The evocation of 'spirits' is an applied reality. You can self-hypnotize, and delude the mind to seeing external entities but biologically speaking - these still reside within. This is why I see no difference in invocation and evocation.
When speaking in terms of archetypes, you are 'invoking' a 'spirit' in that you become the character that you in fact created.
I believe in the practice, and use it often.
could you explain to me the difference about invocation and evocation?
for the rest i don't really know if i see spirits as a part of the mind or as living things.
i can see some Truth in both ways (but even Truth is objective to me)
i explain:
because people who don't belief in spirits/ghosts don't see them that could be because they live in the people's head or because other people are just not aware of them
why i also can be that spirits live on there on:
a lot of people have similar experiences whit a entity
this also can be explained as people read the same books learn the same etc. what in print what should happen.
it is just it is easier to give reasons to the standing of that spirits live in the mind of a person
still i believe spirits are in some way not only in the mind
why i think this is just because i have the feeling it is and if it works for me i hold this
hope you can understand y terrible English
Yep, understood you perfectly.
Re: Invocation/Evocation
1. Invocation, invoking the 'spirit' - bringing within oneself
2. Evocation, evoking the 'spirit' - bringing before oneself
There are many ideas about both.
1. Some believe there are distinct differences
2. Some believe there is no difference at all
There are practices from culture to culture, which can be examined and you can determine the differences for yourself.
Exorcists, for example will instruct in the 'signs' of demon possession. That, in itself is up for interpretation. Because you have to determine what kind of Exorcist they are. It differs from religion to religion, and culture to culture.
www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/invocation-evocationThis is a link to an in-depth discussion on paganspace.net on the subject.
I am currently involved in an Ecstasia study, and invocation/evocation plays a major role in specific rituals.
My instructor, Ms. Julia R. Zay is involved in the discussion.
While I understand her point of view on the subject of evocare/invocare - I don't have to agree, just consider.
They are the same thing to me, just manifested differently.
She believes there are distinct differences, but having a deeper dialogue we agree it's just a semantics issue. Language.
Ms. Zay is versed on the following:
Zar, Tarantella, Flamenco, Guedra, Gnawa, & Hausa Bori as well as Syballine, Bacchic, Orphic, Apollonian and Isian practices.
Ms Zay writes:
"Evocation comes from the Roman ritual of Evocatio; wherein foreign Gods were invited to join the Roman Pantheon. This is why the Roman Pantheon is so huge. They were bringing deities from outside the religion into it. This is not necessarily a personal thing.
Trance artists use and have used a variation of this ritual (there isn't an official term for this but I call it Evocare; to evoke) in shape shifting, bilocation and Spirit Battle rituals. Deity is not brought into evocare. And there is a physical difference between the rituals of evocation and invocation in older traditions like the Religio and Hellenismos as well as a lot of the folkloric rituals of the Mediterranean region as a whole. I don't see any difference in the rituals performed in Neo-Paganism though. (As opposed to Recon religions or folk magic traditions.)
Which brings me to invocation and the differences between the two. First of all... personally speaking the difficulty level is waaaaaay higher to perform a proper invocation than it is for a evocation. I would consider evocation to be on the intermediate range while invocation is definitely advanced territory. It takes years and years of hard training to be able to perform a successful invocation (in any ritual system but that of Neo-Pagans it seems) and you would have to be pretty devoted and serious about it to even consider it.
I have witnessed many rituals where someone said, "I invoke ______." And I've been told that the invokee "felt the presence of the divine" but I certainly didn't see it. Classical Invocation rituals are spectacular things because you can definitely see something happening. And that something looks very different from what you would find at an evocation ritual.
The chants are different, the ritual clothing is different, the effects on the individual going through it are different. Historically speaking its only one deity at a time per person though an individual can carry a seemingly unlimited number of other types of spirits at once. Those spirits manifest in order of importance as well, keeping to a strict hierarchy.
