Talk:The Book of Abramelin/Archive 1

message: Plenty of google hits, but as it goes with magick, it is hard do separate fantasy from myth, if you know what I mean. The topic seems vaid for wikipedia, but it looks like the author of the article smokes pot. Mikkalai 23:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely something real, and I've tried to give this a bit of context and factual basis.  While you are expected to abstain from drinking while you are preparing for this magical ritual, it doesn't mention smoking pot one way or another.  Smerdis of Tlön 01:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I am going also to remove the accuracy dispute label.  I think it's a fair summary of the contents of the book, and anyone who disagrees can check it out themselves since it's online.  The fact that it's about magic doesn't make it automatically fantastical.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled section]

message: Much of this article is simply repeating information relating to the book; there is (as the article says) very little that can be said specifically about the man, and that could just as well be covered in the article about the book. I don't think Abramelin is historically of interest in any other respect than that he is the reputed origin of the rituals in the book.
That seems like a better way to resolve the disambiguation issue: merge Abramelin the Mage into The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage and make the former a redirect to the latter. Fuzzypeg 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to me to be the most sensible approach.  Bucketsofg✐ 12:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, you got here quick! I was just going to move this discussion to Talk:The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage, having seen that that's where the merge tags seem to be directing everyone. I hope you won't find it terribly remiss if I copy your comment there as well? Fuzzypeg 12:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge with [[The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage]]

message: I think we need an edit on this entry. It states that one of the primary goals of the Abramelin Rite is to gain control of one's "personal demon"- the inverse of one's HGA. However, I have not seen this in either the French (Mathers) version or Dehn's English translation of the German original. In both cases, one is to summon the 12 rulers of Hell, who then give over any number of familiar spirits (four primary familiars, plus dozens to use with the Talismans). There is no "inverse Angel" or "personal demon" anywhere in the system. (Unless we consider the familiars to be "personal demons"- which is fine, but that's not what the article is saying at all.) If no one objects, I'll take this part out of the entry. Kheph777 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this about the "personal demon"? 

message: Firstly I think it is important to note the relevance of the Abramelin system within modern magickal practice and philosophy. Crowley considered the ‘Great Work’, first mentioned in the Sacred Magic, to be the most important spiritual practice of the modern adept. The entire Qabalistic structure of spiritual attainment within his order, Argentium Astrum, being based upon the Abramelin concept of the Great Work. It seems to me that it is as relevant to any discussion of magick as Crowley himself, whose influence is huge not just within magick but also within wider culture.
I am also concerned about the tone of this article, which seems to take a slightly biased angle. Statements such as those relating to the reputation of the Book of Sacred Magic due to it’s connection with the Golden Dawn, seem at best untrue. When we consider that the Golden Dawn was also highly influenced by the Key of Solomo and in fact, Samuel L. MacGregor Mathers (Head of the Golden Dawn) translated both texts, the bias is illustrated further. Then we find statements such as ‘As is typical of such works, the preparations are elaborate and difficult; if the experiments fail, the magicians can always find some flaw in their obedience, rather than blaming the procedure itself.’ This seems emotive and not neutral, would this language be acceptable when describing say the practices of Tibetan Buddhism?
I also think that comments on pot smoking and the conduct of others does not show fairness but instead shows stereotyping and prejudice.
I would be interested to hear comments before I edit the article directly.
:If you have further data as to how and why the Abramelin magic got a better reputation than the Key of Solomon, by all means add it.  My familiarity with the Key of Solomon comes from A. E. Waite's The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, which from my recollection is far more condescending than this article ever was. It was my understanding from my reading --- mostly, in Crowley's autobiography --- that this grimoire was more respected than its cousins.  I went and edited out some of the editorial comments myself.    
:This article came to my attention when it appeared a couple of weeks ago on Wikipedia:Cleanup.  I actually had a copy of the book before me when I added to this article, and I think my additions to the article are a fair summary. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the changes are much clearer, and fairer. Thanks. -- Solar 18:12, 18 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Is there really a manuscript in that parisian library? The book mentions that but it's the only reference I've ever found.
In what ways was the Book of Abramelin influential in the Golden Dawn? I'm trying to establish whether Ronald Hutton is correct when he draws a sharp distinction between the magic of Abramelin ("an elaborate way of ringing for room service") and that of the Golden Dawn (in which the powers invoked are internal, not external, according to Hutton) (Triumph of the Moon, pp. 82-3). I'm looking specifically for examples of the philosophy of Abramelin being carried through into the Golden Dawn system. Also looking for examples (if they exist) of the subjugation of demons within the Golden Dawn system. Thanks.Fuzzypeg 10:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most people seem to think that the "qlippoth" or demons in Crowley's book 777 come from Golden Dawn teachings, at least those corresponding to the Sephiroth. That also goes for the angelic names. Presumably members of the Golden Dawn used all these names in some way, although they may have interpreted them metaphorically. Crowley first received the "Abramelin" book from an older member of the Golden Dawn, and Mathers had translated the text (from French to English, I assume). See Sutin's biography of Crowley, Regardie's intro to 777, and several references to that book on the web. Dan 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that Mathers probably changed the Order somewhat (he may have supplied Crowley and other members with the 777 material). And in 1900 the London members rejected his authority, in the first of multiple schisms. For all I know the truth changes depending on which Golden Dawn you look at, and what date. Dan 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. that's a help. Fuzzypeg 00:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance and content of ‘Abramelin Article’ 

