Love and Self-Knowledge
In our previous conversations we encountered two seemingly contradictory requirements of the Way of the Magus: on the one hand, all the Magus’s activity must be concentrated within his Psychocosmos and manifest outward chiefly to attract additional elements for the harmonization of that Psychocosmos; on the other hand, we have repeatedly discussed the importance of love, whose basis, conversely, is the transfer of the focus of attention outward from consciousness.
Of course, there is no contradiction.
Let us try to clarify.
The Myth we describe asserts that the goal and meaning of the cosmos, on both the macro and psycho levels, is self-knowledge, the actualization of potentials and their translation into actual states — the differentiation of Power.
This process occurs by isolating particular elements from the original undifferentiated field — the World Environment (again, it does not matter whether we speak of the Telesmi Environment or the field of the subconscious).
In other words, just as the Great Spirit, in order to know Himself, “made room” for the manifested world and knows himself in that world, so each Monad differentiates a series of embodiments, personalities in which it comes to know itself.
But the same process also unfolds at the level of the individual embodiment: a person seeks to know himself by shifting attention outward from his own wholeness; this is why there is a strong drive toward activity and accomplishment — the mind senses that it comes to know itself through its manifestations.
And, as is usually the case, the Dark side intervenes here — the predators, who introduce a destructive element in the form of activity. Instead of knowing itself through its manifestations, the mind becomes “fixated” on those manifestations and falls into the illusion of life: some drink or sniff glue, some become obsessed with dancing, football, or computers, and the result is the same — a clouding of the mind.
How then can one achieve an objectification of the Psychocosmos that is favorable to self-knowledge yet not destructive to the mind? The answer is obvious — the object to which the focus of the mind is transferred must have the maximal affinity to the subject — to the very field of the mind.
The latter is the precise definition of love — the mutual correspondence of two Psychocosmic universes.
Put differently, another Psychocosmos that has affinity for the original one is precisely the point from which the mind knows itself.
It is well known that when there is correspondence at even one level of manifestation, a powerful attraction arises between systems — infatuation — an acute longing for love. It may either fade if the correspondence is incomplete or insufficiently actualized, or develop into love — a mutually complementary interaction of two (or more) systems.
In the latter case the mind gains a powerful basis for self-objectification; it is no accident that lovers are said to “be reflected in each other’s eyes,” and that this sparks development toward harmony. It is only important that the formed system not become completely closed, so that it does not itself turn into a destructive force that halts movement. Reflection in another universe is a powerful stimulus for the emergence of one’s individuality. Love reveals in a person precisely his essential qualities, shedding all social roles and all masks, because lovers see one another as they ought to be; love is the mutual reflection of the logoi of beings, their ideal images.
The Magi have long used the creative power of love to retain and accumulate power in Magical families. Such a system solves two principal problems of the Way — both the acquisition and retention of power, creating, on the one hand, the potential difference necessary for realization, and on the other, providing a convenient medium for the circulation of energy and Power.
If a wizard passes the second Att of the Path, is the knowledge through love still not accessible to them? Do they only comprehend themselves in “their manifestations”?
Certainly not. Love as a means of improvement is accessible to all and always 🙂 Like any art, it requires both awareness and effort, but that level of existence to which it elevates consciousness is also always higher than the efforts expended.
Then why does the second Att pass “in solitude,” “without friends or enemies”?
But “without friends” does not mean – without love. Simply at the level of the Second Att it does not have (or seems not to have) an embodied object.
Perhaps this is why creative people cannot live without love. They need it as a push. Fallen in love – created a masterpiece – that’s all. After some time, everything repeats. There should be no stagnation. I would like to know what else can serve as a push… besides love.
What is unconditional love and how is it related to spiritual growth and enlightenment? Is unconditional love similar to regular human love? Wikipedia defines unconditional love as a spiritual term expressing a person’s love for everything around without any conditions or desire to receive anything in return. Thus, unconditional love is a complete absence of egoism. By definition, unconditional love doesn’t impose conditions, doesn’t create limitations, that is, it provides complete freedom. It is also correct to say that unconditional love accepts as it is despite everything.
But when there is total acceptance, the one accepting disappears; that is, there is no longer any acceptor or object of acceptance, there is no sense of separation. In other words, there is neither a source of love nor an object of love – there is no division.
It seems that love (in the human understanding) contradicts the notion of ‘unconditional’ because as long as there is ego, unconditional love is impossible. A synonym for unconditional love, besides total acceptance, might be enlightenment, original (unmanifest) consciousness, etc., something non-identified and non-dual.
It is impossible to love unconditionally, as this would immediately create a subject-object relationship, making unconditionality impossible; but one can be that very unconditional love, stepping out of dual separation of the world. For this, there are techniques to exit from dualities.
Is same-gender love possible, and can this be called love? What is the reason for non-traditional “love”, what are the consequences?
