Checklist for Therapies and Styles of Magic

What follows is a translation of Señor Shaman's article I considered important to share.

"Checklist for Therapies and Styles of Magic

One of the significant challenges faced by someone learning Magic is assessing whether the system (or style, tradition, or technique) is good or not. This is equally true for any spiritual technique. The lack of experience or reference points in many schools makes it difficult to understand if something is truly of quality.
Additionally, for whatever reason, those who instruct or are defined as experts in these techniques often do not share critical information or directly evade questions on critical issues.

Multiple paths can be taken to evaluate the quality of a magical technique or school. For now, I will only consider three elements of consistency, namely:

•  Self-consistency or consistency with itself.

•  Consistency with natural laws.

•  Theory-practice consistency or alignment with promised results.

This is linked to the solidity of the narrative and how clear and logical the story told by the school is. Think of it as a game of adding and subtracting points; you add points if a claim is verifiable and subtract if it is not. This is not a definitive way to evaluate knowledge, but using these additions and subtractions will encourage you to use your critical sense to analyse the flaws in the discourse of such teaching.
For example, if a school defines itself as 'heir to the ancient knowledge of Atlantis,' it first implies that Atlantis existed. Is it possible to prove this?

If so, apply +1; if not, apply -1.

Let's clarify at this point: To demonstrate does not mean that Pedro, Juan, or Diego say it existed, but that it is possible to say, 'Yes, in such a year, in such a place in the sea (coordinates), Atlantis was there, and if you send a submarine to check, you will find its ruins.' It is clear that, at least until the time of writing this article, this would not be demonstrable.

Continuing with the analysis, suppose the previous statement were demonstrable. It would imply an unbroken chain of people, from the times of mythical Atlantis to the present, who have preserved that knowledge. Therefore, we should expect to know everyone who preserved it to our days, like a genealogical tree of those who transmitted the knowledge. Does it exist? 

If that genealogical tree exists, +1; if not, -1.

These points are about traceability. If the score is +2, then it can be considered consistent traceability. If the score is 0 or lower, then it is questionable. The more negative it is, the more questionable it is.

Now, let's look at the motivation of the teacher.

Why are they teaching? There are thousands of answers, a valid one is 'so that knowledge is not lost,' but this is also affected by the conditions under which it is taught. For example, has this knowledge always been available to anyone who wants it? If not, why teach it to you? What is unique about you to receive secret knowledge? If, on the other hand, it has always been public, has it been delivered for free or for a fee? How consistent is this with the premises of the previous questions?

In more than one school (referring to both places where occultism is taught and lines of teaching such as orders or spiritual traditions), courses are held on their knowledge. It is good to know if the person who received such knowledge paid for it, then contrast that with whether you must pay or not.

If they received it for payment and taught for payment, the score is 0; if they received it for payment and taught for free, +1; if they received it for free and taught for payment, -1.

There are also those who say they 'teach knowledge for the good of humanity,' which is commendable. Here again, the economic issue comes into play. Is the good of humanity conditioned by the recipient's economic situation? 

If the person uses this argument but charges, -1; they do not charge, +1.

Following the analysis, we move on to the internal structure of the teaching. When you study what you have been taught, is there continuity? Continuity implies that there are no gaps in knowledge and that everything you do has a reason that can be analysed in detail and justifies doing it. For example, if the teachings tell you to 'stand facing the Sun every morning, upright, looking east, and repeat the mantra,' what is the reason for doing it in the morning? What happens if you do it at noon or dusk? Why east and not another direction? Why standing upright and not sitting? Why that mantra and not another? 

There must be an answer for everything, every time there is no answer then apply -1, equally if the given answer is 'it's a secret; every time there is a clear, logical, and direct answer +1, if the answer is ambiguous or evasive, apply 0. All this will give you an idea of the consistency of the internal structure of the teachings.

The quality of the material provided is also important. Manuals are often delivered in many courses. Is it something written by the instructor or taken from the web? To know this, take some characteristic phrases from the text and put them in Google (preferably those that contain concrete terms of the technique). 

If the material proves to be authored by your instructor, apply +1; on the other hand, if the source was Wikipedia or the website of Mrs. Juanita the psychic, then it is plagiarism, so apply -1 for material and if the source was not referred to -1 or ethics. 

If the material is from your instructor, is the writing clear? Does it have good spelling? Does it seem like the writing of someone your age? 

