Do We Need the Word Adorcism?

 I have, on a few occasions, asserted that I don’t like the word adorcism. I clearly like words. I make a lot of posts and comments about word use and the meanings of words. So, it probably isn’t surprising that there are words about which I have strong opinions. I am going to try not to waste a blog post by just writing “ugh, I hate adorcism so much!” My goal is to talk about modes of interacting with spirits while talking about why the word isn’t the best option for discussing spirit interactions. 

So…what is adorcism? It’s a word that developed in the field of religious anthropology. Luc de Heusch was a Belgian filmmaker who moved into the field of anthropology in the 1950s. He coined the word adorcism. It seems his original use of the word was to describe acts to placate a possessing spirit, or to make it happy. This allows for interactions with a possessing spirit, whether in possession of a person or a place, to be a positive relationship instead of only adversarial. The term reflects the fact that many cultures engage spirit relationships which include possession in positive and devotional contexts rather than purely apotropaic ones. 

Eventually, the word came to be used to describe positive possession or voluntary possessions. This seems to be the way the word is most often used, although “most often” is still kind of limited. It’s not a super broadly used term in modern magic and occultism. I have noticed some increase in use, but it mostly comes up amongst practitioners who have a background in Harner’s Core Shamanism. 

The connection with the Core Shamanism community makes sense since that system draws very heavily from anthropological ways of structuring and analyzing spiritual and religious traditions. The idea of voluntary possession would also be more relevant to that community than the broader occult community since positive possession has largely been under explored in most modern occultism. Fortunately, that lack of exploration seems to be shifting. 

As positive or intentional possession becomes more common in modern occult communities we need words to describe it. So, why not adorcism? 

Well, in a very basic sense, it’s a nonsensical neologism. While it has become popular to assert that language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, in order to function descriptively, it still needs to follow basic rules so people can understand it. 

Adorcism breaks the same rule polyamory breaks…although, maybe hypocritically, I’m fine with the word polyamory. Both words combine Greek and Latin elements. Typically, when we use Greek or Latin roots, prefixes, and suffixes, we primarily stick components from one source or another - but not always. 

That’s a pretty minor problem though. The bigger problem is that the word is gobbledygook. Ad means to or towards, and is used as an opposite for ex, which means from. So, if exorcism is forcefully casting out a spirit then adorcism is kindly inviting a spirit, right?

That would work if “orcism” meant something like “cast” or “direct a spirit.” Exorcism would then mean “direct a spirit away from,” and adorcism would mean “direct a spirit into.” It would make a lot of sense. But, “orcism” doesn’t mean anything. It’s derived from “horkizein” meaning “to cause to swear” and horkizein, in turn, comes from “horkos” meaning “oath.” 

Exorcism doesn’t mean driving out a spirit, it means conjuration. Conjuration essentially breaks down to “bound together by oath.”  Both words refer to the application of a source of authority, usually in the form of a name of or relationship with a divine figure. By applying this authority the magician and the spirit are bound together by the power of that authority to each uphold their duties and responsibilities to one another and anything they agree on together. 

From that perspective, while “ad” may be an antonym for “ex,” adorcism is not an antonym for exorcism. Now, I’ve seen some people say that they hadn’t thought of it as an antonym for exorcism, but that seems to clearly be the idea behind the word. That idea is part of the problem. By framing exorcism as the forceful casting out of a spirit and adorcism as a devotional invitation of a spirit it misinforms the populace. The type of relationship and interaction which is described by “adorcism” is in a wholly unrelated category from the relationship described by “exorcism,” and the difference isn’t one of in/out, willful/non-consenting - the whole mechanism and the perspective on the spirits and their role within the community or while interacting with humans is entirely different. 

To start unpacking this, we should first circle back to the idea of exorcism. 

Exorcism is not always or exclusively the casting out of a spirit. Exorcism includes willfully calling upon spirits. Voluntary possession can also occur within the context of exorcism. Magicians are referred to as exorcists in some magical texts. An exorcism is establishing a relationship in which the exorcist can interact with, influence, and possibly direct a spirit through the application of divine authority. There is an inherent component of binding when discussing exorcism, but, again, not just of the spirit, also of the magician. 

The binding element is one of the factors that distinguishes the relationship in exorcism from that of adorcism. Another element that distinguishes them is that exorcism can both be used as a process for calling a spirit in as well as for sending a spirit away…at least, that seems like a distinction at first, but it may not be. 

Exorcism can be a magical act in which we get spirits to do things for us or explain things to us. The Catholic Church recognizes this and actually instructs its exorcists against using the process that way. They understand that the Roman Ritual Exorcism has the same essential elements needed to perform a magical exorcism. Exorcism can also be a curative act in which a vexing spirit is sent away. It is not the drawing out of a spirit, but the commanding and binding of a spirit. When used to send a spirit away, specifically, it is apotropaic exorcism. 

For those unfamiliar, apotropaic magic is magic that protects against something. An apotropaic exorcism is the use of binding and commanding a spirit to prevent it from harming or bothering someone. But, not all exorcism is apotropaic. 

As said above, we can use exorcism to call upon spirits to ask them to do things. Anytime we use the rituals of the Heptameron, The Dannel, the Ars Goetia, or even several PGM texts, along with numerous other rituals from various grimoires and remnants and fragments from other cultures, we are using forms of exorcism. The PGM texts include examples of using secret and magical names to call upon gods and spirits to directly appear. This theurgic or magical experience of a god or spirit showing up in a clear vision for the magician is called an epiphany. There are also a few examples in the PGM where the spirit is called to inhabit the person who is doing the spell, or a vessel who is working with the person casting the spell. This is a form of voluntary possession accomplished through tools of exorcism. In Familiar Unto Me: Witches Sorcerers and Their Spirit Companions I published a ritual and discussion of the use of the ritual in which the tools of exorcism were applied for the purpose of willful voluntary spirit possession. 

