Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge - Part V

You can now translate this page to ANY language.

     

I've added, what I'm calling, Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge, to my site, Carlos Castaneda's don Juan's Teachings. It began Mon, Jun 28th, 1999, when I received an E-mail from Michael. I will use "M:" to begin his comments, R: to begin mine. This is part five of the dialogue. It continues where part lV left.
     
-----------------
     
R: These last few days I've recalled being called a withholding slime. While I mentioned full disclosure as a necessary part of my interaction with you I've not lived up to that.
     

     
M: All of that, disclosure or not, is based upon your understanding of your own impeccability and impulses. There are so many details of each life, these dialogues really only can be effective for the broader concepts. If there is benefit to you in these exchanges, it is in the form of course navigation, not the ripple of the detail of each wave ...
     
R: I think my rant was in part an expression of my frustration with the sense that you are all for my handling physical problems through normal medical channels and that has me in a bit of a dilemma with you
     
M: Quick interruption - insert - for extension.
     
M: Our "reference" systems of ourselves form a basis for our decisions and the resultant actions. As members of those who have chosen "to engage" in "the way", it is beneficial to always cross check ourselves relative to what we, each of us, consider our "impeccability", and that is a very personal concept for each one of 'us'. If "you" have a different understanding of the manner in which any particular item may function "for you" than another might for themselves, then "your" impeccability would be negatively impacted if you simply "followed" the approach of another.
     
M: A long time ago, when I experimented with racing formula cars on a formula one road course, the "trick" of success was based on many dynamics of braking, setting up for each turn, the moment of acceleration from a turn, et al. Collectively we called this "the line through the turn". Because the precise dynamics of each car on the track is different, because the skill and "feeling" of the action of each car is different perceptionally for each driver, we had the expression "Find your own line: follow someone else's line, and you die.". The analogy to personal decisions, here, is about the same. We each at any given point understand different things and processes on the points of personal decisions.
     
M: For myself, as a matter of my own impeccability for myself, this is what I know: My evolution "on the way of knowledge" is not complete; impeccability drives me to attempt to bring this evolution toward it's ultimate completion, doing everything I can to accomplish that goal, and maximizing the time that this effort requires - whatever that might be. In my own situation having medically flat-lined more than once, having travelled both volitionally and in clinical death to the third attention, having observed those who have completed their path and (for that matter) are allies in my quest, impeccability causes the drive to "continue". Relative to my body and all of it's physical components and it's weaknesses that can cause tentative physical continuance, my own impeccability "demands" for myself that (literally) I do everything I possibly can for myself "to keep this organic function" viable, partially because there is some tentativeness (in the chronic sense) to that process. The term "everything I can" means, literally, everything that is essential and that includes invocation of the medical profession without which invocation, my body would have perished without doubt by now, that this death would have been premature relative to my completion of my evolution, and I would have become stuck in the third attention as an unfinished work ...
     
M: unacceptable. For myself, it would probably have been worse as a violation of impeccability simply because there is understanding/knowledge, of where the intended level of evolution will progress: it has been seen.
     
R: as, on the one hand, your approach, explanations, guidance, ... what have you, in the area of the Castaneda material, call it sorcery, I guess, strikes me as nothing short of inspiring. On the other hand, when you talk about scientific things, it strikes me that you are, while apparently a leader there in your own right, a follower at the same time in areas outside your field.
     
M: Hummm. Interesting. My flash response is that the universe is not divided into "science/technology" and Non-science and technology. There is only the realities as we understand them. Science is extraordinarily limited in it's understanding. Eventually, though, from what I can see, and foresee, the "magic" of sorcery might be understandable at least in concept if not detail, in broader and even perhaps technical terms, and at least it's interesting and sometimes fun to speculate upon that.
     
NOTE TO READERS: next is an example of my saying stuff as if it were true when actually I didn't know and just spit it out as though I was sure. In this case: that Dr. Dean had said something about wine when I wasn't really sure exactly how he'd said it or what he meant by what he'd said. So I was more going on what I though must be true and grabbed out of the air what I thought I'd heard Dr. Edell say in order that I might sound more "right."
     
R: Specifically, you mentioned that wine was shown to be beneficial due to ... whatever you said, and you didn't present that as opinion, you presented it as fact. Well, that is just wrong ... that it is a fact that wine is good for you, that is. I listen to Dr. Dean Edell (don't know the correct spelling) on talk radio and he has mentioned a number of times that all of those claims about the benefits of wine have not been proven. His point is not that what you say happens with wine doesn't happen, his point is that the negative effect of the alcohol my well turn out to be greater than the positive effect of the, ... whatever it is in the wine that is causing the "benefit."
     
M: There is wholly no point in significantly broadening the conversation on this point, because that would form the trap of the "what if's" that society gets so hung up with. You believe that what I've said "is wrong" because Dean Edell said something else. The confidence in my statement is not altered because the body of evidence is sufficiently strong to place it in the probability of the 90 percentile group of certainty, at least as far as I can determine, and while that may eventually turn out to "be wrong" it's the best that can be related with the data base of the time. In science, everything must be "falsifiable", or it's not science - it's a religious belief system or something akin to that.
     
R: But I love your calmness. And I've meant to reread your comments that I'd said sounded like I'd pushed you to your limit of impeccability. The fact that I haven't reread them is a reflection of my knowing that I can absolutely take you at your word and so while I intend to reread them for clarifying and further learning, there isn't the slightest bid of doubt in me that all your comments were made in total calmness and clarity -- because you have since told me that they were.
     
M: If you perceive them in the clarity that is attempted, then that is what they represent to you. Because you are sensitive and perceptive, it is possible if not probable that you would be able to "feel" if this dialogue was inappropriate driven by self-importance or reflex emotion, rather than knowledge or clarity or whatever term that might be assigned. I wonder why "I've told you that they were" would be in your thought process ...
     
