Exploration of the Underworld in Shamanism and Witchcraft

Now one thing I am not sure of is if he's aware or not on how nonsensical it is to say going around killing animals is required for a particular gnosis. I also don't understand the many articles and statements where people triumphantly say they found a dead animal to use instead. If it is such bullshit to demand this killing, why would someone try so hard to circumvent it at all? What power is there in finding a random dead animal? For instance, if a dead toad shows up on my doorstep, it wouldn't be my first assumption to think it arrived specifically for use in ritual so as to not anger the entities.
There's a feeling around it that tends to bother me.

Agreed with all of that. The darkness that tries to appear dark is not really darkness at all. Its essence is found upon the embrace of silence and not the loud display of brute force. It rises above as a higher form of knowing. It goes forth only upon the elegant strides of honor, not heeding to the futile attempts of trying to appear. All else is really just fume and nonsense perpetrated by edgy minds indeed.

Jonathon, I only participated within her control group. I haven't read any of her books.

Rhea Kaye, the slaughtering of animals isn't even low magick in my concept. It is just a sadist at play calling what he/she does a ritual.

I have studied many paths that place sacrifice as a necessity....I omit and rewrite a work if I am incline to use it. I find I have had great success without spilling blood. I find that blood sacrifices reminds me of the old testament, you know Christianity. I know it is found there, so often I have wondered if the author can not let go of some form of that rather than connect to Gods. Just a thought.

You're right there. I think I was being too nice by calling it low magick.
I also detest the argument that we can't criticize animal sacrifice without being hypocritical because animals are killed all the time for food. I think that's a copout excuse, considering they are two different things. One involves the abuse of life for the gain of power through magick. The unfortunate reality of how animals are used for food is an entirely different subject matter.

this is not an attempt to take the edge off Mark but I can give you a little of his background to help you see from behind his eyes.  

He was an active warrior in the Bosnian war which was very intense and bloody.  He was a helicopter pilot and was out of it on the ground in active combat.  Saw many killings and bloodthirsty acts and his best friend died in his arms while Mark was holding him.  This type of prolonged activity will make a person numb inside and hollow and any killing whether animal or person does not mean a lot.  People that have not experienced this first-hand view as others have, look on them in some way as not being civilized.  As said, there are always two sides to every story.

I do not condone the sacrifice of animals. Now....hmmmmm...there are some humans I would like to wring their little necks sometime....but I can let it ride for a day or two....lol

Without a doubt you hit the nail on the head! From what I have seen, killing for power just doesn't pan out. If magick does work for those that kill for power it is a destructive force on their own mind.

I would not be able to sleep at night if I were to do such a heinous act. There is enough going on in this world that can cause a sleepless night, one doesn't need to add to it.

Maxx, that is good background on Mark. Thanks for sharing.

It's always good and fair to look into both perspectives so thank you Maxx for that. I agree that a life of warfare can do that to a person and it most certainly played a role in how Mark developed and into his own approach to magick. In that sense he may also be a victim in all of this.

I'm actually more concerned about his ego and how that may affect devotees rather than his writings on sacrifice, since those can be adapted with some care and skill into a more alchemical way of internal sacrifice rather than animals, and as you said it also reflects on his past and personal struggles.

I have wondered about the animals and why they have to experience hardship just as a human does in this world.  The entire process is constructed in a dual nature where we go through pleasure-pain experiences.  It is the push-pull affect that we experience to gain any kind of advancement.  Mark is a part of this just like others and just as we all are a part of life.  Every one of us play a part in our individual experiences.  It is like we are all in a play and the different parts in all the scenes come up in our life for us to experience.  Horror is experienced in life just as heightened joy is in different degrees.  This is all planned before birth according to what I see in natal horoscopes.  

When you say you are concerned... How would you interact to change this process?  There is the aspect involved of free choice in life.  Everyone has it.  What would you do?  I understand warning others but then again there will be some that will not hear your warning and will walk into the experience to be affected by all of this.  (This is just a small part of the play that will be in production all over the world at all times).  Mark has his part to play and it was decided on his selection before his time came up and he walked into the theatre.  

Some groups in their play, are born into an environment where nothing but war and unrest is taking place their entire life.  While others are born into a life of relative peace and mild discomfort.  What about individual consciousness and how is it all interwoven into this theatrical production? There are people that are born into sanity while others are born into insanity as well as various kinds of physical malfunction.  All this seems a bit overwhelming if you looked at it from the overview.  

Who in the hell put all of this together?  Who is really responsible bottom line with all of this?  How could you really be a part of changing this or even a small bit of a section?  Would it make a difference?
Also, are you supposed to?  So when you say you are concerned, How so?