Soooo yeah, there's a difference but only if you're actually doing it. I hate to say it that way but that's kind of the way it is."
**She offers this video as a demonstration, to support her explanation.
She states:
"This is what invocation looks like. If it doesn't look insane you haven't experienced it."
To which I responded:
"Yes I have.
I've also watched the documentary film called 'Taboo' which addresses many of the ritual 'taboos' of various cultures. It covers both invocation and evocation; very similar to many of the demonstration vids I've seen so far.
I've examined them pretty close, in lieu of understanding the psychological affects of self-applied delusion. Watching people go into convulsions over a manifestation of the mind is - well, mind boggling. (pun, pun!)"
Ms Zay:
"*Knee Slap*
But would it work without the build up? That's my big question. Is there a way to achieve the same result without the application of hypnotic irrationality? If not... then score for the theism argument. (It still doesn't give credence to the existence of anthropomorphic Gods.)
What do you think are the main differences between Neo-Pagan invocation and old world invocation? (The "we invoke thee" style vs. ecstatic ritual.)"
Me:
"No I don't.
I think self-delusion and hypnotic irrationality is key to the process. Otherwise, you are just 'pretending'. When I see these people in their rituals, there's no pretending going on.
They truly believe they are possessed, and have taken something external into themselves.
In the taboo film, one of the 'priests' cuts open the possessed and draws out liquid from the body. I can't remember if they cut into an internal organ, but that's pretty strong belief! If you are willing to go under the knife, with no numbing drugs of any kind - you better be damn sure you have a boogy man in there to draw out!
The neo-pagan practices are truly pretending; and not even convincingly. It's a farce. I believe the purpose of most rituals nowadays is 'routine' vs. the praxis.
I enjoy ceremonial magic, vs. most neo-pagan practices today. They are at least convincing pretenders."
Ms Zay:
"I pretty much feel the same way.
I think there's a strong lack of the ecstatic in formal Neo-Pagan rituals. And I don't actually lay that at the feet of the CM influence. I think it has a lot more to do with the Protestant influence because if you look at it... Catholics have a much broader display of ecstatic rituals whereas Protestant faiths and countries have a much more reserved style to their rituals. Informal drum circles and bonfires at Pagan events are much more "folkloric" (as in "of the people") which is the style of ritual Classically associated with Invocation.
If someone were to say to me that they were possessed by Bacchus *Adoratio* then I would fully expect so see certain Bacchic behaviors like omophagia. If someone were to tell me that they were possessed by Cybele *Adoratio* then I would expect to see body mortification. And if someone were to say to me that they had invoked Apollo then I would expect them to be playing an instrument past the point of their hands bleeding. I would expect these things because that's what invocation is.
I think that the only reason invocation and evocation might not make sense to some people is because they've largely been taken out of context.
I've heard questions like:
"Why would a deity even want to be in a human body?"
"How can a human body even hold a deity? Wouldn't the energy just kill a person?"
"What do you need the power of a deity for? What do you do with it?"
These questions don't come up in cultures who actually go through ecstatic invocation regularly. They come up in Neo-Pagan traditions because the concept of invocation is borrowed from a foreign source and it makes very little sense within the context of most Neo-Pagan religions. This is what happens when you through a bunch of religious traditions into a blender and hit puree. That which comes out might not actually work together really well."
Me:
"Exactly.
Most of the Neo-Pagan practices today 'attempt' to recapture ritualization from antiquity with no true understanding of it.
This is why I place such emphasis on archetypes, role-playing and ecstatic ritual in my own practices. I think it's important to reap the desired results, otherwise I'm just playing dress up for the ridiculousness of it, and for fun. There are very specific times during the year when it's crucial to my existence to perform specific rituals. While I'm realistic about the psychological reasoning behind hit; it's 'magic' none-the-less. The alchemy occurs during ritualization (transmutation of identity) and growth occurs. This is my goal. To become a super-human :-)"
Ms Zay:
"Evocation is calling upon your own spirit. Your own genius. Spirit summoning is something completely different from either evocation or invocation."
