An Exercise in the Direct Perception of Essential Meaning
© 2003
>> Whatever you want to manifest will have an emotional tone. Even if it is an "external" accomplishment or condition, the end result is always something you anticipate experiencing or feeling as a result of your objective.
Ultimately, for any of our goals, it's the experience of how we will feel that we are actually after.
This emotional tone is going to fall into a broad category, but it will also be very specific to a particular objective. This tone can be used to build a symbolic representation. It is built using calibration with the tone... does it increase the intensity and quality of the tone or does it diminish it? You are not going to know intellectually what is going to symbolically create the best representation of this tone... you will have to cycle through imagery, color, form, sound, scent, taste and expression that arises intuitively, without judgment, to find the most powerful building blocks and final form for this "talisman." << [ From "Gems of Akasha" by EMC ]
At the beginning of May, I had a visit from a couple of my closest Companions, during which we were discussing, among other things, the direct perception of essential meaning. Much of that discussion is relevant here . . .
EVERY *form* is a manifest expression of an essential meaning. In other words, *form* communicates something of significance to our perceptual faculties. We are always perceiving essential meaning every time we perceive a form of any kind, be it mental, astral or physical. Ordinarily, this perception is an unconscious experience and consequently, we are seldom aware of the fact that we are perceiving this essential meaning. Yet it informs our every perception in significant ways.
As an experiment to demonstrate my point, I set out several small plastic figures in front of my visiting Companions. These were toy caricatures of different dinosaurs, a Godzilla, King Kong, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and so on. Each one of them expressed a unique and easily identifiable "personality". For example, the little King Kong figure expressed a very gregarious personality, while the Hunchback expressed a hurt innocence.
Each one of these figures communicated something about itself *through* the details of its particular *form*. This 'something' is its essential meaning. The *voice*, so to speak, of that essential meaning is the form's personality -- i.e., its *emotional tone*.
The personality of each one of these figures is VERY easy to perceive, and because it "speaks" so loudly, it's also fairly simple to *directly* perceive the underlying essential meaning that their personality communicates.
Having opened their awareness of this level of their own perceptual faculties, I asked my Companions to examine the forms of the other objects in the room and try to perceive *their* personalities and underlying essential meanings. Most of the other things in my living room (where we were seated at the time) don't "speak" themselves as loudly as the plastic figures do, until you get into the groove of this level of perception. But once you do get the grasp of it, EVERY form is expressive of an inner, essential meaning.
This little experiment was quite a success! :) And unlike many things you see on television or at the movies, this IS safe to do at home. ;-) Seriously, I recommend this experiment! It's an excellent method for exercising the *whole* of one's perceptual faculties.
At any rate, our conversation ventured onward, as it always does, and we landed on the topic of the Step Two sensory concentration exercises. I raised the point again that EVERY *form* expresses its essential meaning. This holds true for those forms we create with our imagination as well. When we visualize a gold box, for example, the *form* we have created possesses its own essential meaning, expressed through a perceivable personality (or "emotional tone"), all of which is inherent to its *form*. The essential meaning, in this case, comes from *us*, the creators of this image. It is our own *will* which establishes the essential meaning of "gold box" and it is our own mind from which the visual details are harvested which, in turn, adhere to this essential meaning and result in the visual *form* of the gold box.
Therein lies an important mechanism of nature which magic takes full advantage of. Namely: when an essential meaning is created, it serves as a causation which will take *form*. The density that the form will reach depends upon the force of will which empowers the creation of essential meaning. For example, given sufficient power of will, the creation of the essential meaning inherent to 'gold box', will result in an astral-density image which we can see with our mind's eye.
Nature herself takes care of adorning the essential meaning with appropriate astral materia, drawing it as I said, from our own mind's storehouse of images and emotional significance. It's not something we can force or direct with the rational intellect alone. Nature directs the process, not us, and if we try to impose an ingredient that doesn't fit with the essential meaning, Nature rejects it for us.
The same holds true for bringing an astral *form* into a physical density. Nature adorns the astral form with physical materia appropriate to the form's essential meaning. In other words, physical form is the result of essential meaning, not the other way around. If you alter the essential meaning, then the form changes apace; but if you alter the physical form alone, you do not thereby change the essential meaning -- all you do then is express it less clearly.
In each of these natural transitions, from mental to astral-density and from astral to physical-density, the magician has the opportunity to aid Nature and to speed Nature's work by supplying a ready source of the raw materials that Nature works with. For example, one can accumulate the Earth Element (which contains Fire, Air and Water by nature) into an astral-density visualization, thus providing the raw materials it will need to gain physical density. Nature herself will see to it that what is needed is drawn from this source of raw materials, all the magician does is supply the resource -- s/he leaves to Nature that which is Nature's domain and doesn't try to micro-manage processes so complex that only Nature can manage them. :)
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
05 May 2003
>> Recently I have been trying to delve into a greater understanding of the Tree of Life in preparation for working on The Key to the True Quaballah at a future point in time, probably years down the road in fact. What I'm wondering is: due to the fact that Bardon places a great influence upon colour, as such, it should go to reason that a great influence should be placed upon the colouration of the sepheroth within the tree of life. Or should the core essential meaning of the sepheroth take precedence over colour? <<
The color attributed to a Sephirot is one of the many "voices" that the Sephiroth possess which express their inherent essential meaning. It is one doorway by which you can penetrate to a *direct* perception of a Sephirot's essential meaning. The only importance or value that the color has, is due to this fact that it expresses essential meaning. So it's not really a matter of 'precedence' exactly, so much as it is one of recognizing that EVERY form communicates essential meaning, including the color of the Sephirot. In other words, the color IS important *because it is an expression of the essential meaning*.
