblance was particularly encouraged? See the moving of Sabbath, etc.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

To quibble, I don't think much of Constantine's efforts were to model anything on Jewish custom of the time, but rather to distance Christianity from that tradition. Certainly Christianity had references to Jewish belief (Passover-Easter, Shavout-Penecost, etc) but I wouldn't say close resemblance was particularly encouraged? See the moving of Sabbath, etc.

I agree I think Constantine simply wanted to to facilitate a working society. For example, he did not forbid anyone from celebrating the Judaic tradition, but, he did outlaw proselytizing. Put it simply, he recognized the Judaic religion. His approach towards Christianity was very pragmatic and then very dogmatic.

He also built temples etc where no connects to Christianity could be found. I think he just wanted everybody to get along.

 

[stephen1965]

HungaryTom
Being solar per se is not something good or bad since both Christ and the Antichrist are solar

That's true. The solar/Christ/Antichrist idea seems to be an explanation or exploration of man's limits. IMO what is bad/evil = ignorance. Morals are for society and can change. Moral were made for man not the other way round. The AntiChrist, well I don't know him, but I guess the idea would be a developed being who is without 'conscience'. As far as I understand, the idea of the solar is connected with man's limits as distinguished from God/the Absolute (the Sun AbSOLute) which we cannot attain. So I would think that Sol or Sun was God but he is not the old creator God . Seems like the difference between the old and new testaments somehow... Christ speaks of Love and is Solar whereas the old testament God (abSOLute) is the creator of all. But I'm no expert on this part of the Christian system/symbolism.
I'm still interested in knowing why people have this 'belief' thing going on.

 

["Skeet" McD]

In his 1878 Essay on the Development of the Christian Doctrine John H. Newman wrote: "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure3, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison4, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church."...It is interesting to note that John Newman was a Catholic prelate

Now, where did I put that pitchfork? But quite seriously, as a Roman Catholic, you (and ol' Cardinal Newman, although I believe he wrote this before coming to Rome, yes?) are dead on. While it is (perhaps?) fftopic: , in my own opinion, the Roman Catholic Church ain't called that for nothing...historically, they did become, and then supercede, the Roman Empire...and adopted exactly the same methods that had in large measure made that Empire successful: the Roman Empire was essentially an embracing Empire...yes, they blew into town, took control by whatever means they needed to use...but then pretty much let folks do as they had done: politics and religion were the same to them...but instead of wiping out local deities and practices, they pretty much said "OK: put up a temple to the Emperor over there; make sure you sacrifice to it (and send your taxes)...and keep on doing what you've been doing. Oh..."Epona" is now "Epona/Diana". Carry on." The Catholic Church...carried on, as well. They moved into an area (by whatever means necessary) and said: OK: The Temple of Epona/Diana is now the Church of Our Lady. You can keep doing what you've been doing, but THIS is what it means now (see also: Christmas trees, etc).

At the end of the day, Catholicism, like the Empire before it, was an embracing/absorbing culture....it took pagan things and practices and baptized them into Christian belief. This, ultimately, is what caused the Reformers to worry (and, frankly IMHO with good cause: folk practice rarely follows theo-logic ). And, therefore, Protestantism has been--from the start--not a religion of embracing and baptizing, but of repeated fracturings and excisions in the cause of "purification."

I'm saying this as a purely historical observation....I'm not interested in arguing which way is the "right" way...but I think there's plenty to consider vis-a-vis the whole religion/superstition/occult angle in this very painted-with-a-broad brush overview of the dominant Western strands of Christianity.

"Skeet"

 

[stephen1965]

School

'Only in an esoteric school can one be 'awakened''. I still stand by this. It's not an assumption. It's a general statement. If you thought about it, it's perfectly reasonable since it's for that very reason that there are esoteric schools. There is an esoteric circle which is 'an awakened part' of humanity let's say and which has 'secrets' and an exoteric circle which might enter the esoteric circle given the right circumstances. In the exoteric circle one might have small awakenings or big awakenings etc just as one might find money on the ground or win the lottery but these are very very unlikely and usually non permanent.

In my world it is impossible to exist without being "awakened".

I think I understand what you are getting at... but what does 'world' mean here?

 

[helenhighwater]

There's a very interesting piece on a 1910s ouija board panic in California in this month's Fortean Times, should anyone be interested. I personally think ouijas are dangerous in the wrong hands, because I think it stirs up subconscious things which shouldn't be extruded via a parlour game.

From what I've read about Crowley, I think he was a bit daft, and I find it amusing how he used elements from Freemasonry rituals in his stuff, which has also passed onto some pagan things too (especially amusing to me because a pagan I know declared how much they found Freemasonry "creepy" and "weird" - "you do realise that some pagan ritual was lifted from Freemasonry, don't you?" *cue embarrassed gasp* then again, this person believes in the reality of "The Burning Times", which is what happens when a belief system comes entirely from the "spirituality" section of Waterstones. It's bad history. ). My grandad was a Freemason and pretty much it's business men dressing up in bishop's mitres and aprons. It's like the Round Table/Rotary but without the bbqs. but people are suspicious of anything "secret", aren't they?