R: And that fact about you is so thrilling to me when it's coupled, as I perceive that it is, with your profound experience.
     
R: So, back to the "scientific side" "problem," I really want to heal my body through natural means. And I really don't quite understand your lack of support for that, given that I'm not taking any drugs, I'm eating no refined sugar of grains ... see, I think that is it -- right there -- I don't "get" from you that you appreciate natural healing through boosting the bodies natural healing power, i.e., immune system, and all, with diet and exercise, primarily macrobiotics with lots of green juices. And what you've answered to me so far has been to point out scientific studies.
     
M: The very best I can relate to you is only what I understand, no more. For myself, in the very best impeccability for myself, the statement prevails: "I would do everything, from every potentially-correct source" to fix my condition. Certainly the approach you are attempting is supported, it is just "not everything", it is limited to what "you believe". The reason my approach to this component of our dialogue tended to wander to "science" is simply because you seem to have dismissed that totally from your approach, and therefore you are not "doing everything" to improve your condition; that is, "everything available". Does that really make sense to you? Is it really impeccable?
     
R: **Yes, I see what you are saying. First off I notice an intimidation coming over me as I imagine myself in the presence of a physician.
     
M: **It is suggested that you explore precisely "why" you find this concept intimidating. Physicians are only human and as humans, they are as easy to deal with as any service contractor in business. They, particularly the new genre of them, can be held in discussion for clarity and inspection as easily as, say, an auto mechanic.
     
R: Well, I'd like to know from you what you KNOW on the subject through second and third attention experience, not what you've read and come to agree with because it "fits" ... I don't know, maybe your life style, ... I don't know. But, you see, I too can do that and that leaves us with just different opinions.
     
M: The process is not the separate consideration that you seem to believe that it is. Somehow, according to your revelation of your ideas, there is a partition between the approaches, but in truth there is not.
     
R: **I'm seeing that now, and really, you showed me that before and I resisted it.
     
M: **The question again surfaces: "why?". Specifically "why" the resistance. These are not answers that are required by me ... they are internally directed for you.
     
R: Yes, I think my rant was a manifestation of a gigantic frustration that I'd found an amazing source of knowledge in finding you but that with it was coming what I considered to be almost a scientific drivel in the area of health. Now, you've made the point about, I don't recall exactly, but to the effect that when one doesn't know something they try to make up for it by claiming to know what they don't. So I'm sensitive to that charge being made against me when I claim to "know" what is best for my body -- food wise. To be sure, I don't, but I have such a strong sense about it -- that it is correct what I'm doing ... and yet ... to be sure, I don't "know" ... at least I can't fully say that I do know ... and that, to me, is the great "missing" ... the fact that I can't fully say that I do know. So, because of that "missing," do I let the doctor cut off the skin problem. I just feel such a huge sense of failure at that thought and then in rushes all of the doubts as to how it would all go related to that -- after that.
     
M: Consider only this concept for now about "the knowns" ... as I understand that you have related them to me.
     
M: 1. You seem to "know" that you have a physical condition that may be significant.
     
M: 2. You seem to "know" that you have not brought yourself to the full potential of your evolution, or you wouldn't be engaged in this dialogue and engaged in the study that you have been for years.
     
M: 3. You seem to "know" that you have chosen to limit yourself to a specific form of self-treatment and perhaps diagnosis itself.
     
M: 4. You seem to "know" that this could fail to be effective and at the same time, do not protect yourself with alternate parallel treatment.
     
M: Only questions are appropriate: Is this impeccable knowledge? Are the potential consequences of the decisions based on this knowledge, acceptable? Are your actions and decisions prudent and protective of your impeccability?
     
M: Only you can interrogate your impeccability and find these answers. This is "not", and never has been, a question of "Michael and science, or Michael and health" ... the true concept is really "Rick", and although you may choose to focus on my dialogue, the indications are that this is only an extension of your internal dialogue.
     
-----------------
     
M: One of my proteges (just one) would qualify as a biblical scholar. He's aged about 44 by memory, and our relationship is approximately 17 years duration. (I've never really calculated it statistically, however the average duration of "contact" with proteges or apprentices is guesstimated to be perhaps 10 years.) About seven years ago, or ten years into our relationship, while sitting at dinner one evening when he was probing me about specific "coincidences" of late, I finally admitted to him that there were abilities that were being exercised that had never been openly said to him and that his life had been changing because of this process. He was also informed that he also could develop into these abilities and that it was just a question of opening up to potential. To make the point, he was given a few examples not as words, but as forced connections and links to the second attention.
     
M: He was step-function shocked, and it wasn't helpful that I said that insofar as I could discern, "Christ was a sorcerer". Impressed with "the power" exampled, he said " Wow! How do you know that it is NOT the power of the DARK side?!". My response to him was an emphatic, "Because I am not the power of the dark side!". In any case, it took about six months for him to talk to me again, and another six months in damage control. After that bad news, the good news was that he became curious enough to read all of the CC books, and to a large extent became something of a scholar in those as well. The next few years were spent in extensive dialogues (usually in e/mail as well as personal forms) finding alignment between biblical forms and the CC/DJM quotes relative to sorcery, and eventually alignment was found although the terms and approaches are very different. Although in summary it might be said that the "shock treatment" had a positive benefit, there was almost a year of "recovery". In a joking way, I suggested that he might want to write a book or a paper announcing that "Christ was a sorcerer!" and although he understood the point, he also said that many who should learn the commonality to open their minds, wouldn't even open the cover of such a book because their minds would snap close instantly because of the offense to their limited understanding.
     