message: Upgrading Abramelin as part of the Thelema Wiki project is fine, if that results in better writing, but if the aim is to add to it such "standardization" as the use of the Thelema template box shown at right, i strongly object. I am old enough to recall the Mathers translation of Abamelin via my parents' antiquarian bookstore, and the later paperback reprint  during my own young adulthood. I know for a fact that this book was popular in the wider occult community long before Thelema came out of its dormancy, and remains so to this day. I speak here with no offense intended and only good will (Will) assumed. : -) Catherineyronwode 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a Thelema article 

message: I'm not going to tell anyone what Thelema is, but please don't tell me that it is "adapted from the philosophy of François Rabelais in 1904 by Aleister Crowley".
It's not.
Assertions about what Thelema is (or isn't) has nothing to do with the subject of this article.
Please remove that line.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.255.103.130 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About what Thelema "is"

message: The article talks about a "more authentic" magic book manuscript, for instance. There's no such thing. It's like saying you have a "more authentic" fairy tale. It would be nice if someone instead of Crowley worshipers (i.e., lunatics) could give some real objective opinions on this .  The book supposedly dates from the 12th century, but appears to have been written in the 18th century by a Frenchman, judging from the handwriting style and grammatical errors. Obviously Abra-Melin wasn't a real person, but is there any objective evidence "Abraham the Jew" was real? ---- Dtillman68  —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: New stuff goes at the bottom.  I assume your complaint is about the line "Of all the extant sources, the German manuscripts in Wolfenbüttel and Dresden are taken by scholars to be the authoritative texts."  It is possible to have a "more authentic" manuscript or "more authentic" fairy tale in that you can have an older version that more clearly shows the author's intentions when he made up the thing.  Doesn't mean that it's real, just.  As for the word "authoritative," that line is about two 17th century German manuscripts.  In other words, the article says that scholars believe that it was written in 17th century Germany, not by 12th century Egyptian.  Also, none of the original contributors to this article identify themselves as Thelemites.  Assume good faith, this isn't a war to win, and be sure to bring in sources to support assertions like "appears to have been written in the 18th century by a Frenchman, judging from the handwriting style and grammatical errors" (because we don't take original research).  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article clearly lacks objectivity 

message: The beggining of the article states that:
 Dehn attributed authorship of The Book of Abramelin to Rabbi Yaakov Moelin (Hebrew יעקב בן משה מולין; ca. 1365–1427), a German Jewish Talmudist. This identification has since been disputed.
The last phrase leads to a citation. The citation leads to "http://www.themagickalreview.org/reviews/book-of-abramelin.php", a link which leads to error 404. The whole site is unavailable, in fact. I have since found partial archives of it's content, but no one cared to archive the one cited.
Is there any real dispute to Dehn's research, properly articulated, substantiated, peer reviewed and published?
If there is none, I am going to remove the statement — "This identification has since been disputed."
--PedroLamarao (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dehn's attribution of the author to Maharil has been disputed...?