You only have 3 min to think about your answer...

It looks like I used up my three minutes by far.
But, this reply got me thinking and is in tune with some things I've heard from a few others.
The detail about Mark's past was actually thought-provoking as well. It is interesting to get those other angles, even if one might not agree.
As for who put all this together, I wonder the same. Sometimes there is an urge to cause change. Other times there is a desire to just observe what is happening on larger scales, ponder, and see some pieces start fitting together from the puzzle of life.

A great master, that I listened to from a YouTube video, once said that... the question for a "Why?" as to the play of this whole creation and all of this endless drama and variety of happenings across the spans of billions of years of time... is simply too small for our limited human minds to comprehend as to the vastness of the cosmos and the reasons for it. His more or less jokeful or kind of preliminary answer to that was instead, "Why not?", which answers quite a whole lot but in a negative way as to the negation of the question. It removes the question rather than answers the question. But it opens up a whole other dimension of unthought of possibility in the sense of aware silence in awe and wonder towards the existence rather than trying to formulate it in your head. Perhaps a better (and more liberating) way that is, then, as we can anyways not capacitate such higher ineffable reasons in our limited frames of mind. Let's just enjoy life and seek its ultimate flowering of truest potential in a practical manner of right methods and combined self-discipline. Then... maybe all will fall into place, more and more, as it gradually reveals itself to us through a strenuous path of evolution and inner journey of illumination.

MysticLightShinethForth wrote:It removes the question rather than answers the question. But it opens up a whole other dimension of unthought of possibility in the sense of aware silence in awe and wonder towards the existence rather than trying to formulate it in your head. Perhaps a better (and more liberating) way that is, then, as we can anyways not capacitate such higher ineffable reasons in our limited frames of mind.

This, however, may not apply to exactly every subject but just such larger questions trying to encompass the reasons as to for the whole creation. However I would say that this notion of silent witnessing of awe and wonder towards such cosmic mystery should not preclude the possibility for a formulation of answers necessarily, as otherwise, for instance, we wouldn't have such systems as the Kabbalah, in my view, which were indeed received partially through such means of the contemplations of very deep mystics and illumined sages, I think. But the aspect of existential awe and wonder, I would say, then, is not just an aspect but a precondition for such revelation through a formulation of abstract ideas by the intellect that would mostly only be receptive in contemplation – but yet not inactive – towards divine inspiration. So maybe it is better to reverse the wheels a little that otherwise normally go backwards in most peoples heads in the sense of a non-illuminated machinery of unconscious thought that makes false assumptions, thinking their conjectures to be real, without them knowing it, and rather make the whole vehicle of illumination move forwards instead through a rising consciousness of higher awareness.

To some degree, that is what Rudolph Steiner is saying in his illustration of moving from one epoch to the next higher one. Collective consciousness.

Makes good sense actually. Do you think there are forces that try to stall this progress into higher epochs? Whilst we see greater awakening in people than in a very long time I believe, we also see much more blindness than almost ever before so it seems to be a time of polarity and dual split to the great extremes of the different ends of the whole spectrum. Or is my observation wrong or inaccurate, do you think? Maybe it is a separation, like the wheat from the chaff, and maybe this is what Jesus allegedly referred to in the Christian gospels of the New Testament but in a kind of prophetic parable (?) that most Christians interpreted in a way too literal sense as something to have to do with exclusive redemption for Christians but whilst in fact it might concern the whole of humanity at this present point in time at the shifting of one Djehuty (of the Crocodile) to the next Djehuty (of the Serpent) even though I very much so doubt that Jesus was a prophet speaking for anything relating to an Asetian understanding of history necessarily, haha. I think we've talked about this a few times before on this forum but it is always nice to revisit such relevant subjects from newer angles and updatesd perspectives of understanding under the light of it being a very great planetary or cosmic happening in contemporary times...

When Steiner says that the 4th will not repeat itself, (the Greek-Roman era) he continues saying that the 3rd is repeating itself in the 5th, and the 5th is where we are now.  This one statement opens many thoughts into an area I never considered before.  I am still looking at this so at this point for me personally, I am unable to venture an answer of my own thinking to your comment at this time.

Here you go, Mystic.  Food for thought.

The second condition of the earth, when the sun had detached itself but earth and moon still formed one body, came to light during the second cultural period, the old Persian, as a philosophic-religious system in the opposition of the light-principle in the sun-aura to the principle of darkness, the opposition of Ormuzd to Ahriman. The third period, the Egyptian-Babylonian-Assyrian, is a spiritual reflection of what took place when earth, sun, and moon had become three bodies. We also pointed out that the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus reflected the third epoch's astral trinity of sun, earth, and moon.

