Intransigence and Tolerance of the Magus
A successful Magus is a warrior tempered in numerous and harsh battles. And a serious problem for any warrior is the integration of the combat dichotomy: on the one hand, he must be intransigent and uncompromising, and on the other — flexible and understanding.
The Magus’s world is both stark and multicolored. Without an understanding of this duality, the Magus will become either a soldier capable only of linear action or a holy fool, driven by external forces.
The key distinction necessary for integrating this binary harmoniously is the distinction between actions and agents. Not confusing one’s attitude toward actions with one’s attitude toward the actor who performs them — that is the vital skill that helps to achieve a sober view of what is taking place.
The Magus is intransigent when on his path there is the exploitation of one being by another, the use of one being that impedes the development and expression of consciousness. The Magus is most patient and tolerant when it concerns another’s freedom, another’s choice, another’s Way.
The Magus never makes decisions for others, never coerces anyone into any choice, yet at the same time he does not allow others to decide for him, to deprive him of free choice, or constrain his responses. The only limitation the Magus accepts is the limit of love, which, in fact, is not a constraint but, on the contrary, an expansion of freedom.
The Magus understands clearly that his principal enemies are not outside; they are within him. And toward these enemies the Magus is utterly intransigent and uncompromising. He never colludes with his parasites and does not capitulate to the predators.
At the same time, the Magus does not assume the role of judge over others’ battles. For even a Magus who sees the flow of energies can never adequately assess the significance of a struggle unfolding in another’s mind. Nevertheless, the Magus always actively assists any developing mind, to the extent that this help does not limit another’s freedom or influence their choice.
Even when, for a developed mind that senses the oneness of the cosmos, strictly speaking there is no such thing as another’s pain or another’s battles, there must remain for it the absolute importance of another’s freedom since the individual expression is no less an important condition of its success than its unity.
The social order implies the restriction of one person’s freedom by the freedom of another, yet the search for and establishment of these boundaries is always fraught with many destructive forces. What counts as an infringement of freedom? How does one establish the bounds of what is permissible? The recent witch-hunts framed as “protecting the feelings of believers,” bans on the “propaganda of homosexuality,” and other medieval horrors are typical examples of such mass abuses. The questions one must answer for oneself are very simple: what are the “feelings of believers” worth if they can be wounded by a poster or graffiti? Is such faith truly valuable? Or how can one “propagate,” or, conversely, prohibit what is innate or karmically determined? Obviously, there is no harmony here.
However, for the Magus who is, in effect, outside society, the key value is respect for another’s life and another’s ways. He understands that his own freedom cannot be limited without his consent.
And this respect is not a matter of morality or upbringing. It is a matter of effective strategy.
It is impossible to achieve freedom for oneself by depriving others of freedom.
It is impossible to attain Power and Light by plunging others into darkness.
And there is no worse defeat and greater danger for the Magus than to move from victimhood to becoming a predator or parasite.
Good afternoon. But what about standing up against someone else’s personal will, preventing actions in someone else’s reality that will affect one’s own consequences?
No actions in someone else’s reality can affect your reality if you do not allow it. It is more important to be protected than to defend yourself.
There are invasions, there are wars, there is aggression, there is a clash of realities. Not always favorable for the participants in the processes. If everything is interconnected, then there is the “butterfly effect.” If there is a “butterfly effect,” then various combinations are possible.
As the old Indian used to say: “If a bullet is flying somewhere, I won’t be in that place.” 😉
Regarding the promotion of homosexuality – it’s true. If a person is heterosexual, no matter how much they are promoted to, they will not become a homosexual. The only thing that “promotion of homosexuality” can achieve is to make hidden homosexuals open (at least to themselves). In other words, “promotion” can simply lead 7% of the population to live in accordance with their innate preferences.
Great article! However, it’s not always necessary to be uncompromising when encountering the consumption of one being by another. It’s advisable to look not only at the present moment but also at the potential development of events. Time and effort can end up being wasted because as soon as you turn away, the consumption resumes. Some beings, through their very lives or deaths, serve as lessons. They make choices without realizing that they are indeed making them. Even their pleas for help and their supposed desire to change direction will not negate their unconscious, yet deliberate, choice to be victims of consumption.
You are absolutely right. That’s why Enmerkar writes about the importance of distinguishing the person (the being) from their actions. The main problem is that people often do not know themselves at all. They do not see themselves from within. They evaluate themselves based on external actions.
That’s why those who look into the very essence of a person do not want to examine individuals. It’s possible to see things that later one might regret having looked into.
According to a rough classification of human bodies, those who typically are called upon for help see and perceive exactly the astral plane, where the manifestation of a person in the external world is visible. Therefore, they cannot truly help. The work takes place on an external level. Consequences are removed, but the cause, hidden in the very essence of the individual, remains. Over time, this cause starts to make itself known again, creating a vicious circle.
