Gnosomai Emauton wrote:It's interesting, thoughts along these lines have been plaguing me recently. Like, there are these instructions that, in drawing the pentagrams, they should be seen drawn in light so powerful that, were someone with sufficient vision nearby, they would be able to see them. So that gives me a very clear expectation of what I should be "seeing". Yet I wonder if, by trying to "see" that every time I perform this, am I putting too much active work into something that needs me to refrain from active work? Am I perhaps adding strain where I should be letting go? Something to work with, certainly.
It sounds like you think that the intellect is causing the issue here. I agree with you. A few suggestions:
1. Where the intellect is overbearing in ritual, getting excited about the ritual is more important than the ritual itself. This is a really important aspect when it comes to suspension of disbelief. One's own means of gaining energized enthusiasm is more powerful than any one else's uninspired ritual.
2. Seeing pentagrams don't involve "seeing" with physical eye exactly. Don't worry about that. Regardless of your sight on the physical plane, allow yourself to feel that it is being inherently created and recreated in the astral.
3. The LBRP is not the goal here. Beyond practice, it is a preliminary to the working that comes after. Keep it in context and just get through it - the idea of working on it for years and years, just to get it right, sounds to me like you need to allow the perfectionist aspects of your personality to take a backseat. In fact, in ritual, the whole intellect needs to take a backseat. So what if it is messy? The best connection is the messiest sometimes.
Crowley one time recited some weird folk tune to get the desired energetic enthusiasm levels. By any means necessary.
EDIT: I had to look it up - it wasn't a weird folk tune, it was an old Christian hymn. Here is a particularly riveting version:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sLEgQfsRMY
I had to add the tune to illustrate how even something completely ridiculous can be effective. Also the video broke the smh meter for me
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:This is certainly a data point that I've been noticing pop up with some frequency in reports of success. It's things like these that make me wish more practicing occultists took seriously the idea that we are acting as scientists, gathering data on ourselves, but in ways that inform the Work generally. If enough magical records were correlated, would it show that some sort of early-childhood religious imprinting was a precondition for these sorts of "unambiguous results"? My small data pool points in that direction, but I don't have nearly enough data to trust that there is correlation.
I have theories as to why this is. Generally religious backgrounds involve worship which is basically coitus with an egregore in an energetic way. Depending on the frequency and duration of the relationship, there can be varying degrees of "fireworks" when the egregore is no longer being fed from the energy being afforded to it.
note: I'm switching between spirit models and energetic models intentionally, making a point to stay away from intellectual/psychological models.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Fair, but not as good as they need to be. Working on this is the core of my daily practice at the moment.
It is a constant evolution for sure...for everyone.
How is your asana practice?
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Solid. I've got conscious control over my physical body but transitioning from that into a sense of "body-off" to let go of the physical only happens occasionally and without much control.
Before moving on to Liber "O", I'd like to talk about this first if that's ok. I have my ideas of what could be hindrances (I suspect that Dharana hasn't been worked with in your Asana practice), but I'd like to ask about your data first.
What do you mean by "body-off?"
How long is your Asana practice?
How many breaks and what kind of breaks from the list below?
Firstly, physical sensations; these should have been overcome by Asana.
Secondly, breaks that seem to be indicated by events immediately preceding the meditation: their activity becomes tremendous. Only by this practice does one understand how much is really observed by the senses without the mind becoming conscious of it.
Thirdly, there is a class of break partaking of the nature of reverie or 'day-dreaming.' These are very insidious-one may go on for a long time without realising that one has wandered at all.
Fourthly, we get a very high class of break, which is a sort of abberation of the control itself. You think, 'How well I am doing it!' or perhaps that it would be rather a good idea if you were on a desert island, or if you were in a sound-proof house, or if you were sitting by a waterfall. But these are only trifling variations from the vigilance itself.
A fifth class of break seems to have no discoverable source in the mind-such might even take the form of actual hallucination, usually auditory. Of course, such hallucinations are infrequent, and are recognised for what they are. Otherwise the student had better see a doctor. The usual kind consists of odd sentences, or fragments of sentences, which are quite distinctly heard in a recognisable human voice, not the student's own voice, or that of anyone he knows. A similar phenomenon is observed by wireless operators, who call such messages 'atmospherics.'
There is a further kind of break, which is the desired result itself.