The ability to express oneself in writing is directly proportional to a person's mental processes, their level of order, and understanding of the subject matter; apply +1 or -1 at your discretion.

On the above apply scores of +1 and -1 at your discretion based on how consistent it is with the traceability and motivation of the teachings. For example, if they tell you that you will use the mantra 'OHM,' classic of India but it is a course on Central African spirituality, there must be an excellent and logical reason to mix two cultures that initially did not touch (except until the time of colonialism), add or subtract according to whether it is possible to logically save such a strong point of inconsistency. If not, it would be an extreme inconsistency (subtract points).

Finally, let's analyse the consistency of the promise. At this point, only the teacher will be evaluated; your own results will be analysed in the third item.

If, for example, a technique promises 'spiritual awakening,' has the instructor already achieved it? If not, how do they justify it? If they have achieved it, how do they demonstrate it? Is their life an example of balance and harmony, where birds come to play with them as they walk like Disney princesses? Or perhaps is their life full of "mundane" conflicts to deal with constantly?

If the promise is 'healing of any disease,' is the teacher free of all disease? Do they carry a chronic illness? How do they explain their health problems in contrast to the promise of healing everything?

If you are promised 'magical power,' does your teacher/professor demonstrate having it? How do you know? How do they prove it?

If there is consistency between what is promised and the teacher's life, +1; if not, -1, for each time there is consistency or inconsistency.

I assume that if you have read to this point, you will not only be thinking abstractly and making calculations about a situation in your own life, but you will also have asked yourself several questions, both those suggested at the beginning and others that have come out based on your own experience. Note them down. How many have there been? That number will be the maximum score.

Suppose there have been 15 questions. If the score achieved by that school or course you are analysing is 15, you will have a school or knowledge with high self-consistency. If it is close to 0, things look bad because it has low self-consistency; that is, there are many holes in the arguments they present. If the score is negative, then it is a red flag; the bigger, the more damaging it is. If you reached -15, run while you can - your mental health and wallet will thank you.

Now, add up the points from the three aspects analysed and the maximum score for each. Did you get positive or negative values? If the values are very close to the maximum, it's a highly consistent technique; if they're close to zero, it has low consistency; if they're negative, well, that's a red flag—steer clear of the sharks.

Where was the technique most consistent? Where was it least consistent? It's always helpful to know. Sometimes theories are excellent but fail in practice, or vice versa—the theory is weak, but the results are impressive.

If the theory is excellent but the results are poor, then perhaps you need to analyze where the technique's application fails; if you can correct it, you might surpass your teacher.

If the theory is weak but the results are excellent, you need to look outside for a theoretical framework that better explains the phenomena.
If the problem was the coherence between the instructor's teachings and their own life and actions, you might need someone more consistent to teach you.

As I mentioned at the start, this point-scoring system is entirely subjective, but it serves a purpose: to lead you to an objective analysis of the situation. This is because many poor instructors in occultism stay in the realm of the subjective, never daring to make solid statements or assertive claims that can be confirmed with actual results. They often hide behind discourses about 'secrets that cannot be revealed' or that the student will only understand when they reach the same level of spiritual development (which is illogical—why teach something that you know they can't comprehend? To charge them or make them feel inferior, obviously).

Sadly, some use causes to cover up; for instance, if a woman is questioned too much about the reasons for what she says, she might claim sexism, patriarchal mentality, lack of sisterhood, gender discrimination, or whatever suits her case; similarly, if a man will use similar tactics, but this is only seen in bad instructors.

A good instructor won't be ashamed to admit they don't know something, as acknowledging ignorance on a topic is dignifying, though it doesn't validate an idea by itself—if they don't know, they don't know.

This analysis I've presented is just a general idea; you'll need to adapt it to your own context. Be very self-critical regarding the dedication you've given to learning the subject, how much you've researched and practiced on your own. Also, lose the fear of asking questions to your teacher; the instructor's reaction to the questions posed is critical for evaluating their personality and spirituality.

The teacher, master, instructor, or whatever they call themselves who has accepted you as a student should be willing to impart knowledge; if not, why did they agree to have you as a student? Don't be afraid to ask all the questions in class, regardless of how the rest react; if you want to learn, you must leave embarrassment at the door.

This will give you some ideas to help you decide if what you're being taught is of quality (high consistency) or if it's better to flee before you fall prey to a shark. If you see red flags and do nothing, that's on you."