A Fellow Lighter

I'm only just now opening myself up to the supernstural because I've now integrated my solipstic awakening into my "personal" life. Otherwise I wouldn't have paid any mind to it. I find it kind of funny.

Any tips on how to do this by volition? I've done this a couple of times but never by intention.

@Schizophonia, this guy is incredibly insightful.

Neat. Let me look him up.

That's awesome. Has s/he, in teaching, a theory on the subject? Or does s/he only offer the descipline and practice involved in clairvoyance?

@Kuba Powiertowski, thank you so much for the perspective. It really means a lot. In the meantime I'll continue with Pontiac's content and see where it leads me. What I've learned from the particular interview in the video that you've shared is that this Chaos Magick seems to have it's own philosophy, one strong enough to build an 'in-group' at least. This makes me wonder whether all kinds of magicks have their philosophies or not. Anyway, your point of magick being an approach to spirituality is solid. Thank you for sharing.

@Kuba Powiertowski, thank you for the references. May I ask how long you've followed Ronnie Pontiac's content for? How so? I see. I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean your mentor has mastered clairvoyance?

What kind of stuff are you looking into? Is there something you want to achieve? Can you tell me more? Is that something you want to develop or just understand? Why's that?

Anyone here investing their time in occult sciences or magic or even the application of esoteric knowledge?

Enlightenment is permanent in that it is happening all the time. This is because it is the only thing that can happen. Enlightenment means accessing truth more and more. This is not a momentary thing but an indefinite thing because all things boil down to the access of truth. The depression trip is not enlightenment but neither is the psychedelic trip. Nothing in particular is enlightenment. Instead enlightenment is the most permanent or constant thing that can happen. It is the way. It is the Dao.

I'm not sure I follow. The word infinite has acquired much semantic saturation. I've come to find it a tad complicated to recognise exactly how the word is being used in the statements it is used in, such as the one quoted above. If by perception you refer to the way in which one can makes sense of reality, then, yes. Our perception is limited. Okay, I can assume here that by infinite you mean that which is 'endless', an unfathomable depth, in other words. Okay. Understanding, or grasp, is in deed very limited because it serves the illision, the experience, rather, as opposed to serving the reality itself — the mind itself that is. Understanding is still perception, it still refers to the way in which we make sense of the world. How we make sense of the world is literally a matter of making something out of nothing (or that which is not a thing). Hence we have things. It is through imagination that we have things. Imagination is the fabrication of some thing out of that which is not a thing, out of that which is being itself. So, no. One cannot understand that which is not a thing. We can only understand the things we imagine. This is for the sake of experience — not awakening. It's for the sake of the illusion as we call it. Only meditation can bring about awakening. Being-ness requires awareness, not understanding. The infinite is already here, it is not a hidden truth but an absolute one. One needs only to be aware of it.

Final Realisation There are no things, only being. This is true on all levels, all scales and all complexities (or simplicities). This is the total collapse of the Subject and Object dichotomy created by language. The finality of it comes from the awareness of how all identities, all patterns and all statements ultimately collapse into one activity — the mind. There are levels to this mind. Ego-mind is one of them. There is also karma and psyche and more which are all equally mind. All of this is still one activity which is mind. This activity is for the purpose of consciousness, or the self-recognition of consciousness, rather. Consciousness is the only meaning/purpose of mind, or life as most of us will refer it. There are no things. There is nothing but mind.

It's not an assessment, friend. It's a recognition. Sentience is an illusion. No illusion seems like an illusion. If it did then it would simply be called an appearance as opposed to an illusion. Also, it is possible to investigate an illusion without ever realising that it's an illusion. Our scientists do that all the time. The illusion doesn't even need to be a conceptual overlay because it is already an experiential one. Then I, for one, accept this invitation. Sentience refers to the capacity to have subjective experiences and sensations, essentially the ability to perceive and feel things. "How does sentience arise?" There's no plausible explanation for it, at least in the scientific sense. It's the same question as how does dead matter give rise to consciousness, isn't it? And the answer to that is, nobody knows. "What is it composed of?" Still, nobody knows? So many unknowns for something that is right there, blunt and in the open. But its composition forever elusive. And its origin, totally allusive. And yet it appears to be as real as anything else that is apparant to observation: objects and the environment. Now, you can still say it's an assumption to call it an illusion if you want. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm recognising a duck as a duck.

Sentience is an illusion.

Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you uses to heal your sick self. Therefore, trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility. ~ Khalil Gibran