Reflections On Mastery, Thoughts? Options

This is my first post at Sacred Magick. I am not often disposed toward fraternization, being by nature a solitary seeker, however a recent life crisis has congealed my understanding regarding topics of long standing interest. I find that like always, I raise many more questions than I answer. From trolling for a few days, I have found that there is much wisdom to be found here. In that spirit, I humbly submit my own reflection on the differences between the mystery traditions for critique.


I am torn between the desire to become an indestructible master and an enlightened and blissful soul. Like the ancient Hindu debate on monism versus pluralism, I have come to suspect that the distinction between the two is irrelevant and that all perceived differences arise only from point of view. Regardless, I am obsessed with the process of becoming something far greater than I presently am.

The ultimate goal of blissful enlightenment and realization is merger with godhead, as a drop of water rejoins the sea never to be recovered.

The ultimate goal of indestructible mastery is to face and defeat all opposition fearlessly and without loss. Necessarily this goal needs must be dedicated to a cause, whether one or many in order to fit the definition. What is an indestructible master without opposition? The very word indestructibility indicates an overwhelming strength surmountable by none; the very concept implies a goal. In western traditions this movement towards indestructible mastery is a natural part of the knowledge and conversation of the holy guardian angel. The adept becomes invincible, perhaps immortal but this mastery only comes with the wisdom to use it as a master.

Can the conflict that defines the indestructible master be characterized in the battle to realize self? Can the battle for enlightenment be the ultimate struggle, the perennial conflict where we are our own opponent? Can a battle with self ever yield loss? We do not come from, nor fade to, nothing. Can a piece of self really be vanquished without a corresponding but opposite gain? I think not.

In this, for me, are reconciled the Yogas of the East and West.

Can the conflict that defines the indestructible master be characterized in the battle to realize self? Can the battle for enlightenment be the ultimate struggle, the perennial conflict where we are our own opponent? Can a battle with self ever yield loss? We do not come from, nor fade to, nothing. Can a piece of self really be vanquished without a corresponding but opposite gain? I think not.

True power is drawn from all things simultaneously, making motion representative of existence. Loss is subjective, gain is just as subjective. And frankly, gain is a subjective concept, based upon the concept that our perception of reality is the correct one.

I'd suggest you keep exploring for more, both paths are the exact same. Literally the exact same, there's simply a temporal difference.

Masters don't generally set out to become masters. They set out to realize their greatest potential. There is an old story that goes something like this. An eager young man went to a master to ask to him to take the young man on as his student. Then he asked the master how long it would take to become a master if he studied very hard. The master told him something like twenty years. The student asked the master how long it would take if he studied twice as hard. The master told him forty years. Then the student asked the master how long it would take if he studied again twice as hard. The master told him eighty years.

Overly strong desires and ambitions can be an impediment to some goals, particularly in Buddhism. Conquering the ego is one of the first steps in most meditation related disciplines, Buddhist or not.

I see the point of both of your posts. With regards to the subjectivity of gain or loss, I believe that's more or less what I was trying to riddle out with the last statement. There is no real gain and loss, only the effort to realize self already present.

With regards to the study twice as hard, I have recently been reading Merging with Siva by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami. In it he says (paraphrased) that after seeking and acquiring awareness, will and absolute dedication is the next requirement to the true realization of self, and states that one must work hard, very hard, at this pursuit 24 hours per day. One of his pupils asked him a similar question, could he realize self in ten years? The guru answered that he did not think the pupil could do it in twenty years because he had the wrong attitude. He said that if the student intended to realize self and was ready to do so, that the student would be telling him "I will reach this goal" and that the guru would believe him because he would see that the pupil was dedicated to the goal and was confident in his attainment, being willing to do whatever was necessary to reach it.

I am curious how what you are saying about work seemingly contradicts what I've been reading, however I lack sufficient knowledge of eastern teachings to reconcile the apparent difference, save the I suspect the two conflicting ideas result from differing points of view, or that I am misinterpreting Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's teachings regarding this idea of will and work.

I am an old western practitioner, but have suddenly been struck by a profound interest in buddhism, most particularly the freedom from the cycle of birth and death. In her book on the Qabalah, Dion Fortune states that the occultism of the east is unsuitable for most western minds, in that westerners seek for "Life, More Life!" rather than freedom from the cycle of birth and death, but what sent me east was my feeling on reading that statement of "Not me! Freedom sounds just as desirable."

Thank you both for your contributions to my understanding,

Ex