Mutual correspondence, which in the highest sense manifests as love, can arise in different situations, and from this it does not cease to be the brightest of manifestations of the universe. Just because some people are born with unusual types of energy vortex rotations, it does not mean they are incapable of love or that their love is somehow “wrong” – if it is indeed love. In a person, energy moves in three directed streams, each of which can change its direction, which has various consequences, including gender ones. At the same time, diversity, as long as it does not harm others, is an extremely valuable condition for evolutionary advancement – for the more options for conditions of embodiment arise, the more accurately the tasks can be fulfilled by a specific embodied being in its specific life. So there’s no need to condemn “unusual” manifestations. They provide opportunities that might not be realized under other conditions.
Dear Enmerkar, I have a question about love that may seem strange, but I will dare to ask it anyway. It happens more than once that the people I love are those who, as it turns out later, need my help. And my role in their lives resembles that of a helper in fairy tales – there is one who endures difficulties for the sake of the main character, and there is another, the one who assists in times of trouble, appearing at a critical moment, supporting in every way, and then she seems no longer needed. They are very grateful in return and all that, but it’s not love. Everything would be fine if only I didn’t long for that very love in return, directed specifically at me… What does this depend on? Can this be changed in some way? Or is this my role in life?
Hello! Helping, being a source of revitalization — this is a very valuable and very rare quality. And it is certainly very hard to carry, sometimes even unbearably difficult — but think about it — after all, to love is more important than to be loved. This is a very important understanding — the understanding that the main quality of love is its direction towards supporting another person. Of course, we really want reciprocity, more precisely — reflection, however, gratitude is also a form of reciprocity…. And reflection — it may come, if the gods are benevolent and not too envious…
I understand… thank you very much for taking the time to comment!
“Enmerkar, could you tell us about the three streams of human energy, under what circumstances these streams can change direction and characteristics?”
I will join Rozz. But my question is somewhat different – do we always interact with the three streams of the Tree, or mainly just with one of them? I have the hypothesis that the three streams are connected to the three worlds. For example, if I use a rough analogy – I primarily interact only with the stream flowing through the Manifestation. To be more precise, with the stream that is most manifested or interacts with undeveloped consciousness. Do the streams influence our consciousness equally, or is their quality (specificity) different? Here are a few naive questions. 🙂
And love – isn’t it a force? Why do you write that love is used to maintain power? Does that mean love is only a mutually complementary action? For example, Jesus Christ – who did he complement mutually?
Jesus Christ did not read Enmerkar’s articles, so he did not know that mutual complementarity is possible. Already at the 6th level, mutual complementarity with any one living being loses its meaning, and judging by the descriptions, he was at the 7th – the last one. There is something that, passing through beings of different forms and levels, manifests in various ways. In particular, this can be a process whose result will be the most exalted love of one person for another. It can be used as the Author describes here, but this is of the kind that “poor invents cunning,” and it only works up to a certain level of consciousness.
Jesus loved Mary…
and very, very deeply…
Their connection was so strong that she was the only one to feel His Resurrection…
(no one among the 12 apostles felt it…)
That is, do you think that the 12 apostles were not His disciples? And I’m also interested in Mary Magdalene.
Hello, Enmerkar. My question will be one of the most important for me; I want to ask about unrequited love. What could be a possible reason for this? For a long time, I believed that the emergence of strong, unreciprocated love is due to distortions in the personality of the person who loves, meaning such” love” should not exist if the person were sufficiently developed, and I long considered it a mistake. A one-sided mistake in the program, literally. After reading your article, I began to doubt my beliefs and started to reflect on them.
Enmerkar, whether intentionally or not, you speak of love as if it were a mechanism, a capability of a device to perform a function. Love is a gift, just like healing, seeing, and feeling. And this gift can be given to those who do not match in their energies.
Your conception of love is the same as that of many people. They are not seeking love but rather someone they can use. And perhaps you are right in a certain sense. Animals seek a mate to fulfill their instincts, while plants and all living beings simply fulfill their programs. But humans believe that they are human precisely because they can go beyond their programs, using consciousness; they can overcome their instincts, endure hunger, experience thirst, but still obtain what they need, albeit with delay, realizing that time will pass, circumstances may change, or may not…
And the higher the level of this awareness, the more boundaries a person can withstand or obstacles they can overcome. But this is not the awareness you speak of. It is the realization of oneself as a human being.
Does love exclude compassion, empathy, kindness?
But you are magicians; for you, everything is a matter of energy quantity.
I do not wish to be a magician; it’s enough for me to remain human. And even if my magic does not reshape the fabric of life, I can simply love living people, feel their sorrow, and talk to them. If to become a magician I must give that up, then either you or I misunderstand magic. You know, at first, I thought your understanding of magic was the same as mine. I thought…