What are we talking about when we use the word adorcism?

Heusch described it as actions to placate or accommodate a possessing spirit. Later definitions say that it is voluntary or curative possession. These are very different things. We should explore each of them. 

Accommodating or placating a spirit gives us a lot of direction in thinking about this. When we call upon spirits we often do things to welcome them and in that process we might do things that make them easier to receive or easier to work with. This might include giving them water to soothe them, using soothing music, or giving sweet foods to sweeten or please them. Sometimes this might involve coaxing or complimenting language, although that might also be used in calling them in the first place. 

This is working an entirely different type of relationship from exorcism. In exorcism, even if there is not antagonism between the exorcist and the spirit, there is typically distance between them. The process is not a friendly process, even if we feel friendly and comfortable with the spirits. They are commanded to come, or compelled to come when we work through an exorcistic structure. This other mode of working implores the spirit to come, or requests for the spirit to come by calling upon or asking the spirit itself. We aren’t calling upon the spirit’s superiors; we’re calling to the spirit directly. In many traditions music is involved. Sometimes the spirit is praised. Sometimes gifts are presented to the spirit in the process of calling it. 

The spirit has the power and the ability to make decisions when we invite the spirit by approaching it as a supplicant, an ally, or a friend. This is the big difference between exorcism and techniques we might describe as adorcism. In these more congenial processes there may also be particular rhythms, songs, materials, designs and decorations, or other ritual techniques which might increase the likelihood of success or which might give us a little more leverage in creating the interaction. In many such cases, when multiple people are involved, the spirit might choose who it wants to interact with or through. There is, to some degree, a more open and organic structure in such circumstances. 

When we consider the idea of placating a possessing spirit, that could also involve dealing with a spirit that is possessing someone or inhabiting a place non-consensually, or in a vexing manner. So, apotropaic adorcism is also possible. The easiest example to think of in such a case is a haunting. You can go into a haunted space and call upon more powerful or authoritative spirits to forcibly clear the haunting or to command out the haunting spirit. Or, you can go in and offer gifts and consolation to calm the disturbed spirit, you might need to coax the spirit out, or calm the spirit and offer it a new place to reside. 

Some people might position the difference between these approaches on the basis of animism. Some would claim that one is animistic and the other isn’t. This is kind of an unfair value judgment. Both approaches are animistic. One is friendlier than the other, but just like with humans some situations need a friendly approach, some need a forceful one, and some need you to call in someone with more power and authority. 

This is another issue with the adorcism/exorcism dichotomy. While there isn’t an inherent expression that one is better than the other, by using words which suggest that they are opposites it can easily imply or indicate to people that they are opposing approaches, which for many people would lead to the assumption that one is good and one is bad. In reality, both are tools to have in a toolkit. It is reasonable to assume that cultures with a more animistic awareness will often have both approaches available to apply in the appropriate circumstances. 

So, if we really think about it, most of us are probably familiar with interactions in which we placate or accommodate a spirit. If we keep a shrine and make offerings, if we pleasantly entreat a spirit and give it gifts when it arrives, if a coax and sweet talk a spirit into aiding us, or any manner of thing we do to be pleasing or to seem kind and inviting when dealing with a spirit to get it to show up, help out, or vacate a space falls into this category. 

Framing of the concept of possession might need to be expanded from what most people think of when they think of possession if we want to keep this concept specific to “possessing” spirits. Possession doesn’t always mean a spirit is in the driver’s seat occupying a body, or that it is occupying a space and keeping people out. Possession can refer to a closer interactive proximity between a spirit and a human, or a spirit being present in a space in ways that are noticeable and interactive. 

When we consider these factors, many of us engage in these interactions with spirits. We don’t necessarily think of them as adorcism, even though the original meaning of the word would include these things. Whether we need a word or not to describe these activities is a question that I’m not sure I have an answer to. If we have a shrine and a spirit resides there or routinely occupies that space and we give it cool water, flowers, and sweet incense then we’re making offerings. We’re tending to the shrine. We’re honoring our spirit relationships. We don’t call these things adorcism, and if we did, it would likely create confusion. We have clear ways to describe these interactions even if we don’t have a set word for them. 

Do we need words for cooling or soothing a possessing spirit beyond the words cooling or soothing? Do we need a special term for coaxing out a ghost by resolving its issues or offering gifts and a new place to live? Maybe, but maybe not. 

Either way, while we could technically apply adorcism in those instances, it isn’t how most people use the term. Voluntary, desired, or curative possession is the more common usage. Adorcistic invocation might be used to describe ritual processes for calling a spirit in for a temporary possession, regardless of whether the intention is a partial or a full possession. So, let’s explore that concept. 

First, let’s consider a popular form of intentional possession in European Traditional Magic. The Abramelin working. The Abramelin working is primarily focused on preparing the magician and focusing the magician so that they are ready to receive their Holy Guardian Angel. The Angel doesn’t enter into and control the magician, but the invocation of the angel at the end of the months long preparatory ritual establishes a special relationship with the Angel. We can call upon and interact with the Angel without doing the Abramelin ritual. The point of the Abramelin ritual is to immerse us into such a focused and purified state that we can enter into a closer communion with the Angel and create an on going bond of awareness and interaction. We’re causing the spirit to reside in close and openly interactive proximity. We’re creating a form of possession. Most people would not call the Abramelin ritual adorcism or adorcistic. 