The reality of Jesus as a real person is quite interesting. I was raised Congregational but have become a Catholic and I have to say that in my view, at the least he was a real person who was quite a personality and developed a following. Then as he passed into legend, the "write-up" his life gets in the Bible is embellished by pre-existing myth, so you have the solar child thing, which you can see parallels of in many other belief systems. At church as a child, when Christ bleeds blood and water at the crucifixion, it was explained to us as "showing how he's not like other men." The point is, the 'water' is ichor, which the Ancient Greeks (who knocked together the New Testament) believed that gods had in their veins instead of blood. So in bleeding blood and ichor, it's a sign to the Ancient Greeks reading it that Christ is both human and deity.

Interestingly, in Iraq, there's a religion which does actually worship/venereate Lucifer, but not the Judao-Christian version. They see him almost in a Christ-like way, seeing him as a bringer of light/star of the morning, and their gravestones look like slightly-unfurled umbrellas, to represent rays of light.

I lived in a haunted house for three years and saw several ghosts and some rather odd things happened, but then that's paranormal rather than occult. However, whenever things do happen, I always try to work out if there's a practical reason for it. Sometimes there isn't. One day, quite recently, a bulldog clip materialised in mid-air in the middle of our lounge and dropped to the floor. Erm... [huh]

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I think I understand what you are getting at... but what does 'world' mean here?

I do not mean to be confusing. My "world" is merely an expression for my daily activities and contacts.

 

[stephen1965]

I do not mean to be confusing. My "world" is merely an expression for my daily activities and contacts.

I just wanted to be clear about my 'assumptions'. It's part of my daily practice to try to look at my assumptions and unfounded beliefs. To challenge them if you will. I don't want you to think I was trying belittle your experiences/epiphanies.. or anything else. (Although spiritual pride, or arrogance is a hazard to us all I would think).
Since we are venturing to talk about 'occult' and 'esotericism', my opinion is that there are certain teachings which come from esoteric schools... Those teachings are concerned with increasing consciousness and conscience. Also IMO, as we(generally) are, we have no fixed/permanent consciousness and little conscience. They come and go. To believe or imagine that we(generally) have a permanent Self or 'I' is IMO an unfounded belief. It's a constant 'battle' or effort of awareness or vigilance... I do not entirely discount that there can be a certain little permanence though or that some have achieved a permanence.
I think it could be said that esoteric schools seem to teach permanence if you like. IMO esoteric schools are like 'guardians' of civilization.
Anyway, not to go on to much but since I have very little way of telling who among us has connections with such a school I think it's fair to communicate as if none of us have reached our FULL potential or achieved 'being awake' although I suspect that most people here have had moments of being awake.
Hope this makes some sense.

 

[Elmonteman]

Is there a Wizard in the house?

I've enjoyed everyone's thoughts on this very open ended question. It's difficult defining "occult" and it's hard to say to what is meant by "believer." But to me, the "occult" implies a type of power over some aspect of the world we live in--maybe even another person that is beyond the ken of ordinary physics. This tangentially rubs up against esotericism here and there. But the esoteric schools seem to look to refining ones own awareness, or psychological/mental health not so much affecting the external. I would say that I'm a believer in "esotericism" in that I think we can improve our own awareness and spirituality. I think I would even like to believe in the occult. Unfortunately, if we were to assume a random distribution of adepts of the occult, some good some bad. Then horrible situations like the thousands of murders in Juarez, Mexico would have some merciful conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_homicides_in_Ciudad_Juárez In other words, if occultism existed and someone could magically "see," why doesn't this Dr. Strange help us? Or for that matter make it rain candy?

 

[stephen1965]

... if occultism existed and someone could magically "see," why doesn't this Dr. Strange help us? Or for that matter make it rain candy?

That's interesting.Basically it makes one wonder how much influence can an esoteric school have over the rest of society and how much influence can a single person/occult practitioner have. It must be a matter of degrees because 'Dr. Strange' as you put it might not be able to perform miracles even if he was an advanced being by far compared to ordinary man. I would think that also there are some laws even advanced beings cannot surpass. Theoretically, an esoteric school gives out civilizing influences into society so the help is there but it has to be able to be recieved. (Knowledge, for instance would be a help/gift but understanding cannot be given).
Raining candy helps no one

 

[Elmonteman]

Hey Stephen1965,
I think you missed my point: By and large, the esoteric is not the occult. Esotericism helps many people because it's you (or maybe a group) working on you. As you improve your awareness and health this helps everyone. Occultism a la Dr. Strange and other sorcerers, purports power that is never quite demonstrated.