Me:
"Different in terms of semantics? When I think of 'summoning' I think of manifesting something outside of myself, even if the idea originates within. In terms of hypnosis, I could 'see' say, a demon as an external force but only I would see it. In essence I have summoned it from within. Or am I off base here?"
Ms Zay:
"Ah-ha! You're not thinking of this as a physical thing yet. The physical manifestations, sensations and mental perception all differ from each other. If nothing was actually happening and it was all pretend in your head then nothing would differentiate them externally. But this is a much more psychologically active activity than playing make-believe or "visualization". Remember when I talked about a lack of speech in evocation as a physical marker? Well each of these rituals is designed to produce different physical markers. Whatever is going on psychologically also has physical manifestations that can clue you in to the differences between these ritual forms.
As far as I'm concerned... visualization is playing make believe unless you are experiencing a hallucination. Then its a hallucination. Your outward physical manifestations change depending on the mental process you take. Summoning a "manifestation" of a spirit as you describe is definitely evocation because it is entirely internal. When I talk about spirit summoning I sometimes forget that there are Goetia nuts out there who also use those terms in a different way. I was more thinking along the lines of mediumship or, in response to Sapphire, the "invitation of random entities."
I think Neo-Pagans (yeah, I lump all the plebs into one pile) have become accustomed to not actually seeing any physical results in their practices. Magic is invisible and works in mysterious ways... I come from the other side of that bridge where if you can't see some physical manifestation of what you're doing then it isn't worth your time."
Me:
{sigh...the plebs}
But you do have to manifest it psychologically (i.e. mind) before observing any physical affects from it, do you not?
I understand the context you are placing it in, but to me it's coming across as semantics. I think we are discussing the same thing, but I just hadn't addressed the physical affects yet.
Ms Zay:
"Okay on the semantic thing.
I don't know if you have to manifest it psychologically before observing physical effects. I'm not sure if that's something you could tell from a distance. It seems to me like that would be the case. I do know that spotting a fake is really frickin easy, even for a novice."
So you see? Even with an experienced teacher such as Ms. Zay, the terminology *can* confuse the matter.
I still pretty firm about both being the same, in that the 'mind' is where both originate; though how they manifest may be different.
Here is a list Ms. Zay offered for terminology (for the sake of determining invocation/evotions:
Anamnesis ~ A ritual designed to conjure the memory of events from mythology or sacred history. (Classically speaking this is a form of invocation but contemporarily speaking I consider it evocation.)
Apotropaia ~ A ritual of driving away ill spirits. (This is neither.)
Catharsis ~ A ritual of personal purification of miasma. (This is neither.)
Didactic ~ A ritual that includes doctrinal music. (Invocation usually encompasses this.)
Doxological ~ A ritual or activity for the pleasure of the divine. (Can be invocation.)
Epiclesis ~ A ritual invitation to the divine to be present for whatever the ceremony might hold. (Evocation)
Eucharistic ~ A ritual that expresses gratitude for favors already granted by the divine. (Neither.)
Expiation ~ A ritual of asking for forgiveness; to make reparations with the divine. (Sometimes invocation.)
Exstasis ~ A ritual of blissful union between mortal and immortal spirits. (Definitely invocation.)
Hymnal ~ A ritual of offering praise to the divine. (Usually neither.)
Katanyxis ~ A ritual designed to create the feeling of grief and hubristic guilt. (Usually neither.)
Koinonia ~ A ritual communion between humanity and the divine. (Usually neither.)
Litaneia ~ A petitionary ritual or prayer chant. (Invocation encompasses this.)
Propitiation ~ A ritual of appeasement between mortal and immortal spirits. (Neither.)
Now I don't have a similar list for magical operations but I can throw out some examples of evocation used in magic. Namely shape shifting, bilocation and spirit battle.
The link is above to read through the entire discussion for perspective. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