The anthropological origin of the word associates it with cultures outside the white European context. When we think of adorcism we think of North Asian shamans and African religious and magical systems. Those were the sorts of cultures the word was developed to describe. In Pagan and NeoPagan contexts sometimes it is used to talk about supplicating a god in the manner that many NeoPagan books would call invocation, or calling upon a god or spirit with the intention that it enter you. Most NeoPagan books use the term “invocation” for this process, but that word is incorrect. Some writers and teachers have adopted adorcism as an alternate term. In wide use though, we don’t apply it in those more European inspired contexts. 

There is an element to the term which reflects the colonizer’s ethnographic gaze. 

Despite that, is the term describing something which is exclusively different from exorcism, or something which needs its own special word? 

Let’s start off with the idea of curative possession. This could include rituals in which a spirit is called upon and the possessing spirit enters and afflicted person and repairs the underlying spiritual conditions which have allowed, or which maintain the affliction. Curative possession can also involve the religious functionary or magician being possessed or partially possessed by a spirit and the spirit works through that individual to cure an afflicted third party. 

These curative components can be achieved through exorcism as well. The most obvious way in which exorcism is applied as a cure is to bind vexing spirits and direct them to leave the afflicted individual. Rituals which use smokes, clanging instruments, bells, and physical motions meant to drive out a spirit work from a similar perspective of driving out an afflicting spirit. This latter series of approaches would neither be adorcism nor exorcism but we might associate these kinds of practices with the same sorts of functionaries whose approach to spirits would be seen as adorcistic. 

If we’re looking at the functionary as working with a possessing spirit to heal a third party, the possession could be achieved either adorcistically or exorcistically and have the same result. Similarly, if the spirit is being called upon to enter or interact with and heal the afflicted directly, this could be accomplished in either manner. If we are driving the spirit away, it could be removed from vexing the afflicted individual either through command and authority, or through coaxing and pleasing offerings. Both approaches can be applied curatively. The prevailing difference is the nature of how we call upon or interact with the spirits involved. 

Being curative is not in and of itself a distinction, or an element which we can say defines something as adorcistic rather than exorcistic. Both can be curative. Both can be used for essentially the same approaches to being curative. The main distinction is how we interact with the spirit and where the control resides. 

So, then, voluntary or desired possession. This is really the part that stands out because this is how the word is most commonly used. An individual might engage in adorcistic prayer to call a spirit into them to possess them. The nature and quality of the prayer aren’t necessarily the distinguishing factors, but the idea that the possession is a willful voluntary process either initiated by or welcomed by the possessed. 

To understand this, we have to remember that possession can refer to a wide range of things. In most cases in modern occultism and in NeoPagan traditions, we’re talking about partial possession. This could be as minimal as the supplicant receiving the presence and blessing of the spirit with some part of the spirit’s power moving through them. The supplicant remains aware and in control and can direct that power as they need to. A step further from that might include the spirit or god communicating closely with the supplicant while they are in communion with one another. The supplicant might hear the voice of the god or spirit, or have thoughts or knowledge arise that are originated by the possessing spirit, but the supplicant again remains in control. The next step, or perhaps a parallel step, might involve the supplicant speaking or acting in ways which convey the presence of the spirit, or even exuding a presence that other people recognize as that of the spirit. This could happen while the supplicant remains primarily in control, but their tone, manner, or movement show influence from the spirit, or this kind of possession could be a more negotiated control in which the supplicant and the spirit are in control together or each intermittently. The final variety is full possession in which the spirit is primarily in control, and the supplicant is a present observer, or the supplicant may have no or limited awareness of what happened while possessed. 

These various phases may be more or less familiar to people depending upon their background. Even for magicians, Pagans, and NeoPagans who have not worked in a living spirit tradition which utilizes possession, some of these types of partial possession might still have been experienced. 

In the typical vernacular of mass market alternative religion and spirituality the process of calling a god or spirit into you in any capacity is often called invocation. This is then distinguished from evocation, in which a spirit is called to appear or interact with you but not to enter you. Both of these interactions could be forms of possession or partial possession. The use of the terms invocation and evocation here is an incorrect usage. That usage has been popular for quite some time. Ceremonial magic writers made a distinction between invocation and evocation claiming that invocation involved higher spirits who were called into the circle with the magician, and evocation was for lower spirits who were called to appear outside of the circle. Since the circle and the magician are connected as a congruous spiritual space it’s an easy jump to interpret invocation as referring to calling spirits into the magician, particularly if one also adopts a dichotomy of higher and lower spirits, in which case you would be comfortable calling higher spirits into you, but not lower spirits. 

The usage in Ceremonial Magic is not correct either though. It is likely that early writers in modern Ceremonial Magic were familiar with the stages of Solomonic conjuration, as these are outlined in Agrippa. Invocation of God is one stage, while another stage is called evocation and refers to calling upon the spirit. This could easily lead writers to think of higher spirits as invoked and lower spirits as evoked. 

In the case of Solomonic magic, the distinction probably isn’t about who is being invoked or evoked, but simply that different words more clearly convey that these are two different elements of the ritual. The words invoke and evoke are more or less synonymous. Outside of religious language there is some distinction between them in terms of how they are used but the meanings remain similar and they are often defined using each other. To invoke or to evoke, in the context of religion, is more or less to earnestly pray and call upon someone or something. So these words don’t describe what we’re doing when we engage in voluntary possession, but they interchangeably describe the act of praying for such a thing to happen. The prayer could be described as invocation regardless of whether we are using an adorcistic prayer of an exorcistic prayer. 