M: Depak Chopra, who has enjoyed huge success with about 15 books and has now "institutionalized" himself, was a licensed endocrinologist having taken his initial medical degree in New Deli, India. He accordingly, had been exposed to both the Indian approaches as well as being trained in Western Medicine. One of his earlier books (I have read only two) had a photo of him on the cover as attired in a white lab coat and with a stethoscope hanging around his neck. To me, this is a cleaver marketing device to approach society in terms that society can initially accept before the minds would "snap close". In that book, he quoted in one paragraph: Jesus Christ; an Indian Shaman; and Carlos Castaneda quoting don Juan Matus as "a sorcerer"; and bingo, they were saying the same thing at least in this quotation as presented. In other places in this same book, Chopra tried to help bridge the perceived gaps in society between science, medicine, and metaphysics.
     
M: The one book of Chopra that I would recommend to novices "seeking" a new path would be "The Way of the Wizard" because it's light reading and not too long in page count.
     
M: Anyway, I'm only rattling a little to you with the purpose only of pointing out that many "out there" in society, which is to say most humans, would "snap their minds reflexively shut" if they are initially hit with an approach that triggers their survival (defensive) reflexes. CC's approach with "sorcery" probably had that effect.
     
--------------
     
R: Michael, here is an E-mail exchange with another that has me now stumped as to where to go. Would you advise me? The friend I was referring to in my reply is you and I hope I wasn't being too presumptuous.
     
M: No, you are not being presumptuous, and my extension to you is evidence of that, and your concern albeit taken as courtesy, indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about ... Oh well.
     
R: Michael, I have the sense that I ought to have this "Oh well" thought completed. I will try to complete it myself. Were you saying "... your concern ... indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about why I have started this exchange."? No, no no, that is not it, well, maybe partly.
     
M: Perhaps it's in attempting to understand what I am, and not fully trusting your perceptions on this ... your call.
     
R: Were you saying "... your concern ... indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about ---"? Well, this is not working, my second guessing, that is. Best if I look at who I was when I wrote "I hope I wasn't being too presumptuous." I suppose I have a very strong resistance to giving myself over to another and you've been so generous with your time, but not that, you are there for me, in many ways, the don Juan figure, and while I've ... (NOTE TO READERS: The next four "m:'s" break up my original E-mail ... not that that is new to these dialogues, it's just that it seems worth mentioning again in this case)
     
M: Your getting warmer ... but ...
     
M: a. You're really only second guessing yourself, not me, and,
     
M: b. You can "never" meet any standard of impeccability by "giving yourself over to another" - because that would be a "belief system", not a system of facilitation, and,
     
M: c. The definition of what don Juan, especially as "a figure", needs some refinement.
     
R: ...no ... that (viewing you as a don Juan figure) demands something from me and I'm judging myself as not living up to the demand, even close to, 100%. Through your support I've made the major change of living in a state of expectation. That is a transformation from where I was: living in a state of trying to turn off my internal dialogue every now and then -- because I thought Castaneda's writings were all probably true. You have brought the confirmation so the reservation I have looks to be one of acknowledging myself as "on the path of knowledge."
     
M: Commitment to "the way" is only a commitment to yourself. It's already been established with partial thanks to the piece you received from your father, that you have the characteristics intrinsically, so it just needs commit - unconditionally to yourself - to progress on "the way". The reward for this will continue to change your life - forever, as in eternity.
     
R: I've never "gotten" that. It's always been a cliche for me, ... no, now I'm going off into self-pity, ... sorry, wrong turn, back on track here ..
     
M: Great exercise in precisely the path of impeccability!
     
R: ...it's just been a cliche so when I don't act impeccably there is an excuse. I imagine myself as at the level of impeccability of silent witnessing and then I don't hold myself to that standard. By not holding myself to the standard, I make excuses and don't have to be responsible for what I am. It's a denial of self and maybe it's that denial of self that hasn't fully let you in as so doing would require that I drop the false defense.
     
M: Ayn Rand would help! Her philosophy directly hits at what you said immediately above.
     
R: I see myself now writing this and it's all starting to cloud over --- more defense to stay where I was and not come out into, say, "the light." It's worse than that, I'm back in denial of that silent witness that I see myself able to be.
     
M: Perhaps you have fear, a very primordial reflex of survival. If you "hang on" to what you have been (since you are on the threshold that could change you - forever) it's probably "eagle snack time" and you know that, but at least you "know" and are accustomed to "the past" even though it's not particularly comfortable!
     
R: It's as if this is some kind of a game that I'm playing with myself and with you.
     
M: Doesn't seem like a game ...
     
R: I've grown up with the notion that I was somehow special... because I did math well, I guess. But, I've used it as another excuse for non action. "OH, poor me, I'm "some special one" what a terrible burden is on poor me," instead of working hard and making something out of it. So I just pissed that ability all away.
     
M: "one" is a finite number. Perhaps you are an significant component of something that is broader than "a one". You might contemplate what might be meant by that "something that is broader".
     
R: I like writing to you.
     
M: I would hope so. It would violate your impeccability to exchange with me if you didn't "like it".
     
M: Since my reply to your friend's E-mail is just a quiet reflection on the nature of the relationship and dialogue that has formed between us, it may be left as a reflection since I actually believe it's far more important for you to contemplate it than for me, and that became my intent of the quiet thought, although it really started as just that: a quiet thought. It is somewhat ironic that impeccability itself, the subject of the piece, requires that we define the parameters, nature, significance (in other words: all characteristics) of each relationship for ourselves and no where is it required that this be communicated to others.
     
-----------
     
M: Your friend's E-mail asked the question: " Why not study the "not so impeccable" of others to learn about impeccability of self?"
     
M: The "not so impeccable" is paled in the imagination when compared to truly understanding "the impeccable". Why? History, current events, and almost anyone in society with whom one has "normal" contact are all replete with examples of the "not so impeccable".
     
