Research verses Revelation: Four Rules for Balance

This morning Jake Stratton Kent posted a quote mocking someone he must have come across online that read : “‘I don’t need research – I’m a practitioner”

I am glad I am not the only one that comes across this mentality.

The funny thing about my work is that people who are more traditional than I am sometimes get upset at the amount of emphasis I place on spirit revelation, experimentation, and just plain old creativity. People that are less traditional than I am get upset at the emphasis I place on research, linking to the past, and taking a traditional approach where appropriate. I feel good about that, as it probably means I am striking something close to the right balance in my practice. In general I think each person must strike their own balance between Research/Tradition and Revelation/Creativity.

There is a problem though, and its on the Revelation/Creativity side of the game. There are a lot of people, way too many, that feel research is not important at all. “Just talk to the spirit to find out” they say. “I don’t need to be initiated, I just do the practice” they declare…

The funny thing is, I see comparatively little of this on the research side of our craft. Yes there are people who are primarily interested in historical magic and their work revolves around that – but I do not see the rush to dismiss revelation or creativity. I see people dismissing revelation that is outlandish or silly (the Tantra of Jesus in union with Kali), and I see people rightly dismissing creative acts that are culturally disrespectful (the “Houngan” with no teacher or knowlege beyond the Milo Rigaud book they read) but thats different. And sure there are a few here and there that fetishize a particular place and time and dismiss anything outside of that. But they are not many.

Practitioners that dismiss research however are far worse because its largely done out of laziness. Whether they simply do not want to put the work in to research, or they are afraid that well-researched or initiated people threaten their position as “expert”, its a bad reason to dismiss anything.

I have some general guidelines for letting both research and revelation hold a place in my practice but the central rule is this:

 Rule #1 KEEP THEM SEPARATE

One is not better than the other. One does not replace the other. Keep them separate.

Revelation, when its real (a whole other topic for another day) has the advantage of being fresh for this time and place. It has not degenerated though the vast game of telephone that happens over centuries. God’s mouth to the revealer to those he teaches. This is why in Tibetan Buddhism Nyingmapa tend to work with Terma (revealed material) more than Kama (material Padmasambhava actually taught in the 8th century).

Research on the other hand has the advantage of deep roots and a proven record of success – sometimes (another whole other topic for another day). It has probably changed from its original form, but in ways that evolve and make it relevant while still connected to something more tangible than something that someone claims is revealed but might very well be pulled out of their ass.

The other rules are all related to this first central rule, but lets go over them anyway.

Rule #2: DON’T TRY TO MAKE REVELATION FIT RESEARCH

People should not feel that revelation should be perfectly in line with historical research. For one thing, what we know of history is always expanding. Also, what is the point of chaining down the gods to what they have already said and done? Sometimes the spirits themselves are eager to escape ossifying traditions that hold back not only the people in the tradition but the spirits too. If you think that religions or traditions are tidy monoliths without conflicts or change, you have clearly never been involved with one. Tidy they are not, and the Sorcerers can always be found hanging around the edges that are hard to clean.

Rule #3: DON’T REPLACE RESEARCH WITH REVELATION

Never replace research with revelation. Ever. In the past there have been far too many people filling the holes of history in with stuff that spirits have told them. Theosophy… I’m lookin at you…

But in general I meet people all the time who make grand claims about lineages, initiations, and knowledge that upon even brief questioning are revealed to be nothing more than their own spirit provided information. Authentic or not, it must never be allowed to be confused with tradition or history.

As Neil Gaiman once said: “things need not have happened in order to be true”. Its a good thing for magicians to keep in mind, as at times Gods and Spirits will point to truths that are more mythological than historical. They are ‘true’ in the way poetry and art can be true, not in the way that the Crimean War was true. Of course there are poems about that too, but best to not get the truths mixed up.

Rule #4: CELEBRATE WHEN RESEARCH AND REVELATION CROSSOVER, BUT KEEP THEM SEPARATE ANYWAY

Sometimes revelation and research crossover. I have been very blessed to have had this happen a number of times, most especially in my work over the last 16 years with Hekate. The first time it happened was after she revealed the guardian spirits to me that I wrote about in Protection & Reversal Magic. The heads of the guardians were a Bull, Horse, Serpent, and Dog. There are no guardians like this in history, but there is a mention of Tetradic Hekate in the Chaldean Oracles with these heads – a fact I was not aware of until someone pointed it out.

I consider things like this to be Verified Personal Gnosis (VPG as opposed to the much maligned UPG). Its a sign that contact is authentic and meaningful. I still keep them separate though. Celebrate the resonance with history, but don’t make too much out of it either.

In general if you are involved with magic and spirit contact you should have a healthy relationship with both revelation and research. Never let your revelation muddy the research, and never let research dictate the content of revelation.