So, the distinction isn’t one of into us, versus into our space, as both can be possessing relationships. The distinction isn’t one of how deeply possessed the individual is. The distinction is who are we asking and how are we asking. 

If I draw a pontos on the ground and offer cachaca and cigars, red palm oil, and flat bread and sing:

“It was Exu Rey who sent him

It was Exu Rey who sent his Marabo

He will take care of everything I do

If I make a request he will back it up

His Marabo is coming from the crossroads

He comes from afar, he comes from there

There is no arrogance, only wisdom

It is also the strength of the people of the sea…”

We could say I’m working adorcistically.

If I draw a seal surrounded by planetary characters, trace crosses in the air with a sword, and ardently pray:

Most High God, Creator of Heaven and Earth before whom all knees bend, by your Holy Name Adonai Tzaveot I call upon the archangel Michael. Michael of the second heaven, where the angels pray daily Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh, I conjure upon you by the Holy Name Shaddai El Chai, the Most High God, the Lord of Life, come forth by the power of the name you adore, Eheieh Asher Eheieh, and aid me in all tasks put before you, in the name of the Lord of Hosts…

We could say I’m working exorcistically.

In either case, the resulting intention could be myself or another individual being possessed by the spirit being called, and that possession could be pursued to any of the above described levels of possession. 

Willful or voluntary possession itself is not the distinction, nor is the nature or thoroughness of the possession. 

The distinction is whether we are asking or we are commanding. Does that distinction require a difference in terms? Possibly…and if it does, we have an easy pair of terms to use. Exu Rey is being supplicated and Michael is being exorcised or conjured. 

Neither of those words tell us that possession is going to happen though. The original use of adorcism didn’t described causing a possession. It described interacting with a possession. The original use is more useful in giving us an understanding of the distinction because it describes a particular manner rather than a goal. As we have pointed out, the goal can be achieved using the tools of exorcism, or it can be achieved using supplication. 

That said, neither supplication nor exorcism tell us that we’re seeking a possession. More importantly than words to distinguish appealing to the big boss man from pleasantly and sweetly asking modern occultists need words to describe the pursuit of possession and probably also the various gradations of form it takes. 

The Catholic Church has words to address different levels of possession. Infestation describes possession of a place, typically, and often involving more than one spirit. Obsession refers to possession in which the spirit is often present and occupies the attention of the individual and may communicate closely with the individual. Oppression is when the spirit is present more directly within the individual and guides, directs and influences them. Full possession occurs when the spirit is often or primarily in control. 

None of these terms work for discussing magic because they only address unwilling and harmful possession. Awareness of these sorts of categorizations is useful for magicians and for specialists and clergy in Pagan and NeoPagan religions because different levels of spirit vexation can occur, and having a language to address their severity can be useful in assessing them and determining how to deal with them. 

The fact that the European language of possession is largely rooted in Catholicism and presupposes negative, unwilling, or harmful possession is part of why a word like adorcism would come into being. Since exorcism is most clearly associated with the approach rooted in the Catholic outlook it makes sense that a word that seemed opposite to that would be applied for more holistic and positive seeming methods. But, as we have thoroughly discussed, both the structure of the word and the comparison misunderstand what exorcism is in the first place. 

In modern magical literature we do have words that describe some of the types of possession above. Assumption of Godforms, and Drawing Down both generally describe the idea of calling upon a divine or spiritual being so that some piece of them or their power enters into and works through or merges with the magician or cleric. These have relatively specific contexts which might imply that we’re talking about specific rites. Many people also don’t think of these acts as forms of possession even though they are. 

Another popular term in magical and NeoPagan literature is “aspecting.” Aspecting is the phase of possession in which the possessed speaks, acts, moves, or takes on mannerisms that are similar to the possessing spirit, or their presence exudes the energy and presence of that spirit. The possessed is usually still in control in the case of aspecting. Again, people don’t always think of this as possession. I have had some priestesses explain that when “Drawing Down the Moon” there is a theatrical component in which you dress and act to convey the presence of the Goddess to the coven. In the EGC, some priests and priestesses also think of their roles as theatrical. Rather than thinking of it as a spiritual presence inhabiting the cleric and influencing how the cleric moves, speaks, and acts, they think of themselves as reflecting upon, or maybe connecting with a spiritual nature or spiritual being and then actively conducting themselves in a way to convey what that connection feels like or expresses to them. In some cases, this is just a distinction in understanding, in others it’s more of a distinction in fact, but it’s certainly not the case for all clergy in these traditions. Some people recognize that they are engaging real spiritual presences or real spirits or real gods and understand that they are influenced by that engagement and that that engagement expresses itself through them to engage the rest of the people who are also present. 

So aspecting is a good and useful term when it’s framed in a manner that it conveys real interaction with a truly present spirit. 

That still leaves us in need of terms for the overall experience of willful possession. It may also be useful to have terms for the various phases and kinds of possession. I don’t claim to have answers for what all those terms should be or if we have terms for all of them. 

Regarding possession, I personally use “positive possession.” Another good option is “voluntary possession.” If we want to describe the act of seeking possession and specify the manner in which we are pursuing it we might use “I am supplicating Zeus to possess me,” or “I am exorcising Vassago to possess my medium.” There are potentially more poetic terms that could be used. Personally, I think horse and rider, or being ridden are great terms, but they might come across as culturally appropriative or imply particular religious or cultural contexts in which we may not be engaging. 