M: Impeccability, per se, requires initially an understanding that "impeccability", meaning the standards for that attribute, is a moving parameter, or if you wish, a continually moving target. As we evolve, the concept of impeccability drives us to continually evaluate, interrogate, and re-evaluate ourselves, our emotions, our decisions, and our actions based on our decisions, to determine "if" the action will be, or was, impeccable. For those of us on "the way of knowledge", the result of these interrogations will be, if before the fact of the action or decision, that "yes" it is believed to be impeccable. On retrospect, through, after the fact, we may learn that there was a parameter in the decision process that was 'not' considered, and that having fully considered the "new" parameter (that was there all along but not considered) we might find that the action or decision was not impeccable after all simply because all of the decision parameters required were not viewed objectively. In learning, new definitions and standards of impeccability are discovered.
     
M: So, in the retrospective mode, was the action or decision truly impeccable? Answer: yes, given the parameters considered. Question: was the process of making the decision truly impeccable? Answer: no, because something blocked full awareness of all of the factors or parameters required to come to an impeccable decision or action. The impact is, then to discover "why" the parameter was not considered. What blocked the consideration?
     
M: Given this process something positive is gained although it might have been derived from a "non-impeccable" process: a lesson was learned; and, that lesson taught something about the detachment required for true objectivity.
     
M: Our lives are in general replete with "learning curve" decisions of the "not-impeccable". To find these, it is not necessary to go beyond self and often very non-productive to do so. Ultimately, the most "non-impeccable" decision is to NOT learn the lessons offered from the errors or the negative result. To learn, is to immediately convert a negative into a positive that may be integrated throughout life.
     
M: There are warnings when reviewing "non-impeccability" from, or in the actions of, others. This is because the observer is "not" necessarily aware of the number or quality of parameters that were invoked in making the decisions or in taking the actions. A good example is to view "our parents" - i.e., anyone's parents - and their impact on the child. All parents - all - did their best. Certainly, the actions and the result may be truly flawed throughout the spectrum of causation and result. The truth though, good, bad, nefarious, or indifferent, all parents did their best with the attribute set that they had at the time.
     
M: It is no different relative to impeccability. Study not the perceived impeccability of others because it is sufficiently saturating to understand the impeccability of self.
     
------------
     
R: I had an interesting dream Sunday night. It was the first time I was in a dream where the events were telling me that I was dreaming and yet, with all the clues, I never recognized it as a dream and continued it to the end believing it was "real life."
     
M: In my understanding of the way these truly function, you experienced a second attention "visit". Generally the distinction between these and casual dreams are exactly what you have said "it wasn't recognized as a dream, it seemed like real life". For me, there is no question that this was a second attention event, whether or not you might recognize it as such.
     
R: I have assumed that they are second attention situations whenever I've been about to act volitionally and from the standpoint of knowing that I was dreaming. That you call this recently described dream a second attention experience, I have no problem with that, I just wish that I'd caught the dreamness of it so that I could have broadened my scope of actions.
     
M: Many second attention experiences are truly the "alternate reality" mode of perception and they in general are not "wispy" or vague: they have their own reality that can be integrated into our wholeness. It might assist you to consider that 2nd attention, even 3rd attention, experiences are, well, experiences. They don't really need labels, per se, just recognition. The manner that I use is to "quietly" experience the mode, absorbing the experience like a sponge, then process it later.
     

     
R: What happened was that I was counting items and the count kept changing. I'd count 6 and then count them again and there would be 7 or eight, so I would recount and there would again be an extra. I actually said to myself "this has to be a dream, I have to be dreaming".
     
M: This is another characteristic of a second attention event, it's essentially like you are experiencing real life, and dreaming at the same time. There are deeper second attention experiences where this is occurring, the real life component, and one tiers into a dream also - and knows that it's a dream AND that the existence of real life - is also held within a dream. The fact that you made the last statement "this has to be a dream ... " again confirms the process. The second attention is an alternate reality, and it is experienced just in this manner - initially. Later it can be experienced in a known awake state, like when walking around for example.
     
R: How does that begin? How is it brought on.
     
M: It comes rather "naturally": it doesn't work to force it. A truly quiet "first attention" mind becomes open to the other attentions. The problem with most of humanity is that they cling onto the 1st attention so deeply - and this is done through a noisy mind - that they just don't open to other states of being. I've come to think of the noisy mind as a reflex dependency. The very best concept I can suggest is to just relax, and enjoy the experience. Record the experience to memory and use 1st attention intellect later, after the fact. Once, though, I was driving a car through a toll booth area in New Jersey (a few years ago). I was attentive but relaxed. Poof! everything within my vision vanished and I was in the fog of the 2nd attention. That was amazing, but had to be corrected and intent accomplished that because it placed my first attention existence in jeopardy (driving a car). Also, in driving a car, the "stop the world" mode works also, where everything about you is stopped or in very slo-mo, so the alternate reality is that YOU can move slowly through the crowd.
     
R: When I've gone from lying in bed awake directly into dreaming it has been similar to what CC described. It will start with an image of anything, a clear image that I then have to "hold" in place and after "holding it for a few moments it turns to a full scene and I then am able to easily keep it going for, I don't know, 20 or 30 minutes, although I've never considered how to actually measure it, time wise.
     
M: Don't try to measure in time - waste of effort. In the 2nd and 3rd attentions, the experiences can be so dramatic that seconds might have the equivalent of hours in 1st attention matters. The depth of the experience is what is important, not the duration.
     
R: But the initial stage of those seems quite precarious and sometimes I can't hold the beginning image but rather it slips away and I'm back to just lying there in bed.
     
