EXPOSED: Llewellyn Blog Mistakes Mysticism for Magick (Answer to Donald Michael Kraig)

Donald Michael Kraig recently published an article entitled "The Dark Night of the Soul." You can read the entire article over on the Llewellyn blog here. I am concerned about the level of confusion perpetuated in the Magical community by this article through imprecise use of the terms "Mysticism" with "Magick."

In "Dark Night of the Soul," Kraig draws a distinction between what he calls "technological/spiritual Magick" and "Religious Magick," yet goes on to describe both of these forms of so-called "Magick" in purely Mystical terms.

From the perspective of the Hermetic and Magical traditions, including luminaries such as Giordano Bruno, Marcilio Ficino, Cornelius Agrippa, Gerolamo Cardano, Pietro D'Abano, Theophrastus Paracelsus, and Eliphas Levi (not to mention the entirety of Egyptian, Chaldeaen, and Sumerian Magick) what Kraig describes is not really Magick at all, but pure Mysticism.

Kraig is absolutely correct that what he calls "Religious Magick," or "seeking a direct relationship between the Divine and the practitioner" is actually Mysticism. But why call Mysticism "Religious Magick" at all?

Mysticism is Mysticism. Magick is something else. Calling Mysticism "Magick" merely creates unnecessary confusion.

As for what Kraig calls "technological/spiritual Magick," which Kraig defines as "Attuning oneself with the Divine," this is not Magick at all either, at least from the point of view of centuries of Hermetic and Magical tradition.

This also is Mysticism, pure and simple. According to long established Hermetic and Magical tradition, Kraig in reality is contrasting two different aspects of Mysticism, which he mistakenly calls "Magick."

Kraig's conflation of the terms "Magick" and "Mysticism" perfectly mirrors the utter bewilderment about the real differences between Magick and Mysticism that plagues today's esoteric community. Sadly, interchangeable and imprecise usage of these terms, such as Kraig's usage in the article under discussion, perpetuates such confusion rather than clarifying and eliminating it.

I have written extensively previously on the differences between Mysticism and Magick (here). I repeat the most relevant aspects, as follows:

"Mysticism and Magick are two quite distinct spiritual paths. The primary difference between Magick and Mysticism lies codified in the actual methods of practice, together with the Mystical or Magical inclinations of the practitioner. 

The Mystical path refers to the capacity and will of the practitioner to place oneself in a passive position in relationship to eternal Being and the forces of nature, which the Practitioner begins to invoke and pray to, so they may manifest and enlighten one, thus spiritually uplifting and exalting the practitioner.  

The Magical practitioner, on the other hand, does not place him or herself in a passive state towards natural and Divine forces, but rather in a positive state. Recognizing the Divine Spark inside oneself, the practitioner actively collaborates with Eternal Being rather than waiting for its manifestations. 

In Mysticism, the practitioner expects Divinity to manifest itself, and to ascend the staircase that leads from below to on high aided by the Divine hand that takes us and leads us ever upwards. 

Magic does not expect this, instead conquering the Inner Planes through one's own effort rather than through Divine aid. Thus, whereas the Mystical approach is one of submission, the Magician instead is a conquerer. 

A perfect example of the Magical path may be found in the Mithraic Ritual deposited in Paris, which shows one such practice of divine Ascension of the Magical initiate. While rising towards Divinity to be received like a prodigal Son or Daughter, the practitioner greets the Gods as equals that gradually appear, not fearing them or subjugating oneself before them, but admonishing them and blandishing them with Magical words that open the gates of heaven. 

Whereas Magick is based on knowledge, Mysticism is based on on ignorance in the literal sense of "ignoring" or "unknowing." In fact, one of the most important mystical texts in all of Christianity, "The Cloud of Unknowing," speaks of making oneself obscure, humble and ignorant before the unmanifest - to remain there, in silence, gradually emptying oneself, while waiting for something or someone (God) to come and fill the void thus created. 

Thus two completely different modalities become evident. Whereas the Mystic reflects the Divine light that is poured out upon him, the Magician generates this light, becoming an emitter himself.  

A.E. Waite

The foremost exponent of the Mystical path in the Golden Dawn was Arthur Edward Waite, who completely suppressed Magick in favor of Christian Mysticism in his Fellowship of the Rosy Cross and its Inner Order, the Rosa Rossa et Aureae Crucis (Rectified Rite). Waite's Fellowship of the Rosy Cross, reconstructed in recent years and open only to Christians, today remains the most Mystical order in the Golden Dawn community. 

The foremost exponent of the Magical path in the Golden Dawn was the great Mage, S.L. MacGregor Mathers. Mathers understood that the Golden Dawn primarily as a Magical rather than a Mystical tradition. Over time the Magical spiritual path has become more and more pronounced in Mathers' Alpha Omega. The A.O. today remains the most Magical order in the Golden Dawn community. 

In between the Alpha Omega and the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross, which most clearly exemplify the diametrically opposed Magical and Mystical Golden Dawn paths, there today exist a host of Golden Dawn orders that lie somewhere in between ... that have not gone so far as to suppress Magick outright as did the Waite order, yet nonetheless remain quite Mystical in their approach to the Golden Dawn."

Although this will likely come as a surprise to many of Donald Michael Kraig's readers, judging by what Kraig has written in "Dark Night of the Soul," Kraig's underlying philosophical approach to occultisim, the Golden Dawn, and Magick in general, is not really a Magical approach at all, but rather a Mystical approach instead.

This does not mean that Kraig's books do not include a great deal of Magical techniques, albeit borrowed from other sources. Clearly they do. For example, Kraig's Modern Magick borrows heavily from published Golden Dawn material.

Nonetheless, to one versed in the literature of the history of Magick and of Hermeticism, it is obvious that Kraig's underlying philosophical position and personal approach to esoteric work is consistently that of Mysticism, rather than that of Magick.

Although this may astonish some of Kraig's readers, it should nonetheless come as no surprise, considering that Kraig is both a member and a covert public representative of one of the most mystically oriented of all Golden Dawn orders.

If one analyses Kraig's writings carefully, it becomes readily apparent that Donald Michael Kraig has for decades been a primary exponent of the Mystical approach, both to occultism in general, and to the Golden Dawn in particular.

Thus we should not be surprised that the arguments contained in Kraig's latest article conflate the Mystical "Dark Night of the Soul" of the Christian Mystic, St. John of the Cross, with the thoroughly Magical "Crossing of the Abyss," which occurs during the transition between the classical Golden Dawn's Second and Third Orders.

There is precious little I may reveal in public about the true nature of this perilous "Crossing of the Abyss" between the Golden Dawn's Second and Third orders, since this remains oath bound information in the A.O. Let me give a hint, at least, as to the true nature of this Magical (not Mystical) process, however, with the following piece of prose: