Beyond visualization

[Unveiled Artist]

As I read the countless witchcraft and pagan web sites, one common theme among majority is visualization. Some say that when creating a spell you "visualize" the intent of the spell so you can send it out to the universe, Divine, Goddess, or so have you and let karma work so you may (or may not) experience good results in return. Without visualization, the spell would be pointless.

However:

I believe spells are concrete. They are not (I should say should not) be based on visualization.

I use my Catholic experience a lot because I kind of miss it. A Catholic looks at the Eucharist and sees bread/wine. However, when the priest blesses it they see it become Jesus Christ.

They do not visualize it; they do not think of it as a concept; it is clear and concrete--the consecrated bread/wine is Jesus' body and blood.

When a pagan lights a candle using the, I don't know, color red to symbolize love for a love spell, does she believe that her intent makes the spell go into action or the actual candle, the lighting of it, and the color of it does?

When I light a candle at a Catholic Church for my friend, it is not just my intent that goes out to bring about blessings and good health for her. If that be the case, why light a candle? I believe lighting the candle itself is the spell; and without it, my spell could not manifest.

When we just use visualization or imaginative intent to send out our spells, what is the use of the alter, the candle, and the props? They can't just be things that compliment your intent.

Here it is: Shouldn't how you use your props in your spells and your correspondences be your intent rather than represent or accompany it?

I know, for me, my "props" are my spells and how I use them, they work in themselves. I just have to put it together right and say my prayers. So I don't have many spells since to have a spell is to find props that are your intent rather than represent it.

 

[Quintessence]

It depends on your philosophy of practice, really. Each to their own, as far as I'm concerned. There are so many different styles of spellcraft, and as it isn't science, none has been proven to work better than another. What the individual practitioner finds meaningful and effective is what they ought to use, regardless of what outsiders think.

Spellcraft isn't a huge facet of my practice, but for what it's worth, visualization is not the basis for any of my spellwork. It's role is facilitative, and typically facilitative in one of two ways: (1) as a way of maintaining the proper state of awareness or concentration during work, (2) as a way of reinforcing the direction of energy flow when doing energy work. Aside from that, I don't really use it in spellcraft. I use it for lots of other things (most notably, journeywork), but not really for spellcraft.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have a whole Veda for all kinds of charms and spells which one can think of, the Atharva Veda, the last of the four Vedas. I think one would need to chant the Mantras correctly in Sanskrit for them to be effective. Take your pick: Atharva Veda Index

 

[Jainarayan]

I think one would need to chant the Mantras correctly in Sanskrit for them to be effective. Take your pick: Atharva Veda Index

This is something I found completely untenable in Hinduism, and have had more than a few arguments with people (especially one) over it. I contend that everyone speaks with their own accent and enunciation, people have speech impediments, learning a language at a later age that does not have the same phonemes (Sanskrit is virtually impossible for an English or Japanese speaker to become fluent in, fluency defined as no trace of a non-Sanskrit accent) as the person's first language very often precludes fluency. I refuse to believe that the priests' prayers and mantras at temple whose native tongues were Tamil and Telugu were ineffective because of their native accents. I fully believe it is the intention that transcends language. Deities, gods, spirits, denizens of the Otherworlds are beyond language.This goes back to the o.p. in that I believe intent and visualization, to the best of our human abilities, are what count.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You did not get it. I do not believe in charms and spells. What I had written is only in sarcasm.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I refuse to believe that the priests' prayers and mantras at temple whose native tongues were Tamil and Telugu were ineffective because of their native accents

It's an interesting point. In a Buddhist context I have chanted in English, Pali and Tibetan, but English ( my native language ) always seemed more meaningful. But do you think the same principle applies to the kind of visualisations that people do, in other words is it more effective to visually something that is culturally familiar?

 

[Jainarayan]

You did not get it. I do not believe in charms and spells. What I had written is only in sarcasm.

Yes, I know. I thought it was a perfect springboard to expand on the o.p.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I do not blame my ancestors in writing them or for believing in them. That was more than 2,500 years ago. To believe in such supernatural things is not correct now, in this 21st Century.