M: Just guessing, but you probably try to "think" rather than "feel" to "live" the experience. Another attempt at analogy would be that of an armchair traveller - watching a film. Lie back, and observe. This sets a pattern of process. The skill about being more interactive will come after this "observational" pattern becomes standard procedure.
     

     
R: Usually, though, if I can find that initial image, I'm home free because even if it slips away I'll go into dreaming after falling asleep. One of the things don Juan explains to Carlos it the task of becoming aware of falling asleep. That is how I interpret what I just described.
     

     
M: Another description might be to be that relaxed so that one can just slip into the state of reality. To fall asleep is to relax sufficiently so that can occur and surrender into the sleep mode: same sort of process.
     

     
R: The strange thing is that I didn't believe it and continued acting in the dream, not as I do as a dreamer when I know it is a dreamer, I continued as if it WAS real life and just went ahead and let go of the fact that I was seeing the funny count.
     
M: It'd help if you would just admit that you have been experiencing events in the second attention, accept that, and place it into the category of "experience".
     
R: My acceptance has always been an assumption. The assumption being that CC was accurately reporting don Juan's teachings. So, had you not come along, I might well have accepted another explanation had one been presented to me.
     
M: Ultimately, all you have to accomplish is to accept your experiences for yourself and integrate them into your being. It's all just self acceptance, really. Then, once the information based on the experiences is achieved, then intent and will may be utilized to make alterations as may be understood as beneficial.
     
R: I feel like I really blew a chance to have a great volitional dream. I'm so ready to intend to see the lady in the dress, etc. and here was a dream that was actually showing itself to be a dream and I wouldn't "switch" to knowing it as a dream, interesting.
     
M: You don't have to "switch" and just understand it as "an experience" and don't get hung up on if it's a volitional dream, blah-blah or what, just accept it as an experience. If people try to "partition" these experiences it handicaps integrating all of the experienced into a whole form of "knowledge".
     
R: Yes, I see the value of not getting hung up on if it's a volitional dream, blah-blah, etc. and at the same time it is my intention to know when I'm dreaming/in the second attention, so in the related case I did miss that chance. As for trying to "partition" it seems to me that that is simply part of discrimination and unavoidable to perception, that is to say, it can't be helped. I did what I did, I was aware of it, it is part of a whole form of knowledge, but isn't it unavoidable to distinguish the differences and doesn't it even help to so distinguish so that perhaps one is better prepared the next time such a dream occurs. OK, what I need to ask is: How does partitioning handicap integrating experiences into a whole form of knowledge.
     
M: In the early stages of perceptions, partitioning is a willful task that requires effort, and it doesn't integrate well into a whole. The idea is to "recognize" the experience for it's attributes, without attempting to place specific "boundaries" (partitions) around it. The "recognition" will aid in the definitions sufficiently without forming boundaries.
     
R: I've actually entered into volitional dreaming from an awake state in bed. Those are the best.
     
M: You are more advanced than you represent/admit yourself to be. Now, ask yourself "why" you don't commit to acceptance and try to partition yourself.
     
R: I wrote more on this kind of dreaming with this line of yours in mind. On this part; It strikes me that the word "advanced" also partitions. I don't mean to misrepresent myself. I don't think about admitting anything to myself, dreaming wise. I've accepted it all (dreaming) just as a fact of my life. Is there something there that you see me as not accepting? Accepting it as second attention experiences just came to my mind and right off I would say about that that the phrase "second attention" is just a phrase to me. And I like it as a phrase with its meaning of "another" equally valid attention to the daily world one. And that fits very well with what dreaming is to me. So I guess I'm back to not understanding what it is that you are seeing that I'm not accepting. As for partitioning, is there something you see there that I did not clarify above?
     

     
R: Others start by flying and I immediately then know it is a volitional dream at which point I usually land and start practicing (or sometimes not) what the CC books have instructed to do for your level of dreaming. But, like I say, I've never actually been cued to the point of actually acknowledging in the dream "this has to be a dream" and yet not accept that and act upon it.
     
M: How about "this is an experience, what am I going to learn from this?", as an application of adventure?
     
R: Yes, yes, but, this has to become my way in the first attention before I'll have a chance in hell of being able to do it in an unrecognized second attention situation like that dream was.
     
R: What do you mean "as an application of adventure"
     
M: Drawing from my own approach/experience(s) the following may be useful. The first occasion of travel into the third attention, I was a bit surprised, but instantly recognized what was happening to me. I "floated" along "for the ride" with the attitude of "well, wow, I wonder where this is taking me, and why, and this might really be a challenging adventure". That is the spirit of what I mean. Impeccability requires the self-confidence that if something occurs that violates my impeccability I'll know it and immediately have the power/ability of blowing myself out of the experience and back into the safety of the 1st attention. Since that can be accomplished on the instant at any time, then all I have to do is to allow the "adventure" to take me and in that manner, all I have to do is be alert.
     
R: I felt very stupid when I woke up. All I can think is that I also don't usually have dreams that exactly copy what I'm expecting to really happen in real life, and this one did, so I just couldn't believe it was a dream no matter the "funny counting."
     
R: At the beach with my daughter I was starring at the sky and it's sliver of a moon up there on what was a bright sunny day and I saw (only in full turned ON internal dialogue), little specks of scattered light flickering, but it seemed to just be the kind of thing you would expect upon, say, pressing on closed eyelids.
     
