Enlightenment: A Systematic Model

You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.

The first step to good magick is building a good model.

The first model is usually a description: Enlightened people don’t act out of anger or pettiness. Useful for recognizing the thing you’re talking about, but if you try to build techniques based on a description, you’ll tend to focus on individual factors like anger, rather than solving the underlying problem.

To solve the problem, you have to build a systematic model: A description of the moving pieces that cause those behaviors. It involves a lot of observation and research, and it takes a lot of practice to become good at systematic models, but they’re the key to building good techniques.

Quick example: We can describe a car as, “four wheels, moves fast.” But to build or repair one, you need a systematic model of all the pieces that make up the engine.

And so, I’m quite excited to have a first systematic model for enlightenment. It comes from an ascended spirit I work with who’s trying to further his own enlightenment. Here’s how he put it:

An enlightened mind is one cohesive unit. All the parts are integrated, and synchronize with one another. As a result, the mind is fully internally consistent: There’s no part of it that holds a belief that contradicts the beliefs of another part.

In other words, no doublethink. He’s saying that an enlightened mind won’t accept doublethink because all the components communicate with one another, even the semi-conscious ones. Which immediately prompts us to investigate how to enable all the components to communicate with one another. (Hint: Revisit consciousness integration.)

(Of course, this is just one aspect. That’s how these models work: You explore one aspect of enlightenment, figure out how to add it to your own mind, then explore the next piece.)

I’ll cover the technique in tomorrow’s post. Don’t get too excited, though, it’s not easy to learn. But it might be useful for some of you.

For today, though, I want to close with two thoughts and a question:

  • First, how do I know this model is accurate? The answer is, it suggested a technique which works well, and which I wouldn’t have seen without this model. That’s how I validate pretty much all of my models.
  • Second, talking with this guy, it strikes me that “enlightened” is a matter of degrees. It’s not enlightened vs unenlightened, it’s more and less enlightened.
  • And my question: This concept of “a unified mind, incapable of holding contradictory beliefs,” is that common to other styles focused on enlightenment?
Other posts in this series: If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply