Re: Feminine / Masculine Balance

["Tim" <timentwistle@...>]

Dear RM and all

I like the question you posed, and it's one I considered myself in 
years gone by before begining to working through IIH in earnest. 
Though I have only been a Bardon practicioner for five months I feel 
I have had the issue answered for me.

During the five years since I began to call myself a magician I went 
headlong and fearlessly (stupidly?)into all manner of practices 
stopping short of direct evocation of 'demonic' entities - stuff that 
would fall under the 'masculine' heading I guess. At times I have 
felt that my sanity/life was on the line (especially whilst going 
through some Enochian aethyrs, for example), but nevertheless I would 
do it all again considering the results I obtained. 

However, ever since reading Bardon, everything I accomplished seemed 
a little like cheating, since I was doing things on the back of 
formulas (like the Middle Pillar formula, Lightning Flash, powerful 
mantras, theurgy and so forth). These, in my opinion raise the self 
to the necessary level for performing a task, but temporarily. And I 
felt after operations that I had only got a 'slice' or taster of what 
was there to experience.

What I like about Bardon's method is that he begins with IIH - a 
carefully set out program that if practiced in order and to the 
letter enables the practicioner to accomplish magic by producing 
everything needed from 'within' themselves at will any time any 
place, and in a more comprehensive way than anything else I have ever 
tried so far.
Personally, I find the practices from the start - 'controling' 
thoughts, accumulation and balancing elements etc. to be quite active 
or 'masculine' in their nature - and quite a buzz too.

However, I still enjoy doing the 'bang-crash-wallop' stuff I have 
always done too, and personally have no problem mixing the two. I 
guess in conclusion, I must agree that the former does feel more 
masculine to me too. But in reality it is only such at face value - 
Bardon is equally 'active', but without the ceremony, at least to 
begin with.

So I hope I had added my pennies-worth in at least a fairly coherent 
(if general) way - and hope others will add to or challenge this 
perspective.

T.

--- In BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com, "Regulus Magus" 
<RegulusMagus@h...> wrote:
> Good afternoon dear colleagues.
> 
> For some time I have been thinking about the Feminine / Masculine 
> axis of polarity and about Balance. I have hesitated to bring this 
up 
> for fear of causing offense where none is intended. Nevertheless a 
> question not asked is wisdom forgone. So . . .
> 
> It seems to me that Hermetics as described in IIH and as discussed 
in 
> this list is a little skewed towards the Feminine pole. Much of the 
> emphasis is on meditation, passive observation of inner states, and 
> learning "to be" in a higher sense of the concept. Although Bardon 
> describes the actual doing of magick it doesn't seem to get as much 
> emphasis as the more receptive exercises. Certainly on this list I 
> don't read much about summoning power, casting spells, and making 
> things happen out in the world - in other words, I don't hear much 
> about the Masculine aspects of Hermetics.
> 
> Is the focus of our discussions out of balance or (perhaps) is the 
> focus deliberately skewed towards the Feminine to compensate for a 
> culture that favors the Masculine?
> 
> Sincerely, /RM/
> 
> P.S. Please note that I am talking about Feminine / Masculine in 
the 
> esoteric sense - I'm not referring to specific traits of female / 
> male members of the human species.