Translation Issues -- PME
[ Note: With the advent of the new English translations of Bardon's three books by Merkur Publishing, issues have arisen regarding the difference in wording between the older Ruggeberg English editions and the new Merkur editions. For the most part, these differences are minor, but sometimes, even these minor differences become important to the serious student. On this page, I will inform you of those instances that come to my attention where the older translation aids in understanding the new, or where the new translation obscures understanding. This page will be periodically updated. ]
Your question provided me an opportunity to compare a bit of the new Merkur translation of PME to the older, Ruggeberg edition. Since I haven't purchased the new edition, I didn't realize that this was an issue.
I think the best approach is if I first give you the passages in question as they were translated by Peter Dimai in the Ruggeberg English editions, followed by your rendition of the Merkur, and then followed by my comment. Okay?
Chapter 2, Magical Aids:
Dimai translation --
"If the charging and consecration of the magical instruments is such that they may only be used by a certain magician for whom they have been manufactured, no other magician can make use of them. They would not have any effectiveness even in the hands of a magician who is fully initiated in the holy science of magic, unless charged by the latter for his own purposes."
Merkur translation --
"When the magical instruments are consecrated and charged for use for a particular magician, in other words, he for whom they were made, they cannot be used by any other magician. These instruments would not be effective even if they were to fall into the hands of a magician who is completely conversant with the holy sciences of magic, unless he charges and consecrates the magical instruments anew for himself."
In the Dimai translation it seems clearer that Bardon was speaking of a special sort of consecration and charging that has the specific aim of making the instruments usable ONLY by their creator. What he omits here is that even an instrument created in this special manner can be used by another person (magician or not) *if the creator gives their permission*. In other words, if I create a wand that can only be used by me, I can confer that power to another person and they also will be able to use that wand. All that this sort of special consecration and charging does, is bind the instrument to my own will and no other. Therefore, if it is within my will that another person be able to make use of this wand, then the wand must obey, so to speak, since it is an extension of my own will.
One way in which to confer that permission is to explain to the other person "what purpose, in which respect, and in which manner" the wand was consecrated and subsequently charged. Which leads to the next quoted passage . . .
Chapter 8, The Magic Wand, Point 1:
Dimai translation --
"There is, of course, in this case a slight danger that a blasphemous person may get hold of the magic wand in order to realize his own desires, which, if it happened, would go on the cost of the magician and his rod-voltage. Therefore a magician will always do well not to tell any person, not even his best friend, for which purpose, in which respect, and in which manner he has charged his magic wand."
Merkur translation --
"However, there is one danger: even an uninitiated person is in the position to realize his own wishes with the magician's magic wand, at the expense of the magician and the magic wand's volt. Therefore the magician is well advised not to tell anyone, not even his best friend, for what purpose, in which respect, and in which manner he has charged his magic wand."
Again, I think the Dimai translation is clearer. The danger here is *slight*.
This passage specifically concerns a wand charged with the magician's will power, whereas the first passage specifically concerned a magical instrument given the special condition of being usable only by its creator. These are two separate things.
It is also a warning directed at the novice magician who may have little or no experience in the consecration of magical instruments. Therefore, the warning about keeping the details of the wand's charging a secret, are very pertinent.
Just prior to this passage, Bardon wrote (Dimai translation), "As already pointed out, the magic wand's power of realisation depends upon the intention and purpose for which it has been made and charged." This is a more complex statement than it appears at face value. Hidden within it, Bardon is telling us that if you know the "intention and purpose", then you have access to the "wand's power of realisation". Hence, it is unwise to share the details of your magical instrument's consecration and charging since this information would provide the key that would unlock its usage by another person.
The warning about sharing the details "even with your best friend", may seem silly, but it really isn't. This has to do with two things. First, the magician's attunement with their magical instruments is primarily mental. In other words, all a magician need do is think of their instrument and project their mental will upon it. This is what accesses its power or volt.
Second has to do with the nature of the mental body. Say you innocently tell your best friend all about the new wand you've just created, consecrated and charged. Your friend now knows exactly what is needed to *mentally* attune with your creation. This information has become a part of his/her mental body. Therefore, whenever she/he is in proximity with, or even thinks about, your wand, a mental sympathy is aroused. Invariably, they will effect each other -- friend to wand, wand to friend -- at a mental level, at the very least. This is the same level at which the magician interacts with their own instruments, except that for your friend, it would most likely be an unconscious interaction. While this is an innocent thing, it can still be to the detriment of your magical instrument and possibly to your friend.
But again, this is a warning designed for the novice. With experience and maturity, the magician learns how to easily prevent any unwanted use or desecration of their magical tools, what so ever. In the interim, it is wisest to do as Bardon suggested and keep the details of such things an absolute secret.
>> While not disclosing to an uninitiated person might foil them, surely (if I am understanding IIH correctly) a magician is capable of reading another's charging of the wand (as here instructed) from the Akasha. <<
Yes, but only if the creator of the tool has not performed the sort of consecration and charging that would make it solely their own. When such a ritual is performed, the details are not viewable by another even from the Akasha. Another magician would surely be able to perceive its power but would not be able to access that power by any means other than having its creator reveal the details or confer their permission for the other magician to access it.
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
14 May 2002