M: You experienced seeing, and you still find excuses not to accept. Amazing. You didn't press on your eyes to artificially create a response. You saw energy from the universe. When you see the cocoon of what CC would call "a nagual" you will see the same electrical flickering within the golden-amber color. Rather than extend your hand "into" the flickering that you were seeing, where you could feel it, you choose to accept the experience. When you feel it, it will feel like "electric ants" on the surface of the skin of your hand, then if you don't withdraw, the energy will pass "through" your hand. If you then extend your will/intent into the energy flow through your hand, you would be able to "see" the modification the flickering of the field of energy you perceived. You would be actually able to interact with the energy and alter it's course. You would be able to learn how to channel/join with the energy to shape and heal, with practice. You would be able to "join" with the energy and learn how to use it to increase your own energy. In travelling into and through, fully immersed in the third attention, this sparkling energy becomes a platform for one to "surf": it empowers, and you have begun to see it.
     
R: Oh. When I read that, I guess it was two days ago now, I set out to "play" with it. I told my daughter (13) about it and she says that she can see it also. I can, I've found, see it at will when I look into the blue sky or clouds (though it's harder to notice in clouds). I've now extended my hand into it but until this just now reading, I'd forgotten that you said you could feel it like electric ants, and I was looking for a "field change" which I didn't find. I find it a bit disconcerting that I don't have to do anything much special to be able to see it, although crossing the eyes makes it happen the fastest (faster as in the perception of it starts up more quickly). That's really energy flow and not some optical thing like the mass of floaters in my eyeballs? Well, I know it is not that and if it was optical it would seem that I could reproduce it starring at a light blue wall. I hate to be a pain with my scepticism but, as I mentioned before, I don't even have to turn off the internal dialogue to achieve it and that seems at least a little bit unfair somehow.
     
M: It's already noted that you have ability, so your skepticism is really skepticism about yourself more than anything else. You can "see", but interaction requires more intent and will - there's the difference. One has to "link" self with the energy for it to become proactive and interactive.
     
R: Remember now, try and have a little bit of patience here with me, I'm the one who has never known a waking unusual experience and to be told now that a little flickering is my seeing energy flow like others can't (won't?), well, it doesn't quite seem like much to write home about. I also realized that I've been seeing this at times for a long long time ... and, I just now realized, that I've always suspected it as possibly being something special.
     
M: Patience is a very important part of loosing the human form ...
     

     
R: For some reason, I think you should be glad that I'm a sceptic, even if it is frustrating for you. I am listening and I'd love to spend the day playing with the perception of these flickers. The second I feel electric ants I'll probably pee in my pants. Remember, NO WAKING ANYTHING SO FAR, but some flickers? Come on, it's got to get better than that! But I'll be patience, I'm thrilled to death that you told me I'd done something: seen energy flow. I am definitely out there playing with that one and doing my best to be open to the experience.
     
M: It's hard to say "just feel" because it seems like that, however, there is a linkage to cause that. One basically takes a piece of one's own energy and links it to the field. Remember the "airplane" exercise we rattled about some time ago. Start with the exercise, hands "feeling". When the warmth overcomes your hands, slowly look up into the sky, look at the sparkling, then slowly turn your palms into the sparkling, and feel.
     
R: I have definitely seen energy in dreaming ... twice. Once in front of a bush, once like above me over a street I was walking down and both times the colors were astoundingly bright and vivid and flickering and very localized. That's what I want to see!!! Well, that's what I'd love to see again, anyway.
     
M: You will.
     
--------------
     
R: I am further along, because of your emails, in returning to the listening state during daily life. Also, listening to my compilation has taken on new meaning after your emails.
     
M: Good news.
     
R: However, the physical distraction of my "loosing mobility at the shoulder" right arm and its associated almost constant pain together with the self diagnosed skin problem, well, ... actually those things are not the distraction, the distraction is suspicion that I am going to die from the second item above and even wonder if the first item above is not actually an indication that the spread of the second has begun. (NOTE: this is about one year later that I'm editing this for my web page and the shoulder is 98% back to normal and the skin problem has totally vanished.)
     
M: Honestly, my problem is and was the "self-diagnosed" part. You could well have some form unrelated discomfort in your shoulder. The observation here is that you really "don't know" what's going on, have really only your own opinion based on your assumptions, and the observed result is that you use a huge amount of emotional energy speculating on what is going on. Wasting energy, it is understood, is not in accord with the spirit of the nagual and the way to resolve this is to gain "knowledge" and in this situation a medical opinion would be useful. My fear is that this is all becoming self-defeating for you, and yes, I do care.
     
R: On the other hand, my feeling of total energy, otherwise, keeps me hopeful while still suspecting that it may be foolishly so. And so, I've been finding myself in bouts of depression as I continue to deplore my "giving up" to having the knife cut away.
     
M: I, of course, do not know what you really have going on and my suspicion is that you might not know either.
     
R: From 2-26-99 have not had a drop of anything that was not whole and natural eating mostly brown rice and beans, fish, raw and cooked vegetables and fruit ... period. But, again, I admit to being frustrated and a bit depressed by my arm and the other. I believe that you think my decision is not based on impeccability but I must tell you that I truly do.
     
M: I can only view this from my own prospective: if you are not correct, then the result is truly negative and there is concern that given the other negativity based on history that you've reported (I'm not speculating, just reflecting on your reports) this might be forming your "way out", and capitulation is can not be impeccable because it's about the same as the "warrior" surrendering, not being a "warrior" at all.
     
R: This may well be a test all right, but to me, it is a test of whether or not I can muster up the will to harness intent. Writing this to you helps me to not give up ... that is the frame of mind I must keep active ... your contact has greatly helped.
     
M: Intent can be used to take more action, it needs to be noted. The suggestion is to focus on what is in the "whole", your true intent.
     
--------------
     
R: I spent much of the day working on/reading over your emails from the beginning. Aside from totally forgetting about and never even starting the project of writing what each paragraph means to me, another thing struck me and that was your point about my "diagnosis."
     