As far as phases of possession, that probably gets more complicated in terms of determining terminology. We’d need to determine how granular we want to get with phases. I’ve seen some teachers use Phase One, Phase Two, etc.. Amongst magicians working in the grimoire tradition, and some adjacent Ceremonial Magicians, terms like “Crowned” have become popular when describing a relatively permanent possession state, or “Seated” to describe some of the less complete and more temporary states. These words would work well if we had a clear delineation of what we mean by them, but they might also run into issues of appropriation. 

To clarify, these are English words and they’re relatively standard English words, so the words themselves are not a problem. The context and use as specific jargon might potentially feel or be seen as problematic. Horse, horsed, rider, ridden, seated, and crowned as words to describe possession all come out of uses in African Diaspora traditions. When magicians working in European Traditional Magic, the Grimoire Tradition, the Solomonic Tradition, or Ceremonial Magic use these terms it is directly due to influence from or awareness off these African Diaspora traditions. Because of that, it could come across as if we’re saying that our processes or experiences are the same as theirs when each has its own elements. There may be some similarity or a relationship, there may be inspiration, but that doesn’t make them identical. In that regard, the words could create confusion. It is that potential for confusion that could be problematic rather than the words themselves. There is a fair argument that because these words are English words, using them could be ok if it’s done so in a manner that makes it clear that they’re describing similar but not the same phenomena. I’m not sure we can fully make that clear without caveats, which would take away the convenience of using these words. 

Regardless of what words I would propose, they would only be useful if others also wanted to use them. In the end, this is, perhaps, a very long invitation, a supplication, and adorcistic invocation for you, dear reader, to consider the nature, kinds, and phases of possession, and the ways to engage possession and in doing so, ponder over what words we should uncover that might apply to these concepts. 

While I think I have demonstrated why adorcism and adorcistic are maybe not the best or most useful words, I hope it is clear that this post was really about spirit interactions. As we deepen our exploration of how to live and work in a world that we know to be a living and animistic spiritual ecosystem we have to engage and consider many elements of how we interact with that world. We need to consider the manner of our interactions, the purposes of our interactions, and the varied gradations which might give us greater detail in understanding the possibilities for interaction and therefore increase our options for being an engaged part of this world. That is really the main point of this exploration. I hope that was evident and interesting. 

Whether one chooses to continue using, or adopt the use of adorcism as a term, or to avoid it and look for something else, it gave us a really good jumping off point to deepen discussion of positive possession and how we can think about it, how we can approach it, and the tools we have to achieve it. Beyond just this one question of terminology, it also opens the door to considering a broader range of terminology for the various details and permutations of purpose, kind, and manner. Hopefully more of us will weigh in on considering the possibilities, both in terms of how we engage, utilize and more deeply explore these options as well as how we term and discuss them. 

Thanks for reading.  If you enjoyed this please like, follow, and share on your favorite social media!. You can also visit our Support page for ideas if you want to help out with keeping our various projects going. Or follow any of the links below.

We can be followed for updates on Facebook.

 Check out my newest book, Familiar Unto Me: Witches Sorcerers and Their Spirit Companions

If you’re curious about starting conjuration pick up my book – Luminarium: A Grimoire of Cunning Conjuration

 If you want some help exploring the vast world of spirits check out my first book – Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits

NEW CLASS AVAILABLE: The Why and What of Abramelin 

Class Available: An Audio Class and collection of texts on the Paracelsian Elementals

  More Opportunities for Support and Classes will show up at Ko-Fi

(Image from Maya Deren's Divine Horsemen)

The Stele of Reggie Scott or Thoughts on Daily Prayers

In my last post I made a quick mention of the idea of reciting the prayers and conjurations for the days of the week even when not working a conjuration ritual. Some modern authors stress the idea of repeating the conjurations for the power which is conveyed through the presence of mind and the smooth ritual feeling created by reciting a memorized conjuration. There is some truth to that, but for that to be the case the magician can't simply memorize and recite...if he does he has essentially the same distraction as he tries to focus on recall. He has to embody the experience of the conjuration prayer so that it becomes natural to him, not simply memorized. When I was learning to celebrate the Gnostic Mass one of the Priestesses (now a Bishop) who helped train me pointed out that you can't rote memorize the Mass and then try to paint the magic on later, you have to run the magic from the beginning so that the celebration of the mystery is natural to you. When working with Novice clergy I often recommend that they find ways to explore the passages of the Mass in meditation to deepen their understanding and then utilize them in building other magical rituals so that they are used to running with those forces in the ways in which the Mass stirs them. Working in that manner there can be an added element to memorization. But memorization can be a draw back if you're constantly worrying about whether or not you remembered it right or missed a word or phrase, or if the attempt to recall causes a stilted broken delivery or detachment as one blankly recalls and says words. Reading can create the same problems, but we can also read in an engaged fashion with feeling in which we embody what we are reading. In fact, references to the book as a tool in medieval and renaissance magical literature suggests that it is used in the ritual, and therefore likely read from.

So, why pray the conjurations when not working the rituals? Another suggestion is that we can, without conjuring the spirits, still stir and stimulate the planetary forces in our lives by working with the conjurations. Similar to the suggestion to work the Mass into our other work. Considering this from the perspective of a Priest we can compare this to the practices of those who developed the medieval grimoire system, people with a clerical background. Catholics had a rich system of prayers and rituals for all elements of life, and prayers for various parts of the day to keep them in touch with the spirit and focused on a life enmeshed within divine grace. They inflamed themselves with prayer by invoking often. Working with the daily conjurations and prayers allows us to do that with the planetary forces which form a central system of categorizing the universe in grimoire magic and much of the Western Mystery Tradition. Similarly working with prayers that connect us to ancestors, saints, local spirits, or our intermediaries can be of value for our personal spiritual routine maintenance.