 

[Jainarayan]

But do you think the same principle applies to the kind of visualisations that people do, in other words is it more effective to visually something that is culturally familiar?

That is also interesting... I'm really not sure. We're conditioned by the cultural representations of deities. How and why the Hindu deities are depicted as they are is unknown to me, but I could not conceive of Shiva, Krishna, Lakshmi appearing differently than they are depicted. In the same vein I see the Aesir as they are usually depicted. That is, though Thor is not a huge muscled guy with long red hair and a red beard, that's the common visualization, so I go with it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is also interesting... I'm really not sure. We're conditioned by the cultural representations of deities. How and why the Hindu deities are depicted as they are is unknown to me, but I could not conceive of Shiva, Krishna, Lakshmi appearing differently than they are depicted. In the same vein I see the Aesir as they are usually depicted. That is, though Thor is not a huge muscled guy with long red hair and a red beard, that's the common visualization, so I go with it.

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess the most important thing is being able to make a personal connection.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess the most important thing is being able to make a personal connection.

For sure. As an aside there was a convo on another site (don't remember which one) in which the question was asked if the gods can be, should be, are seen through our modern cultural lens. Opinions were divided as I recall. Some polytheists believe that similar deities in different pantheons are the same deity viewed through a cultural lens.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some polytheists believe that similar deities in different pantheons are the same deity viewed through a cultural lens.

Yes, one of my Buddhist teachers used to talk about archetypes, the same sort of idea I think.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, one of my Buddhist teachers used to talk about archetypes, the same sort of idea I think.

Yep.

 

[The Hammer]

As I read the countless witchcraft and pagan web sites, one common theme among majority is visualization. Some say that when creating a spell you "visualize" the intent of the spell so you can send it out to the universe, Divine, Goddess, or so have you and let karma work so you may (or may not) experience good results in return. Without visualization, the spell would be pointless.

However:

I believe spells are concrete. They are not (I should say should not) be based on visualization.

I use my Catholic experience a lot because I kind of miss it. A Catholic looks at the Eucharist and sees bread/wine. However, when the priest blesses it they see it become Jesus Christ.

They do not visualize it; they do not think of it as a concept; it is clear and concrete--the consecrated bread/wine is Jesus' body and blood.

When a pagan lights a candle using the, I don't know, color red to symbolize love for a love spell, does she believe that her intent makes the spell go into action or the actual candle, the lighting of it, and the color of it does?

When I light a candle at a Catholic Church for my friend, it is not just my intent that goes out to bring about blessings and good health for her. If that be the case, why light a candle? I believe lighting the candle itself is the spell; and without it, my spell could not manifest.

When we just use visualization or imaginative intent to send out our spells, what is the use of the alter, the candle, and the props? They can't just be things that compliment your intent.

Here it is: Shouldn't how you use your props in your spells and your correspondences be your intent rather than represent or accompany it?

I know, for me, my "props" are my spells and how I use them, they work in themselves. I just have to put it together right and say my prayers. So I don't have many spells since to have a spell is to find props that are your intent rather than represent it.

The way that I look at the use of "props"; like candles, symbols, and statues; is that while they are not necessary for a spell to be done, they are good for amplifying ones intent. The symbols, and colors are ways to create a stronger emotional response, spell work is tied to emotion/intent.
Think of them like a cell phone tower (symbols/candles), the wireless signal (spell) is there and it will work, but the proximity/strength/purpose of the tower can boost your signal and make it more effective.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Think of them like a cell phone tower (symbols/candles), the wireless signal (spell) is there and it will work, but the proximity/strength/purpose of the tower can boost your signal and make it more effective.

Hm. That's a good way to think of it. I'm thinking that the watchtower itself is the spell... so in order to cast the spell (send the electricity), one needs to have the props. In my point of view though, the props and how they are put together are the spells. So, if I do a protection spell with salt around my home (generalizing) and someone from another religion so different intent does the same thing, it will still protect his/her home even though they don't believe that it would.

When one says its just intent through visualization then it makes the salt only work to the person who believes in it but is just salt for the person who doesn't.