Extinguishing

[Nubti]

Yesterday's voyage into clarity clarified those things which were unclear. Surrendering all is a rather daunting and effortful task.
Over the past... 23 hours, more or less, I've endeavored to remove myself as much from my environment. It's difficult.

The more attentive I am about this, the more it seems to grow in strength. A paradoxical effect.
All I want to do is reduce myself to just breathing. Yet, when I try, I nearly instantly find that something, someone, or sometime requires that I return.

And when I do, the complexes which I aim to dissolve become stronger. Yet for a few moments between inhaling and exhaling, THAT ceases.
I can't seem to be able to convey what IT is. That gap, between I and O, followed by all flooding back.

Surrendering to the swimmer. What a challenge.

There is also another paradox. Being instructed to partake of everything as whim strikes, while at the same time surrendering to IT.

The method is simple. Whatever you're doing, stop, and breathe only.

And when I do this, the result is that either I lose awareness, and come back to it seconds later, completely forgetting I was to breathe, or a necessity to cease appears.

This is consistent with some previous conversations had, particularly the idea that we are but means towards an end, and thus the extent of our freedom is inversely proportional to how critical a particular course of action is towards meeting that end.

However it's also unintuitive and paradoxical, in that one would expect that extinguishing the mind would lead towards diminishing its overall influence - however that doesn't appear to be the case in the slightest. Instead what I observe is a marked strengthening of my mental faculties, and in particular a much more definite 'holding on to' things which I am actively attempting to surrender.

One of those "here I am, kill me!" moments, where rather than being decapitated, as one should be, I find myself being pumped with what I would readily equate with meth.

A strengthening of attachment to this empire of dirt, this world of dust. At the same time, it may well be that it's not that, but the bringing down of the barrier, a discovery of the self as it is, rather than as I had so far seen it to be.

It's quite perplexing, this gap.

[pantare]

Yet, when I try, I nearly instantly find that something, someone, or sometime requires that I return.

I'm not where you are, but my instinct is that you should press on despite that feeling.

A strengthening of attachment to this empire of dirt, this world of dust. At the same time, it may well be that it's not that, but the bringing down of the barrier, a discovery of the self as it is, rather than as I had so far seen it to be.

Everything goes into Her cup. The attachment seems like a reaction, but paraphrasing Crowley, give it up or it'll be taken from you forcefully.

[pantare]

Or die a Black Brother, I suppose.

The two sections I quoted reminded me of something reading Castaneda helped me understand:

I read once that God is a verb. Also that 'you' are a verb. Everything that I am is a series of doings. When you stop and breath I think we're practicing not-doing to see what's left. That seems to be what a lot of the work is; tearing down the structures we build to get at what's really there.

Maybe there's nothing really there, ie Anatta, but perhaps some things are more not-there than others.

[Lumi]

To Nubti: Yes the gap between your internal logos and the higher logos is very perplexing. What you are simulating is death, but that isn't the nature of the logos, so even as you direct your lower towards that higher, it resists. Instead of attempting to set your inner free to reach the higher, you should try reaching out to it through Love instead. By it's very nature that is nature itself, it will reach back. It isn't just a static structure, it pushes and pulls. It is a liminal entity. This approach will have more...extreme results. This entity is the abyss and confusion that you can lose yourself in.   

Notice how I started using It as well. If you try to pin it down in language it resists. Notice how it attempts to blur the difference between your logos and the logos as well. Without the mind to govern it(both whole and part), It is an incredibly dangerous force. I am not overly familiar with thelema but this has always been my interpretation of Love under will. If you choose to properly explore this path, I am willing to set you straight as needed, but know that you probably wont be able to listen. Language is it's domain and your ability to differentiate/interpret will be thoroughly between you and it. In general it is better to simply trust that a little bit of poison is the cure.

Pantare: " my instinct is that you should press on despite that feeling." You should zip it. These natural impulses are the only guideposts you have. You would never think of imposing yourself on it if you had the faintest whiff of what it could do back. You can't just trample on things inviolable without consequence. This is more complicated and dangerous territory than you realize. It isn't the taking or the giving, which are fundamentally the same, btw that turns you into a black brother. You have to experience it to understand what true attachment is.

 " read once that God is a verb. Also that 'you' are a verb. Everything that I am is a series of doings. When you stop and breath I think we're practicing not-doing to see what's left. That seems to be what a lot of the work is; tearing down the structures we build to get at what's really there. " - Listen to yourself.  Your language betrays how confused you are. This kind of confusion will get you ripped apart. Whether God is a noun or a verb is a matter of perspective that can not be overcome. If everything you are was only a series of doings, there is no you. There is nothing to do the willing that becomes the series of doings. Are you dead? Or is their life inside you that is set into motion in accordance with what you will. Just because something is not readily available for examination, for instance when intent doesn't match the results. (Did I want to do the thing I acknowledged is not good by choosing against it and trying to create the opposite?)