When we work the Abramelin a lot of the preparation is this immersion in repeated prayer and meditation. It focuses us on the goal but also draws us towards the angel. In modern magic the Holy Guardian Angel, whether contacted through the Abramelin or related rituals is a focus as far as what we should draw ourselves towards. One prayer that frequently is associated with this is the Stele of Jeu, or the Headless Invocation as it is presented in the Golden Dawn system, the Bornless Ritual, or the A.'.A.'. system, Liber Samekh.

The Stele of Jeu is an exorcism ritual. People question this assertion sometimes because they're used to seeing the modern version which removes the exorcism verbiage and instead replaces it with the verbiage about subjugating spirits that is otherwise only found towards the end of the invocation. To be clear, when I say exorcism in this case it is in reference to subduing and casting out a spirit, not the more general earlier verbiage simply of binding spirits. In most cases, that isn't precisely what we'd be looking for by working with the Stele. At least, not all the time.

In Reginald Scott's work there is a “conjuration” which doesn't actually conjure a spirit, but rather implores the Trinity, primarily Jesus, to establish a relationship with the magician which will allow him to conjure spirits and make them obedient. For people who want to work in a Christian context this prayer would be a great daily prayer for establishing a relationship with divine authority and receiving the consecration needed to call and command spirits subject to that authority. For those working in a Thelemic context or some other modern context, the prayer can be reworked to be appropriate for your context or simply used as an example for how to build such a prayer when we look at its pattern in comparison with the Stele of Jeu.

For now, here is the conjuration from Book XV of Scott.

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the + Father + and the Son + and the Holy Ghost + Holy Trinity and Inseparable Unity, I call upon You, that You may be my salvation and defense, and the protection of my body and soul, and of all my goods through the virtue of Your Holy Cross, and through the virtue of Your passion, I beseech You O Lord Jesus Christ, by the merits of Your blessed mother Holy Mary, and of all Your saints, that You give me grace and divine power over all the wicked spirits, so as which of them soever I do call by name, they may come by and by from every coast, and accomplish my will, that they neither be hurtful or fearful unto me, but rather obedient and diligent about me. And through Your virtue straightly commanding them, let them fulfill my commands, Amen. Holy, holy, Lord God of Sabboth, which will come to judge the quick and the dead, You who are Alpha and Omega, first and last, King of kings and Lord of lords, Ioth, Aglanabrath, El, Abiel, Anathiel, Amazim, Sedomel, Gayes, Heli, Messias, Tolimi, Elias, Ischiros, Athanatos, Imas. By these Your holy names, and by all others I do call upon You, and beseech You O Lord Jesus Christ, by Your nativity and baptism, by thy cross and passion, by Your ascension, and by the coming of the Holy-Ghost, by the bitterness of Your soul when it departed from Your body, by Your five wounds, by the blood and water which went out of Your body, by Your virtue, by the sacrament which You gave Your disciples the day before You suffered, by the Holy trinity, and by the inseparable unity, by blessed Mary Your mother, by Your angels, archangels, prophets, patriarchs, and by all Your saints, and by all the sacraments which are made in Your honor, I do worship and beseech You, I bless and desire You, to accept these prayers, conjurations, and words of my mouth, which I will use. I require You O Lord Jesus Christ, that You give me Your virtue & power over all Your angels (which were thrown down from heaven to deceive mankind) to draw them to me, to tie and bind them, & also to loose them, to gather them together before me, & to command them to do all that they can, and that by no means they contemn my voice, or the words of my mouth; but that they obey me and my sayings, and fear me. I beseech You by Your humanity, mercy and grace, and I require You Adonai, Amay, Horta, Vege dora, Mitai, Hel, Suranat, Ysion, Ysesy, and by all Your holy names, and by all Your holy he saints and she saints, by all Your angels and archangels, powers, dominions, and virtues, and by that name that Solomon did bind the devils, and shut them up, Elhrach, Ebanher, Agla, Goth, Ioth, Othie, Venoch, Nabrat, and by all Your holy names which are written in this book, and by the virtue of them all, that You enable me to congregate all Your spirits thrown down from heaven, that they may give me a true answer of all my demands, and that they satisfy all my requests, without the hurt of my body or soul, or any thing else that is mine, through our Lord Jesus Christ Your son, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy-Ghost, one God world without end.

Oh Father omnipotent, Oh wise Son, Oh Holy-Ghost, the searcher of hearts, oh you three in persons, one true godhead in substance, which did spare Adam and Eve in their sins; and Oh You Son, who died for their sins a most filthy death, sustaining it upon the Holy Cross; oh You most merciful, when I fly unto Your mercy, and beseech You by all the means I can, by these the holy names of Your Son; to wit, Alpha and Omega, and all of his other names, grant me Your virtue and power, that I may be able to cite before me, Your spirits which were thrown down from heaven, & that they may speak with me, & dispatch by & by without delay, & with a good will, & without the hurt of my body, soul, or goods, etc: as is contained in the book called Annulus Salomonis.

Oh great and eternal virtue of the highest, which through disposition, these being called to judgment, Vaicheon, Stimulamaton, Esphares, Tetragrammaton, Olioram, Cryon, Esytion, Existion, Eriona, Onela, Brasim, Noym, Messias, Soter, Emanuel, Sabboth, Adonai, I worship You, I invoke You, I implore You with all the strength of my mind, that by You, my present prayers, consecrations, and conjurations be hallowed: and wheresoever wicked spirits are called, in the virtue of Your names, they may come together from every coast, and diligently fulfill the will of me the exorcist. Fiat, fiat, fiat, Amen.

For comparison sake here is Alex Sumner's version of the Headless Invocation.