However, not all those who work with people, even quite powerful magicians, are ready to accept what is inside the person themselves, that is, their essence. I know an example where this strained the relationship between two magicians. One worked with clients and was strong; the other, an acquaintance, could see the very essence of a person. Based on the same simple classification, he looked beyond the mental plane, into the soul. When one magician turned to the other for help, he struggled for a long time to assist the client, sensing some sort of trickery on her part, but he could not understand why.
The latter provided information about the essence of the person, which left the inquirer bewildered.
– “I wasn’t asking you about that. Such information can be lethal.”
– “About what, then? A sandbox game? We can joke, we can be silly. But how can you ‘soften’ such information?”
Since then, their relationship has fractured significantly. No more requests to “look into” someone have come since then.
“The consequences are removed, while the cause, hidden in the very essence of a person, remains.”
The concept of “the essence of a person” is very, very multi-level (I would even say multi-dimensional). The stronger the magician, the more levels he can view and make adjustments at.
Not everything is so simple when it comes to the question of what exactly makes a choice. After all, a person is not a monolithic statue. From the perspective of Kabbalah, there is Nefesh, Ruah, Neshama, Yechida, and Chaya. In Jungian concepts, there is Ego, Shadow, Anima (Animus), and finally, Self (apparently, Self corresponds to Neshama). To speak of any deficiency in the Self or Neshama (or any of the Higher principles) is to take a step away from accepting the concept of the essential sinfulness of humanity (and from there, the belief in the Lord’s death for the redemption of sins, and in the only means of salvation—through the church, which raises the question of which one) (since a person cannot save himself due to his sinfulness). Therefore, I do not believe that the choice to be a victim is made by any of the higher principles.
But if someone claims that they no longer want to be a victim, yet their unconscious choice is precisely that, one can speak of the Ego choosing one thing while the Shadow chooses something entirely different, or even the opposite. However, it is not worth capitulating to the Shadow.
“And even their requests for help and their supposed desire to change direction will not negate their unconscious, yet chosen position of being a victim of consumption.” – Asserting this means giving the Shadow the Last Word. This seems to lead to some sort of Freudian-masochistic fatalism.
When discussing the particular agreement to be a victim, it is obviously about the consent of the actual “I” (Ego). But this agreement from the Ego can stem from many reasons, including simply not knowing what one is actually doing. On the other hand, it is true that one should not help when not asked. And when help is requested, it is worth considering whether attempts to help might be in vain.
“A person cannot save themselves due to sinfulness”? They can.
Here, we can ask for help “from above”, not for salvation (in a ready form), but for hints and minor assistance in each conscious step that one takes themselves… God! Help me pull my feet out of the swamp – I want to walk myself.
Frater_K.B.V. According to Jungian concepts: achieving the Self is the primary goal of personal development. It is not about the deficiency of the Self. In the life of a person striving (through self-work) for inner harmony, psychological wholeness, and the integration of dualities into unity, every choice is made consciously—whether to act effectively and develop or to act ineffectively and degrade… but typically, most people do not engage in such reflections. They simply live, immersed up to their ears in their reality show. “People hardly know themselves. They do not see themselves within. They evaluate themselves based on external actions,” as Marina has precisely noted. Sometimes inner conflict (the realization of living an incorrect life) rises from the unconscious to consciousness, and the person wants to change the situation, seeking help from outside, but nothing works. More accurately, it works if, suddenly, an external source—a vessel filled with light—happens to harmonize the aforementioned person. But this only holds true for the period while the source of light directly influences the person. When the source moves away, the person returns to their old ways. Most people follow the same routes, say the same phrases, think the same thoughts, and engage in the same “doings.” Indeed, it is a vicious circle))) A person possessed by a demon, consumed by another being, does not immediately become so; rather, they gradually prepare the ground for the instillation in their unconscious—(in that aggregate of psychological processes over which subjective control is absent). Unprocessed imprints from the past often play a decisive role in this process. Exorcise the demon from them, and soon the demon will enter again because the “doors into the person” are open, and a welcome mat is laid out))) Again, Marina has very accurately noted: “Work occurs at the external level. Consequences are removed, but the cause, hidden in the essence of the person, remains. Over time, this cause begins to make itself known again.”
Why is it so difficult for a person, for example, to stop using drugs, alcohol, tobacco? They blame anyone but themselves for being drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers. A mother tells her daughter: “I smoke because you make me nervous.” A husband tells his wife: “I became an alcoholic because you didn’t forbid me to drink.” Smoking is the mother’s choice, drinking is the husband’s choice, and no one is to blame; they made their choice THEMSELVES, but they do not acknowledge this, do not realize it, do not allow this fact to surface from the unconscious to consciousness. And this lack of awareness, this non-acceptance of one’s true self, of one’s choice, prevents a person from stepping outside the bounds of habitual “doing,” preventing them from freeing themselves from the consuming being. Therefore, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to “touch,” “see,” and move on without taking any action. An individual approach to each situation is also important.