M: Okay. The significant item to me in the above is the "never even starting the project of writing what each paragraph means to me" for reasons: a. It's not intended as a pedantic exercise so it's hoped that it will have personal integration benefit, i.e., knowledge as opposed to just information; and, b) "means to me" because that makes it personal as all quests for the warrior must be.
     
R: I suppose it is a small point, but I though I would at least show you where I received my education on the matter. If you would take the time to go through the complete tutorial's 19 section at:

http://matrix.ucdavis.edu/tumors/new/tutorial1.html

R: as I did (I recall that I spent about four hours there 2-26-99), I think you might have more confidence in my diagnosis ... what that would mean, I don't know, just more reason to go to the doctor I suppose.
     
M: No question about it in my mind.
     
R: I got further information that same day at:

http://imsdd.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/201302.html#4_DESCRIPTION

R: Where I determined mine to be third stage. Many treatments are described here and I gleaned onto the last treatment mentioned: "Biological therapy tries to get the body to fight cancer. It uses materials made by the body or made in a laboratory to boost, direct, or restore the body's natural defenses against disease. Biological treatment is sometimes called biological response modifier (BRM) therapy or immunotherapy. Clinical trials are being done to find biological therapies that are effective."
     
M: I looked through the sites that you referenced above, and certainly they appear competent. The Stage III description has the surface at about 4 millimeters which is a bit less that 3/16th inch diameter. The "depth" of the tumor, though, has a significant impact between the Stages, and that cannot be determined without imaging or penetration.
     
M: Comment: It is interesting that in your "rant" you decried western medicine but in these web sites you are utilizing it's methodologies to "self- diagnose". This is "just" an observation to point out what may be a dichotomy.
     
(NOTE: At this point I am putting in a whole new dialogue that developed from this "Comment" of Michael's. Where we leave off here continues below starting at "So, I'm doing my own "trial," I suppose you could say."
     
R: I truly admire and respect science in any area, medical or otherwise. But at the same time I see the structure that organized medicine has become and the process required of students, usually young and impressionable, to become doctors. Add into the mix our litigious society and the AMA and you get what we have today in doctor-patient relations: the "standard treatment" of the day applied to the condition as best diagnosed by the physician. Well, fine.
     
M: Not so fine, of course, however "very" practitioner-specific as to results. The "human form" of institutions is replete with power struggles, and self-importance. Insofar as can be observed, this situation applies to most (if not all) human form organizations, no matter how well intended.
     
R: Now consider our organic bodies as the whole organisms which they are leaving out all the metaphysical notions. And consider that here is essentially no requirement of medical students to study the interrelatedness of the whole organism nor is there but a scant amount of research into the subject in the first place. One practices medicine after studying cause and effect observations made through the history of medicine, basically. And that is fine.
     
M: "Fine" to a degree, but limited.
     
R: That is what has worked pretty well ... not? I make that judgement based on things like the report that just came out about how 85% of all Japanese have a medical problem. I imagine one arguing that the two are unrelated, to which I would say, yes, it would appear so, but isn't the medical community's near total denial of diet as the cause of anything the crux of the problem?
     
M: In the main, that is probably true. Physicians who are homeopathic do exist, however, they just have to be found. Diet has some causal impact, however it is very difficult to place a cause and effect relationship particularly in humans because of the exposure and life cycle. Add to this the genetic predispositions, and it's exacerbated profoundly simply because the reactions of any one human body, to various stimuli, can be very different and be DNA (genetically) driven.
     
R: And then you find out about the billion dollar sugar industry's and the milk industry's and other's financing "scientific" studies that always exonerate them. I know that things are changing somewhat, but go and see what they feed patients in hospitals. Yes, you witnessed something from me directed at medical professionals. But it was more in the line of what I've unfortunately done with my son: directed anger (the source of which is always another subject thus the problem with it) at him over something I saw that was not supporting his whole development. What if the removal of moles turns out to be the modern day blood-letting or head hole drilling? I find great encouragement in "Clinical trials are being done to find biological therapies that are effective." There is the hope for the future. And the statement that acknowledges the medical community in that regard even more: "Biological therapy tries to get the body to fight cancer. It uses materials made by the body or made in a laboratory to boost, direct, or restore the body's natural defenses against disease." Well, DUH!!!
     
M: I wish that the judgement of that were only that simple. I'm not attempting to defend the things that annoy you and that you have commit to. The simple fact is that is has been only recently, meaning the past five years or so, that we have had the technical tools, or even the measurement of those tools in order for this to happen to the extent that is has. Early virologists that were very successful, like Jonas Salk, were fortunate to have a virus that didn't mutate as much as modern viruses do, and that didn't interact with the genetic predispositions as much as modern viruses do - almost like a form of Darwinian "natural selection". The fact that technology has "raised the bar" on lifespan from so many issues that tended to be frequent in society (e.g. yellow and scarlet fevers; bubonic plagues; small pox; polio, et al) we now are facing working on the "really tough" and more selective problems.
     
M: One of my concerns, personally, about the emphasis of diet per se was based on some of the assumptions that were made on historical population samples. Pritikin was one who made serious errors on these assumptions. In that time, perhaps 15 to 20 years ago, these assumptions were based on the observations of specific tribal communities and their diets. The problem was, and is, that many of these specific tribal communities simply had (proven) genetic predispositions and that the amazing life quality that they had actually didn't really represent diet per se. Technology at that time was not capable of really understanding or measuring the genetic factors, so "diet" became a fad.
     
M: Even recently, there was, is, a population group in Italy with long life spans, and virtually zero heart attacks even through they eat a diet rich in red meat, and dairy products. Yes, it proved to be genetics, not diet, in this population.
     
R: Now, pass the sugar? I don't think so. Let's go out for a beer? Wrong! How about, Let's totally rebuild the crapped-on-for-48-years immune system and trust the amazing organism which is the body to do what it needs to do for its wellness. Sounds like something Hippocrates would say.
     
