So I’m reading that 57 page example of Belial’s compendium. It seems that BElial wants EA to drop mind, to lose his mind, his consciousness to unite with the darkness.
…I find this quite odd, honestly. Especially since it’s coming from Belial, a demon, an LHP God. For an LHP God, that’s a pretty RHP thing to say.
Thoughts?
Maybe it’s temporary. For the duration of this pact he wants EA to become the darkness in order to be the vessel for this message?
Sounds like a severing of all ties that bind so the totality of the experience may be gone through unclouded by other influences.least that is how that section reads to me. I could be off. Havent gotten around to readin the sample yet.
Bmoa has a similar foundation block with the excersie “peering into drugaskan” through it you learn to not perceive reailty by actively breaking down reality to peer into the darkness of the void. As a result of this the malliablity of reality of the practioner increases and all the other exersises build on this one.
Yes, but forgoing individual consciousness, the mind, the consciousness, uniting with something greater does not seem like something the demons stand for. I could be wrong, of course.
I think it’s more shedding the labels. Is your soul beholden to a country, another being, the people around you? No. Your MIND is. Your essence is not. Letting go of these labels could be what he is talking about. They are not who you are.
I guess my definition of mind is different. The thing you’re describing has a different name in my world view. But still - Belial advocates for no thinking if you look at the highlighted part of the picture.
Looks like he’s trying to convey that thinking and being are not the same thing.
Yes, but advocating for not thinking is rather strange to me.
Isn’t that what we do when we meditate and reach higher states of mind?
Reaching higher states of mind does not require you dropping your mind. It’s just another method out of many.
Trying to perceive the totality of reality with a himan mind and remain “sane” by social standard seems llike a contradiction as your perception of reality will be shifted so far from everyone elses as it expands there is a kind of gear grinding or knee jerk reaction from “normal” people.
For me this has to do with understanding ones current relation to source in the case of the kybalion. As in what is the nature of my own essence in relation to everything else the deeper i go down this rabbit hole the more malleable reailty tends to become on a practical level when you reach a kind of critical mass point. At this point you become the singularity of reality or take on the perspective of it. But another way you become the creator and the destroyer of worlds in proportion to your active awareness of your own divine nature.
This is something that has to be experienced over time though to gain momentum.
I must rest, I’ll give you a proper reply tomorrow.
Well, thought and consciousness aren’t exactly the same thing. You drop mind in some way every time you give yourself to possession or even evocation.
You’re right.
Hmm…I would not say that we drop minds, but rather alter them. I mean, when you talk to a spirit, you’re essentially thinking. The spirit is using your thoughts to talk to you. The voice you hear is not the voice of the spirit itself, but rather your thoughts being used by it so it can talk to you. Since spirits are too abstract and all that.
The actual book isn’t released until the 9th, however I did happen across a concept of acquiring/using a “demonic” consciousness as a kind of “space suit” so to speak to retain individuation deeper into Source consciousness a while ago, post below - this is based on the dilemma that one necessarily sheds most individualised self-concept to attain “merger”/Self-realisation, as in, becoming one with the consciousness that underlies all things.
That consciousness exists well outside any kind of duality, which includes the desire/aversion duality, and therefore when actually as one with the Source of all creation, it is all but impossible to also use that self-as-Creator state to make things happen.
The metaphor of the space suit goes like this - if Source exists so far beyond individuation that the small self cannot exist strongly enough to influence it, that’s somewhat like the way in which humans cannot for example get too close to the actual Sun without burning up, but we can create armoured suits that greatly increase our ability to retain bodoily integrity and get closer than would normally be possible.
And the ancient Cannibal Hymn and other concepts found hinted at in the PGM where one self-identities with a god (bearing in mind the Egyptians only defined harmful entities as “demonic” and that the term is currently used for beings who are pretty much actually gods in their own right) also suggest that adopting the state of a spirit/demon/daemon allows one greater access to self-identify with creative powers underlying the material realm, and operate them by acts of will.
Maybe Belial found a cheeky hack for that? 
Dunno, anyway it’s also known as the Divine Paradox in the Kybalion and resolving it was what prompted me to join this forum, I feel I have now satisfactorily attained methods so close to being able to do it as to be non-different from that goal, so I feel genuinely qualified to speak on the concept, even if that may not be what the goal is of this work, or Belial’s work, here:
I’m glad you shared that link. I was reading down and came across a lot of useful psychology you shared after your original post. I’m guessing you’re a Carl Jung fan like me? I saw your Freud examples. The Adult-Parent-Child model and the You’re ok I’m not ok model are really interesting. Do you have a source material I can look up for that?
Yes, IMO his ideas have furthered our understanding of reality, and our perception of it. 
Adult/Parent/Child is from Transactional Analysis, VERY valuable information if you have to deal with people in a professional capacity:
This link covers all the basics: Transactional Analysis .
This section from the less in-depth wikipedia article on Transactional Analysis nicely defines the “Ok/Not OK” stuff: Transactional analysis - Wikipedia
You can see a lot of “I’m not OK and you’re not OK” being pushed towards people in the political sphere once they start to question certain orthodoxies, it’s the basis of the classic “demoralization shill” tactic for example, and is used to deflect criticism back by questioning what authority a person has to challenge unless their own life is in perfect order and fulfils every last tiny detail of their perceived value set (See also, Jordan Peterson! But that’s probably more a topic for PM if you’re interested.)
It’s also the basis of the classic ad hominem attack in any context, to imply that a person’s “lack of okay” in some area (real or imagined) means nothing they have to say is worthy of attention, and is naturally flawed and risible.
So spotting the claims to, and attributions of, the state of being okay is really valuable when making sense of any situation where humans have different opinions about a course of action, or the meaning of an event.
Makes sense to me.