Thee I invoke, the Bornless One!

Thee that didst create the Earth and the Heavens,
Thee that didst create the Night and the Day,
Thee that didst create the Darkness and the Light.
Thou art Osorronophris, whom no man hath seen at any time.
Thou art Jabas; thou art Japos.
Thou hast distinguished between the Just and the Unjust.
Thou didst make the Female and the Male.
Thou didst produce the Seed and the Fruit.
Thou didst form Men to love one another, and to hate one another.
Hear thou me, for I am Mosheh thy servant, unto whom Thou hast committed thy Mysteries, the ceremonies of Israel.
Thou hast produced the moist and the dry, and that which nourisheth all created life.
Hear me, for I am the Angel of Paphro Osorronophris: this is Thy true name, handed down to the prophets of Israel.
Hear me: Ar, Thiao, Rheibet, Atheleberseth, A, Blatha, Abeu, Ebeu, Phi, Thitasoe, Ib, Thiao.

Hear me and make all spirits subject unto me: so that every spirit of the firmament and of the ether; upon the Earth and under the Earth; on dry land or in the water; of whirling air or of rushing fire; and every spell and scourge of God may be obedient unto me.

I invoke Thee, the terrible and invisible God who dwellest in the void place of spirit: Arogogorobrao, Sothou, Modorio, Phalarthao, Ooo, Ape, The Bornless One.

Hear me and make all spirits subject unto me … (etc)

Hear me: Roubriao, Mariodam, Balbnabaoth, Assalonai, Aphniao, I, Thoteth, Abrasax, Aeoou, Ischure, Mighty and Bornless One.

Hear me and make all spirits subject unto me … (etc)

I invoke Thee: Ma, Barraio, Ioel, Kotha, Athorebalo, Abraoth.

Hear me and make all spirits subject unto me … (etc)

Hear me: Aoth, Abaoth, Basum, Isak, Sabaoth, IAO.

This is the Lord of the Gods;
This is the Lord of the Universe;
This is He Whom the winds fear;
This is He Who, having made Voice by His commandment, is Lord of all things - king, ruler and helper.

Hear me and make all spirits subject unto me … (etc)

Hear me: Ieou, Pyr, Iou, Pyr, Iaot, Iaeo, Ioou, Abrasax, Sabriam, Oo, Yu, Eu, Oo, Yu, Adonaie, Ede, Edu, Angelos Ton Theon, Anlala Lai, Gaia, Apa, Diachanna Chorun.

(Pause)

I am He, the Bornless Spirit! Having sight in the feet - strong, and the Immortal Fire!

I am He, the Truth!
I am He, who hate that evil should be wrought in the world.
I am He who lighteneth and thundereth.
I am He from whom is the shower of the life on Earth.
I am He whose mouth ever flameth.
I am He, the Begetter and Manifester unto the Light.
I am He, the Grace of the World.
“The Heart Girt with a Serpent” is My name.

Come thou forth and follow me, and make all spirits subject unto me, so that every spirit of the firmament and of the ether, upon the Earth and under the Earth, on dry land and in the water, of whirling air and of rushing fire, and every spell and scourge of God, may be obedient unto me.

IAO. Sabao. Such are the words!

Both invocations have a similar structure. They begin by by imploring the presence of the divine by combining references to divine names and characteristics. From there power over spirits is requested. After that more divine names and attributes, more requests for authority, and so forth. Other spiritual forces and heroic figures are referenced as part of the invocation of power and authority. Interestingly the Headless One is described as having a mouth that always flames, and Scott specifically asks that the mouth of the exorcist be blessed. This imagery seems important because it is by words that the magician will continue his work in commanding spirits. A major difference is that the Headless Invocation follows a pattern of identification which we often see in modern magic, possibly partially influenced by the Headless Invocation. We don't see identification with divinity in Scott but rather a series of requests that the magician be consecrated in such a way that he will have authority over the spirits. Both conjurations are comprehensive in the authority over spirits. The Headless Invocation references spirits in different locations...firmament, ether, upon earth, under earth, air, fire, dry land, water, basically covers all places spirits can reside. Scott's focus is on devils and fallen angels, but the spirits are referenced first as angels, and then given the added descriptor of being angels who have been cast down, additionally wicked spirits and devils are specifically referenced. There is no break down of spirits in different elemental localities, but it would seem to suggest that all spirits not in the heavens are made subject, and the spirits of the heavens are implored as part of the structure of gaining power over lower spirits.

So between the two we can get a feel for how to invoke authority as a conjuror. We would build a cycle of invoking the divine and asking for authority, referencing the specifics of the power requested, and repeating, then modifying the cycle to ask for consecration in ways that improve our ability to interact with spirits such as consecrating the mouth and speech, imbuing with sight, preventing spirits from being set against the magician, imbuing the magician with the virtues of previous recipients of divine grace.

If you experiment with developing your own prayer for this purpose or try Scott I'd love to hear about it so come back and comment. And stop by and like us/follow us on Facebook, should have some interesting stuff coming up soon.

The Devil Chaser: Kicking Out Vexing Spirits

Sometimes evil spirits get uppity and need to get their walking papers...or at least, sometimes people think that's what's going on. Usually it's not the case if magic is being done right. A good magician will go through rituals and ceremonies which establish his place of working and his authority as well as his spiritual allies in a way which results in being mostly safe from that problem. Mostly. It's still possible something can come up. On the road to becoming a good magician it's also possible something problematic can arise. Normally it won't be anything that isn't easily handled. Still, it's important as a magician to have the tools to handle such an issue, for yourself or for others where it may arise.

