The Trouble with Return It Back to Sender Spells
I was reading Christopher Penczak’s book The Inner Temple of Witchcraft: magick, meditation, and psychic development, 2002, and I came upon an interesting take on the return back to sender spells.
He says: “A popular defense is to visualize mirrors all around you, returning harm back to the sender, but I cannot recommend this technique at all. Many Witches vow never to do harm, but mirrors purposely send back harm to someone. The argument for the mirror technique is that the original sender is “karmically” getting what was sent out, but I believe it is not our job to make sure others “get what they deserve.” The universe takes care of that. Willing harm back to another instead of grounding it and neutralizing it is irresponsible. If someone should “walk into the magickal crossfire” and get “hit” by the harmful energy, we would be just as responsible. We did not start the conflict, but we perpetuated it when we could have ended it.”
He goes on the say that when first learning protection magick he was taught the technique of reflecting “love back on the source of the harm, in an effort to not make an unhealthy personal attachment, to not dwell on vengeance or retribution, and to potentially heal the situation.” He found however that a small percentage of the people launching both purposeful and unconscious attacks used the reflected love to fuel their own self-esteem without changing their ways. They felt rewarded for doing ill against another.
So he changed his intention to include love, will, and wisdom. The person would align with divine will and have the wisdom to see the situations, themselves, and their actions clearly. They would not become dependent on a quick boost of love to feel good.
When reflecting back harm, he suggested using these words: “I charge my protection shield to protect me from all harm on any level, and reflect love, will, and wisdom back on the source of the harm.” Repeat this three times and end with a “So mote it be.”
Food for thought?