Here is the translation to English:
“Perhaps there is another factor to consider here. For a long time, a person has been a ‘feeding ground’ for both internal and external predators. There is a force, which Enmerkar talks about in one of his articles, that ensures that a person does not have the opportunity to break free from this state of being a donor for predators. The main thing is the person’s desire to escape from such a situation. However, a person does not always understand the reason. They cannot understand it until they learn to look within themselves, rather than at their projection in the external world.
Usually, the problem is removed, only to return later. One can hear the verdict from those who understand: the problem is within you; it cannot be in you if something is not attracting it. I agree. But how can a person seeking help suddenly look within themselves and find that reason? If the magician they consult does not see it either. Learning to see oneself is either a gift or the result of years of hard work. Even years of hard work may not bring the desired result. Only the guidance of a magician who sees the essence of the problem and their willingness to help the person can make a difference. But such magicians are not very many. I have heard that there are just a little over one percent of them on Earth. Therefore, one should be grateful to the heavens if a person has the opportunity to be a student of such a magician. But even then, it will not be so simple and smooth. A magician, a teacher who sees and understands everything, cannot solve the problems or impose their solutions.
Thus, whether to help or not is a personal matter for each individual. Whether to give a chance at all or several chances is very individual.
I completely agree with you, Tavita Shauta.”
“2 Tavita Shauta: that is, you are essentially talking about the choice of the personality (Ego) that has been repressed into the Shadow?”
2Frater_K.B.V.: Yes, I am talking about the choice of the Ego, the reason for which is rooted in the Shadow. And since the Shadow represents a tangle of psychic potentials and personality traits of which the Ego is unaware, the very act of choice made by the Ego for a reason unknown to itself is repressed into the Shadow.
Dear Enmerkar, thank you for the light in the darkness. As always, a very clear, concise, and intricate exposition. The line is thin under the feet of the traveler.
Dear Enmerkar, after reading the article I have some questions. I would be grateful if you could shed some light on them.
1) Is there a line that separates self-destructive and surrounding destructive perversions from “normality” (this word may not be appropriate, but I don’t know how to correctly name the state opposite to the former)?
After all, there are, for example, incestuous relationships, consensual pedophilia, and so on. Could this also be karmically and genetically justified?
Can there be a line? How can it be defined?
And how does a magician act when faced with a situation where a person is destroying the foundations of life through their actions?
2) As far as I understand, in ancient times, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed primarily due to the large number of same-sex relationships.
Apparently, there were more than 7% of them.
If the Higher Powers decided to destroy these two cities, does that mean this path is corrupt?
Or was it necessary to understand its corrupt nature—to descend into hell to desire paradise?
Thank you.
The world is valuable in its multitude of colors and diversity. “Normality,” uniformity—these are limitations on the possibilities for development, restrictions on individuality. It is precisely the establishment of boundaries of “normality,” which in simple terms means “permissibility,” that has always been the greatest problem for all social structures. On the other hand, personal expressions that cause obvious harm to the development of others fall into the realm of parasitism or predation, and they are unjustified. The boundary lies exactly in this: the more harmonious the personal expressions are, and the less they restrict the expressions of individuality in others, the less destructive they are.
Establishing limits on such actions is the task of social organization. However, it typically goes further and begins to oppress the freedom of individuality, transforming from a mechanism of control into a mechanism of suppression.
For a magician, the main value is individuality, rooted in the principle of Monadness. Oppression, predation, parasitism—these are alien to the manifestation of Monadness.
As for the myth of “Sodom and Gomorrah,” I do not take it upon myself to comment on it; I will only say that your proposed interpretation of this myth has made too many people unhappy or even crippled and killed, with the only difference being their different love. Similarly, the fires of the Inquisition destroyed many magicians, stemming from society’s desire to comb everyone into the same mold.