For the methods being described here they will be sufficient for dismissing the common sort of spirits that one may encounter from normal activity as well as for providing some basic protections. They will not cause any particular harm in a situation where the spirit is not the problem. Because it is very possible, and often likely, that there is a non-spiritual cause for problems one is experiencing those not thoroughly trained in examining such problems should also explore various mundane causes and solutions.

That having been said, let's look at solving the problem of vexing spirits.

There are a lot of traditional sorcery methods for such things. In fact, that's a big part of the job of a local sorcerer traditionally. As a kid and young adult, I tended to use pretty pagan methods, banishing by the elements and by tools and signs of authority. These types of methods all work pretty well. As an adult though I have also begun incorporating methods more linked to ceremonial magic and Catholic mysticism. A couple simple methods of this variety are what I'm going to present today.

Recently I was having an issue that seemed to be unruly spirits. Quick solution? I have a box of rosaries dedicated to Saint Benedict, whose patronage includes exorcism and the destruction of evil sorcery. I also have a handful of Benedictine medals on bracelets. I popped on a bracelet and hung a rosary over my bed. The issues stopped immediately.

This is basically the use of a talisman. In this case a talisman specifically set towards banishing spirits. Similarly a talisman dedicated to the archangel Michael could be used the same way. Or if you knew what spirit was vexing you you could use a talisman dedicated to the angel who commands that spirit. That would be a bigger process to undergo. So as a catch all, conjure Michael to consecrate your Benedictine talismans before use. Such a conjuration could be done as a general precaution and the talisman wrapped and put away until needed. For those not ready for a full conjuration a simple prayer could be used.

Pope Leo XIII penned this prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after a vision of a war with evil spirits in which Michael was casting them down. Interestingly enough Leo III was the Pope to whom the Enchiridion was ascribed.

“Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host,
by the Divine Power of God,
cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

Now if that's a little too heavy handed in the Christian department and you want to go a bit more standard on the magical end we can amend it a bit to something like this:

“Archangel Michael, in the name of the God of Hosts

defend me in battle.

Be my protection against the onslaught of evil spirits.

In the name Elohim Tzvot, Mighty angel, rebuke them;

I conjure you mighty Prince,

In the name of Elohim Tzvot

cast into the fire all spirits set against me,

destroy and turn back all bent upon my ruin.”

With either prayer end by tracing Michael's seal above the seal of Benedict and whisper Michael's name into the seal.

If you have to deal with a spirit aside from simply using a talisman and wish to banish, the opening banishings of more traditional ceremonial magic can be useful. Not things like the LBRP, or LHR, these are rituals of a mystical quality which can be applied practically, rather than practical rituals straight up. Opening using the Chaldean Oracles can sanctify a space and remove minor disturbances. The Enchiridion has some great exorcising Orisons which can be used for such purposes or as the openings of rituals. The psalms used to establish the working space in the Greater Key, as well as prayers of constriction and banishing from the grimoires.

The problem with these is they're usually kind of long and need to be looked up. For the most part they're designed to be used in a larger ritual. They also might be overkill for small disturbances. Something easy to memorize which is more than sufficient for the average disturbance is the Vade Retro Satana which is built into Benedict's seal.

Crux sacra sit mihi lux

Non draco sit mihi dux

Vade retro satana

Numquam suade mihi vana

Sunt mala quae libas

Ipse venena bibas

Let the Holy Cross be my light

Let not the dragon be my guide

Turn back Satan

Never tempt me with vain things

What you offer me is evil

You drink that poison yourself

This small exorcism represents several points of the mythology of Saint Benedict, principally a story of a monk who attempted to leave his guidance and was almost consumed by the devil before returning, and attempts to poison him which were miraculously defeated.

This one would take less adapting to make it more comfortable for the contemporary magician. The Holy Cross of Light is already a symbol used heavily in the Western Mystery Tradition. This can be associated with the Rose Cross, which is a highly appropriate symbol for such work. Being tempted with vain things is precisely the antithesis of the magician. Satan and the Dragon are the only images that may be less fitting, although the Dragon appears in the Enochian materials as the Telocvovim or the Death Dragon, another name for Coronzon.

So we simply adapt one non-Latin word...

Crux sacra sit mihi lux

Non draco sit mihi dux

Vade retro omnia mala

Numquam suade mihi vana

Sunt mala quae libas

Ipse venena bibas

Let the Holy Cross be my light

Let not the dragon be my guide

Turn back all evil things

Never tempt me with vain things

What you offer me is evil

You drink that poison yourself

A consecrated candle, or a ritual sword or wand could be used as a tool in conjunction with this exorcism. The Benedictine talisman could be used in conjunction with this as well. The charm references the cross of light and so the Rose Cross sign can be made in conjunction therewith. The charm references the destruction of poison bread and wine as well. A ritual involving the destruction of a false Eucharist and consumption of one truly consecrated could be employed as well.

So none of these methods is particularly difficult. Unfortunately the expulsion of vexing spirits isn't something that gets treated a lot in most readily available magical writing. It tends to be assumed that this is something for which people need to seek out someone's assistance. In a case where things are pretty intense that is probably sound advise. In cases where something is just giving you the heebie jeebies or disturbing your dreams these techniques are sufficient, at least as a starting point.

Again, there are a lot of serious mundane problems that people at times mistake for spiritual affliction. Be careful to thoroughly examine those possibilities. Where necessary seek out the help of those who can help you explore those possibilities. There are magicians who do things against other people, there are spirits who cause problems for people, the popular sentiment that this is not the case is false, but it remains true that it is also not the most common occurrence. Be ready to protect yourself, but also be intelligent and responsible.