 

[Subvet642]

Raining candy helps no one

Whoa, whoa, whoa there! That depends on what kind of candy we're talking about. Are we talking about that horrible, hard ribbon candy that only gets dusty in Grandma's candy dish, or are we talking Kit Kats? It makes a difference. lol lol lol

 

[stephen1965]

Hey Stephen1965,
I think you missed my point: By and large, the esoteric is not the occult. Esotericism helps many people because it's you (or maybe a group) working on you. As you improve your awareness and health this helps everyone. Occultism a la Dr. Strange and other sorcerers, purports power that is never quite demonstrated.

Sorry Elmonteman, I guess I did miss your point. I think that you're right that one can draw a distinction between them and it's probably imortant to do so. I suppose the two things are so often talked about as being the same. I've often read (as I'm sure most of us have) that Hitler 'dabbled' in the occult. I'm not sure of course (because I don't have real evidence) but I think it's also possible that he was a member of an esoteric school who, (technical jargon coming up), 'crystalised'. Seems that he might have acquired certain 'abilities' or an amount of 'being' but somehow buffered 'conscience'. (By crystalised I mean something like cut himself in half psychologically).
This is merely speculation though.

...are we talking Kit Kats?

Perhaps I was wrong to think that chocolate doesn't have the power to awaken us from our slumbers. I don't say no to Kit Kat. I guess you can use almost anything as an alarm clock...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I must admit...some of this stuff seems over my head to decipher...or even follow the directions of these various quests of schooling one's self. Perhaps because my greatest "awakening" was experienced when I finally "allowed" it to happen. Otherwise...serious minded..logically always seeking knowledge,understanding..and with that process...the always paramount need for"proof" only actually complicated the matter. Missing the mark...because in my mind..it must be a complex journey to find any "Awakening"...and then another endless education of convincing one's self that it was the "right" or true path....or actually an "awakening"at all. In the end..it was releasing myself from that avenue...taking a chance...that the humanistic,materialistic searches and struggling with intellect...were actually the cause of concealment and mainly unsuccessful or unfulfilling efforts. So simple that "it" or the opening for truth was constantly overlooked. An "awakening"...that leads in another direction ...but also an experience that brings confidence and assurance that the search could,indeed,now,be complete. That simple! However...knowledge was now abundant if desired..but not required. Still..I wanted to know much more..not to prove anything...but only to fill myself with what had opened up for me. A spiritual reality that makes everything else look like a mirror image although through distorted glass.
My conclusion became that there can be many "Awakenings'...leading to bits and pieces of what is actually spiritually true....but then there can also be experienced an awakening that opens it all up...no matter your position or role on the stage. Like most things really worthwhile..it is releasing that ego of self...that ingrained self control that it should always be in our hands. A continual fear of being led as sheep by something or someone besides ourself.
Is the occult real or only deception? Doesn't really matter with the awareness...acceptance of who is in charge. Sorry if that sounds too religious...or spiritual...and it certainly isn't meant as a pious or uppity-up point of view. The assurance is really there for anyone and everyone. No exceptions.
HD

 

[Creeping Past]

as we (generally) are, we have no fixed/permanent consciousness and little conscience. They come and go. To believe or imagine that we(generally) have a permanent Self or 'I' is IMO an unfounded belief.

I agree. Wasteful wishful thinking directed by people's preferred control structure.

I do not entirely discount that there can be a certain little permanence though or that some have achieved a permanence.
I think it could be said that esoteric schools seem to teach permanence if you like. IMO esoteric schools are like 'guardians' of civilization.

Are you saying that certain universal concepts are guarded over time by some permanent cadre, so to speak? I can conceive of such a thing being useful in a theological context. The Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches, for example, have had great influence over the spiritual lives of millions for the best part of 2,000 years. I'd say it's at least possible that esoteric teachings might be as long-lasting.

The teachings of the Buddha still echo after 2,500 years, although there's tension between those who would make a religion out of his teachings and those who regard the teachings as an method in themselves.

Always a tension between knowledge-as-structure and knowledge-as-experience...

I'm in the latter camp. Esoteric schools, for me, are the other side of the coin to the established religious schools. When given two choices, I'll generally go for the third one.

 

[Creeping Past]

In the end..it was releasing myself from that avenue...taking a chance...that the humanistic,materialistic searches and struggling with intellect...were actually the cause of concealment and mainly unsuccessful or unfulfilling efforts.

That's pretty much my take on things. Taking part in some intellectual game — for me, it was a couple of university degrees — is not the same thing as experiencing what you think/do/are/are not.

many "Awakenings'

Yes, I think so too. I'm not sure it's is a matter of plateau-ing and then coasting the Awakened Superhighway to Nirvana.

Although I see what you mean regarding self-control, there's another kind of self-control that's positive and useful. It's the sort of self-control that you describe when talking about letting it happen: the self-control that enables you to understand experience by allowing you to take a step back and see it happen.