"Renunciation is for generous souls who do not hesitate to make the last effort. These souls offer the goblet of their hearts filled with dedication to the Divine Mother, without keeping the last drop of the chalice for themselves. Thus they open the doors of the Temple." Rule of Cafh
In my experience, Cafh encourages an inner work which results in, among other things, the unfolding and harmonization of my relationships with other human beings.
This is a work of love, I think. Love in the sense of discovering, deep within, that I am connected, to all people and all things. Perhaps connected is not quite the right word; because if I am really one with others, it's more like being in union with them.
How can there be union between myself and others, between myself and all things, between myself and the Universe (or God, if we accept that idea)?
I think the answer is simple: by being nothing.
"Being nothing" may sound like brainwashing myself into submissive non-existence, but that is not what I mean. To me, it is recognizing that fundamentally, I am not separate from others. Yes, I have feelings, thoughts, a personality, and ultimately an identity which all seem unique and unrepeatable, but: are those me? Don't all of those things change over time? Not to mention, apparently disappear when I die? Are those things really me?
My feelings, my thoughts, my personality, my identity: these are all things which I defend. Ultimately, I defend what I identify with, against that which I do not identify with. As long as I remain in that state of consciousness, I think, I am, in effect, in a war of "me" against "them," or, if there is one group in particular that I feel part of, "us" against "them."
From a certain point of view, this could be seen as the dilemma at the root of all of humanity's problems.
To be nothing, in contrast, is to recognize that, in fact, I am not those things .... It's not that they don't exist; the difference is, that I *do not identify with them.*
I think that living life actively, continuously, and fully, without identifying with what is changing, could be called renouncement. While renouncement has connotations of giving up what one possesses, in this case, I think, renouncing is recognizing that I never really had anything to begin with.
While it may sound paradoxical, I think truly coming to terms with my inherent nothingness and lack of permanent possession grants me an incredible inner freedom: the willingness to give myself, completely and totally, to the present moment. Since I have nothing to defend and nothing to hide, I am free to plunge into life, unafraid, generously, and with profound love.
This kind of engagement with life, without reserve, could be called "participation." Not "domination," "coercion," or "resignation," but a willingness to be *in life*, not setting myself apart from it: a full and active participation with all that is.
Which brings me full circle: by "being nothing," I recognize my essential unity with life and all its manifestations, am-in-everything, with an inner freedom that transcends what I normally think of as "myself". This state could be called "egoence."1
1Egoence: Egoence is the consciousness of ourselves and of our relationship with the whole and the discernment of how to respond to the responsibility implied by that consciousness.