As far as I remember, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for homosexuality as such, but for debauchery manifested in the desire to “have” angels…
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. Just recently, I watched a BBC film on this topic. Some ideas in this film seemed quite logical and sensible to me. It was a British film, and naturally, there was the opinion of “British scientists” (which has become somewhat of a catchphrase in a sense). In the storage of the British Royal Museum, there is a vast amount of various materials that still have not been properly studied. So, they recently “unearthed” from their archives an ancient Sumerian clay disk, which had been there for quite some time, on which one of the temple astronomers of that era recorded the passage of an asteroid across the night sky. The accuracy of the depiction of the positions of the planets and constellations is simply astonishing. The asteroid was observed around five o’clock in the morning in the area of the constellation Orion (which was called something different in Sumerian, but that’s not important). The priest-astronomer tracked its movement up to the point of entering the dense layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where it abruptly slowed down and exploded in the air (just like the Tunguska meteor) approximately over the area described in the Bible as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The asteroid shattered into many fragments, and “fire rain” descended upon these cities. The entire climate on our planet changed drastically in an instant (according to those same “British climatologists” who study ancient ice layers in the Arctic, similar to how botanists study growth rings in tree cross-sections). The sea was replaced by the Sahara Desert, and significant climate changes occurred everywhere from America to Asia. As for the “sins” of the inhabitants of these cities, a somewhat different theory was proposed here, distinct from the homosexual version. It is known that Lot and his family came to the city from a village where it was customary to warmly greet every newcomer, to say hello, to offer food and drink, and to provide a place to rest. But in larger cities (relatively speaking, of course, for those times), people were indifferent to one another; they simply ignored Lot and his family. No one cared that they had come to this city. This is the psychology of urban people. Perhaps this is what struck and hurt Lot and his family very deeply. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were neither better nor worse than the inhabitants of other cities of planet Earth. But when this natural catastrophe with the asteroid occurred, the ideologists of the theory of “sins and punishments” simply exploited this fact, because, of course, it was a significant and extraordinary astrophysical event that was hard to overlook—fiery stones were raining down from the sky onto people’s heads. What else could it have been? Only the wrath of God and nothing else. What struck me the most in this story was still this clay cuneiform disk. The Sumerians were indeed an incredible people, distinguished by astonishing achievements in various fields of science, culture, construction, and irrigation technologies. By the way, it was after the fall of this asteroid that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers changed their courses, and Sumerian civilization declined. Water receded, and life left the once-flourishing Mesopotamia. The theory of “sin” in this aspect was used to brainwash the common people to make them more obedient. That’s one version.
P.S. I apologize for the long comment; I couldn’t make it shorter.
It is probably worth looking at this situation from a different perspective. Someone who has chosen the path of opposing anything that may contradict their notion of justice—let’s say, for example, an exalted puritan who declared a witch hunt… (Interestingly, they stood out much more at that time than Catholics)—such a person, in essence, makes their choice in accordance with the demands of their inner world. One could say that by following their principles, this person achieves the realization of their purpose, true freedom, and, of course, this karmically justifies them, just as it does for a supporter or “practitioner” of same-sex love.
Can a magician, in this case, take sides, support the freedom to express love, and at the same time oppose the Inquisition, even if its methods pose a potential threat to themselves? After all, it seems to me that taking sides, gaining external sympathies, and feeling grievances about the surrounding injustice robs their individual world of the ability to isolate. Such liberal prejudices, in my opinion, born from a spirit that is equivalent to others, can lead them back to a state of mundane, bourgeois relationships, which find their fullness through the prism of various sentimental rules and stereotypes.
A complex question. But I think for a mage, it would not be difficult to take someone’s side and balance the natural balance. And not just be an observer of what is happening. Through his active actions, the mage externally helps someone’s side but is also internally unbiased and follows his path. Of course, the inquisitor may act quite consciously, assuring himself of the justice of this choice, but the probability of these actions leading to negative karma or brainwashing by the church is higher, because killing people in such a context for allegedly black magic is far from the sacrificial acts of druids. As for same-sex love, I think Enmerkar explained it all clearly; the most important thing is that there should be no consumer attitude and no intentional harm to others with one’s choice. Any ignorant actions can be karmically justified as long as one does not take responsibility for their life.
The magician never decides for others, never forces anyone to make any choice, but at the same time, he does not allow others to decide for him, nor does he permit his choice to be unfree or his reactions to be limited. The only limitation that the magician accepts is the limitation of love, which is, in fact, not a limitation at all, but rather an increase in freedom. For a magician who is essentially outside of society, the key value is respect for the lives and paths of others. He understands that his own freedom cannot be restricted without his consent. This is truly valuable, and very few people understand this. It’s good to see you, really. Or maybe they are glad too… anything is possible.
However, the concept of tolerance, having deep historical roots, struggles to ‘carve its way’ into society, in political circles, in the Russian educational system. In our time, when extreme manifestations of ethnic intolerance, leading to bloodshed, which not long ago seemed impossible, have become part of daily life, conflicting connotations of this word arise. Many interpret ‘tolerance’ as a quality that is uncharacteristic of a person, appealing to the medical origins of the word. More and more, tolerance is set against patriotism, associating it with a renunciation of one’s own national and human dignity, with bowing before someone else’s way of life and thinking.
Enmerkar, I sincerely thank you for your wisdom, tact, adequacy, etc.