 A great example of this is Hermes in Homer. In the Iliad, he miscommunicates the will of Zeus to Paris causing him, who despite what Hermes says, is not a fairer judge than Zeus, to judge the goddesses and cause strife. Or in the Odyssey where he is sent to help Odysseus escape Circe's island ,where she brings out people's animal natures through her magic, but instead of helping Odysseus he gives him a plant and tells him he is immune, which is totally true but actually impedes the progress Hermes was supposed to create in him. Even though Circe's magic doesn't work, he gets stuck on the island indulging his animal delights all the same. Paris and Odysseus are both Black Brothers.

[pantare]

If everything you are was only a series of doings, there is no you.

I did literally use the word anatta. Thank you for your contributions.

[Lumi]

If everything you are was only a series of doings, there is no you.

I did literally use the word anatta. Thank you for your contributions.

I don't want to discourage you from continuing to learn and trying to understand, but at the present moment this topic is beyond you.

Go ahead... Tell me what anatta means and how it validates the position you quoted. I will give you a hint. Anatta refers to the absence of any essential self. Essence is other than self. In other words, essence is non-self. I firmly understand this to be true whether it be on the micro or macro level.  When I say there is no you, you only think I mean self in the sense of anatta because you don't understand just how slippery the word "self" is.  What you are arguing and what the truth of it is are very different things. In fact, if the moment of truth came right now and you found yourself in the abyss, the very type of self denial you are proposing would cause a very negative reaction for you.

[pantare]

I'm not here to argue with you.

[Lumi]

I'm not here to argue with you.

I am not here to argue with you either. In fact, if you look closely, we aren't arguing.  I would actually really appreciate it if you expounded on what anatta means to you and what you meant when you used it as a rebuttal.

[pantare]

J. B.?

As you've said:

at the present moment this topic is beyond you.

But since I'm already out in the ocean, I may as well drown. Anatta as I understand it implies a literal nothing at the core of everything. I relate it to the Ain behind Kether. If talking about the abyss is out of my breadth, how much further is Kether and Ain, I wonder.

So, even if I perceive some spark of light in my chest, behind that is Nothing. How that pertains to the self speaks to the the slippery nature you pointed out. Precisely that I cannot point to a concrete entity called Me. Yet there appears to be a series of occurrences that take make up Me; these occurrences are how I understand the sephiroth so far. Not as discrete objects, but events.

These, of course, are all just my opinions :)

[Lumi]

J. B.?

As you've said:

at the present moment this topic is beyond you.

But since I'm already out in the ocean, I may as well drown. Anatta as I understand it implies a literal nothing at the core of everything. I relate it to the Ain behind Kether. If talking about the abyss is out of my breadth, how much further is Kether and Ain, I wonder.

So, even if I perceive some spark of light in my chest, behind that is Nothing. How that pertains to the self speaks to the the slippery nature you pointed out. Precisely that I cannot point to a concrete entity called Me. Yet there appears to be a series of occurrences that take make up Me; these occurrences are how I understand the sephiroth so far. Not as discrete objects, but events.

These, of course, are all just my opinions :)

 You really should just say what you think in the moment and not worry about it. Rome wasn't built in a day. Like when you call them your opinion... it really doesn't work that way. Particularly on this topic.

I am sorry if I was a little harsh with you. Basically every mystical/magical group in the world has rules about not talking about this stuff because it is bad for the listener. language really does bend around it, words take on double meanings and triple meanings etc etc. There is actually a specific reference to this in the Samyutta Nikaya (44.10) specifically about anatta.

You basically just said a couple of things that I am morally obligated to disabuse you of. Like, when I am saying your misconceptions could mess you up royally I mean it. This topic is one of the few places of real danger if done wrong.

[pantare]

I'm not trying to write this off like "every opinion is valid!" by calling it my opinion. That, and the language which "betrays how confused" I am is said for a reason. I do actually understand that I don't know, even if I don't know how much I don't know.

For your appreciation, I expounded, both of us knowing full well what the result would be. The other option was silence, like Buddha to Vacchagottha there, but in lieu (in lieu of nothing) at-least I can make clear where my words come from. And then, when I am certain, maybe it will be different altogether.

[Nubti]

What a confusing mess I made. I should have listened to my instincts and withheld these words.

Lumi, it's rather the reverse of lower to higher. The end goal I pursue is complete non-doing.

[koba]

So much Mr.C and I'm not even in the abyss yet -_-