For the kabbalist, the Sephirotic colors are tools, again *because they express essential meaning*. But it is always the essential meaning that the kabbalist wields when s/he is using color. For example, just 'condensing a brilliant blue colored light' is NOT the same as 'condensing the essential meaning of Chesed/Gedulah *as* a condensation of brilliant blue light'. Do you see what I'm trying to get at?
With practice very similar to creating the "finger ritual", the condensation of a brilliant blue light and the condensation of the essential meaning of Chesed/Gedulah, become simultaneous and thereafter they are inseparable.
So, yes!. Color is an important tool. It is also something unique to each individual's perceptual abilities. For example, take the color blue. To my mind's eye 'blue' evokes a very specific shade which is most likely different than the shade of blue that your mind's eye evokes. So when we say "brilliant blue" for Chesed/Gedulah, it sort of points the way, sort of gives you the general idea of where to begin to look for 'The Correct Color'. The key to recognizing when you've come upon 'The Correct Color' is when the color suddenly communicates its essential meaning to you very clearly; or rather, when it is suddenly very easy for you to perceive the essential meaning of Chesed/Gedulah within the brilliant blue color, for example.
Studying the origins of the color attributions may prove interesting as well. :) The most commonly used set in the Western Tradition owes its origin to Alchemy. They are the colors of the metals which are attributed to the planets, which in turn, have been attributed to the planetary Sephirot in the Western Tradition (and much of the later Hebrew Tradition). For example, the color of Netzach is green -- because this is the color of Venus -- because this is the color of oxidizing copper (verdigris, copper's patina or rust) and copper is the metal of Venus. Geburah is red -- because this is the color of Mars -- because this is the color of oxidizing iron (rust) and iron is the metal of Mars. Tiphareth is yellow -- because this is the color of Sol -- because this is the color of Gold, the perfect metal which never oxidizes, and Gold is the metal of Sol. Etc.
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
07 May 2003
>> So the "light blue" is meant to express the essential meaning of Aleph. Yet "light blue" is different for each person, despite the fact that the essential meaning of Aleph should be the same. Which doesn't make much sense to me, or am I trying to rationalize an essentially intuitive process overly much? <<
The specific shade of 'light blue' that clearly and without a doubt expresses the essential meaning of Aleph will be the same for every person. But each person will *start* from their own version of 'light blue' until they find The One Shade of 'light blue' that expresses the essential meaning of Aleph. The attribution of 'light blue' therefore, merely directs the person where to start and the person must find The One Shade on their own.
>> Let's see if I can put this little technique into my own words. One starts to look for the essential meaning of things where essential meaning is clearly expressed. Then move onto other things in which essential meaning is less clearly expressed. So, how do you know that you've hit upon the essential meaning of a thing? I mean, if I looked at that figure of Quasi Moto I might get the feeling of hurt and loneliness whereas, as you stated, one could also interpret it as hurt innocence. Is this direct perception of essential meaning? Or is it rather the perception of essential meaning through the filter of one's own psyche? <<
Let me quote something from that post:
"Each one of these figures communicated something about itself *through* the details of its particular *form*. This 'something' is its essential meaning. The *voice*, so to speak, of that essential meaning is the form's personality -- i.e., its *emotional tone*, to use your own term.
"The personality of each one of these figures is VERY easy to perceive, and because it "speaks" so loudly, it's also fairly simple to *directly* perceive the underlying essential meaning that their personality communicates."
So, for Quasi Moto, my description of "hurt innocence" was a description of its *personality* -- the "voice", so to speak, of its essential meaning. A direct perception of the essential meaning occurs when you look beneath the personality-voice. As I've said before, essential meaning itself cannot be put into words. Words *interpret* essential meaning -- they are not a *direct* perception.
>> For example, when I look for the direct perception of a broom, I get the feeling of "sweeping dust and debris" as it's essential meaning. Yet at the same time I know that the broom can be used for a multitude of other uses that this broom could be used for. The statement of essential meaning of "sweeping dust and debris" would just appear to be the most common use for a broom, not exactly the best expression of essential meaning... <<
The direct perception of a thing's essential meaning occurs *before* you start putting your perception into words and *before* your mind begins its process of associating past experiences with your perception. I suggest that you work further at letting go of the rational intellect. When your mind goes into analysis mode, force it to stop and, instead of analyzing, just *perceive*.
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
17 May 2003
>> I worked through a rather lengthy meditation to see if I could figure out what all this fuss about essential meaning is about. As a whole the meditation lasted for the better portion of a number of hours. Essentially, I just started out working with one pointedness during work, trying to quiet the mind as much as possible. You know, get rid of all that verbal chatter that goes on inside one's head. Eventually I managed to get into a state that could be classified as a rather deep state of vacancy of mind which I maintained for quite some time. When I looked at a broom, perceived it, it was like a rush of information was rushing at me. Almost like I had always had a vision problem and suddenly a set of proper prescription glasses and was seeing things clearly for the first time. It was like an epiphany, and "ah ha" experience. The left brain, which is primarily language and logic bound, would not have been able to handle this bandwidth, working within a certain sort of Aristotelian syllogism. Route processing if you will. Whereas the right brain looks at the whole, the gestalt...which I seemed to be perceiving. Something that seems quite akin to what you keep on calling essential meaning.
I also took this gestalt of a broom, and other things that I perceived and was able to make some rather clear images of them with my imagination. It was odd, and rather clear. I also turned my perception to a page in a book that I had recently read and recalled it almost perfectly. With further experimentation, this could prove to be quite a useful in the future.
Comments, questions, ideas are more than welcome. <<
Excellent!!! :) :) :) Congratulations!
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
20 May 2003