Rudolf Steiner. Egyptian Myths And Mysteries (pp. 37-38). Kindle Edition.

This last sentence is one very interesting comment.  If one takes the myths of Aset and looks at this from that light, there presents a creation of a little different observation than what is presently discussed on this site.  Steiner goes on to speak about the metaphysical quality of mankind after this separation and does speak of two different types of advanced humans.  Those that retained the ability to recall their lives previously  and those that had lost that ability.  He even gives the reasoning behind this lost ability.  This could very well be the answer to your question above and it might not be occurring with purposeful intent.  Just lack of knowledge as we both know this factor is running wild today.

Also, of additional interest to me is his discussion of the individual named Manu that was of a higher intelligence that took a separated group of humans into the isolation area of Tibet to maintain their ability and stay in contact with higher dimensions as mankind exhibited so easily before the fall of Atlantis.  This could very well extend into today's epoch with the mind set carry over but yet not widely recognized by common mankind.

Interesting. Maxx, I must apologize for being slow to respond to this. I forgot about it.

In either way, is that individual named Manu somehow related to the Hindu Manus - progenitors of humanity - and their reigns divided into fourteen different "Manvantars", which in their turn is the whole length and duration of the present universe - a "Kalpa" - when taken together in consecutive time? (According to Hindu cosmology our universe has lived about half its length now and we're at the 7th Manvantar or age of a Manu.) I'm reading a book at the moment that's going to discuss this in the next chapter so maybe this will come in handy if what you described was a reference towards one of those Manus.

I have the full transcripts of the video where R. Steiner reads from the statements.  I have not gone back through them as I am completely snowed under with work in July.  So in answer to your question, I have no idea about that connection.  Also, I have never had the first sign of interest in the Hindu structure at all so you are the authority there.  I never headed to India at all but have traveled in large areas of the rest of the planet.

What I found interesting in the wording he used as to Manu, is the connection to the supposed Jesus of the New Testament having his actual name as being
King Izas Manu and is so close it could even be referring to the character named Jesus himself as in some cases it is mentioned that this Jesus headed to Tibet. I know that Steiner was believing in some other dimension state of Jesus actually existing. (To me, this lines up with what Isaiah actually was teaching, that Jesus had already come 800 years before common bible teaching says he came).   This is what caught my eye but there is so small a percentage of connection actually being made in that area here in what R. Steiner is saying, that is reaching for it.  I would think that Manu would have been from earlier times and would even be more relevant to your synchronicity being correct, if at all possible.

If I'm not mistaken on my suspicion I guess the word Manu in this context actually and originally derives from Hinduism, presumably with the onflow of Theosophy and the other related circles to that which sprang up around that time when Rudolf Steiner was active even if he parted ways with Theosophy later on.

UPDATE: Now that I looked at it, though, just with a smaller overlook, I see that he made reference to Noah being a Manu? This coincides with various flood myths around the world and even Hinduism stating one of those in similarity where a Manu saved the world from a flood which might have been the exact same mythological representation or historical happening as described in the Old Testament with Noah indeed.

According to Matsyapurana, the first person on this Earth is Manu. The Sanskrit term Maanav meaning a human was derived from the name Manu denoting his children. Manu was the son of Prajapati (another name of Brahma) and Shatrupa (another name of Saraswati). God created Ananti as the wife of Manu. These two are said to be the parents of this world according to Hindu Mythology.

Manu and Manvantara
Manu is considered the author of the ancient Sanskrit code of law called Manu Smriti. Manu is the head of each Kalpa (Aeon), which consists of fourteen Manvantaraas. Each Manvantara lasts for the lifetime of a Manu and hence there are 14 different Manus such as Swayambhu Manu, Svarochisha Manu, Uttama Manu, Tapasa Manu, Raivata Manu, Chakshusha Manu, Vaivasvata Manu, Savarni Manu, Daksha Savarni Manu, Brahma Savarni Manu, Dharma Savarni Manu, Rudra Savarni Manu, Deva Savarni Manu and Indra Savarni Manu heading 14 Manvantaras respectively.

Each Manvantara contains nearly 306,720,000 years. After these 14 Manvantaras, that particular Kalpa ends. Each Kalpa is nearly equal to 4.32 billion years. There are many kalpas while the name of the present Kalpa is Bhadra Kalpa, the previous Kalpa is Vyuhakalpa and the next one will be Nakshatrakalpa.

This is why I suppose I have never had any interest in Hindu history. I have never seen it connected very much to anything else I have had an interest in. lol.