M: Well, there are many postulations about what cause the genetic systems to mutate as they age. In laboratory populations, the systems "age" as a function of pre-programmed effects that are currently thought to be DNA based intrinsically. The "aging" and mutations are like a copier and each time a copy is made on paper, it gets a little altered/fuzzier. Every cell in our bodies is replaced on a sequence about every seven years, and they change just a little with each replication. Some would say that diet has an impact, and yes indeed it may - it may also have nothing to do with it. For myself, I'm not a believer or a non-believer in these matters. I am an observer.
     
R: There is impeccability. Cutting away what offends with a knife is back with cause and effect medicine and just fine for those unwilling to give up their nightly bowl of Haagendaus. I hold that there is a better way and that whole and unadulterated food is at the heart of it.
     
M: For me, that is just speculation. It's good that you have something to believe in so fervently. I have a protege who "sounds" much as you do, and he's made a life study of these matters, including his attitude about the medical profession which on that he approaches a cynic.
     
R: So, I'm doing my own "trial," I suppose you could say.
     
R: The article states: "Standard treatment may be considered because of its effectiveness in patients in past studies, or participation in a clinical trial may be considered. Surgery is currently the only standard treatment of melanoma. Clinical trials are designed to find better ways to treat cancer patients.
     
R: Reviewing all of this I'm reminded of the seriousness of what I'm up against. I think I will call the number given and ask about participating in a clinical trial of BRM. (NOTE TO READERS: I never did)
     
M: From the above, that is the pattern of your own descriptions in this transmittal as well as others, it is possible to delineate some line items.
     

     
M: 1. A person seems to be suspicious and has some predispositions about western medicine, but utilizes it's descriptions and informational facilities.
     
R: Answered above
     
M: Perhaps.
     
M: 2. A person who has exhibited a significant familial history of melanomas in close relatives, meaning that there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition - another "fact" that western medicine has patterned, and for that matter even "eastern" approaches because there is simply familial traceability.
     
R: Answered above in that, with the above logic, this is seen as dietary failure and the body's attempt to do its best (thanks to genetics) with what it is given.
     
M: ..But at considerable risk since ALL of the "bet" is being placed upon one roll of the dice.
     
R: NOTE: Then next two lines were after this dialogue, of course, as so much of this is intermixed... I just felt the want of making it clear here.
     
R: I feel that way about going under the knife. And yet ... you do argue well.
     
M: Why thank you, although the discussion has not been particularly effective.
     
M: 3. A person who, given this "evidence" makes a conscious decision to "self-diagnosing" and "doing his own trial" however the failure of "his own trial" could be his existence in the literal sense, eagle metaphor and all. ... Hummmm.
     
R: Understood but with a different view of the "evidence."
     
M: It seems that your view of the "evidence" is to exclude at least half of that available.
     
M: Again the questions are applied.
     
M: Is a person with these characteristics being impeccable to him/herself?
     
R: Absolutely
     
M: There are many definitions around the word "absolute", including ultimate, final, perfect, so you are very bound in confidence to your term by using that word, and for that matter, in the assumption that impeccability by itself is absolute.
     
R: I do, so much, enjoy your preciseness. Perhaps I could better have said "I absolutely hope so."
     
R: Thank you, Michael, for staying in my face. You continue to surprise me and I continue to be thrilled for the exchange. I like the phrase "bound in confidence"
     
M: Is a person taking these risks being impeccable?
     
R: Would, given my argument, the person opting for the knife be being impeccable? ... a denial of the bodies innate ability to do what is right for its survival when given a chance. Yes, one could argue "What if 2-26 was already too late to begin giving the body that chance?" I "have to believe" that it was not. Without that belief I have nothing.
     
M: Point is well made and not thoroughly. The argument seems obvious, at least to the outside observer, that the "evidence" you have in hand on your genetic predisposition would suggest that significant countermeasures are appropriate partly in compensation for the genetic predisposition. The argument could be made that intellect may compensate by decisions and actions for the genetic predispositions, and that absent that, the genetic predisposition will do what "natural selection" has always done: remove those prematurely from the gene pool that have the genetic predispositions.
     
M: Assuming that physical death is understood, is such a person prepared for death in a manner that could facilitate his continuance through maintaining coherence of sentience in the absence of a physical body, or, will the person dissipate into oblivion because of the lack of coherent energy?
     
M: Has the person, having "studied information" in many metaphysical and philosophical depths, had sufficient time and "intent" to "convert" the "studied information" into true "knowledge"?
     
M: Given the decision matrix and the approach to a known life-threatening condition (assuming competent self-diagnosis) executed by the person, will there be sufficient "physical time" available to complete the conversion of "studied information" into true "knowledge" that could facilitate "continuance"?
     
R: I am continuing now. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to look at this in depth.
     
M: That was my job: to cause a review; and nothing more.
     
--------------
     
R: reference your comment, "Why thank you, although the discussion has not been particularly effective."
     
R: Do I detect a bit of cynicism in the "Why" of Why thank you? The "not been particularly effective," would seem to support the suspicion.
     
M: Not at all. It was an expanded way of saying "thank you". No more. The statement 'not particularly' is based on observation. I have no reason to be cynical.
     
R: What can't be refuted is that the knife removes as a possibility that the physical aspect of the condition is actually part of the bodies defensive system and in an as yet undiscovered way, necessary for the bodies cleansing itself of the problem when, and this is the key, given a chance through the discontinuance of the poisons in the modern diet. I suspect; for example, that the "evil" sun that we all should stay out of is not evil at all and in fact is very beneficial.
     
M: Agreed. I often; for example, visit (snip) as a practicing nudist. I am more concerned about the chemistry involved in all the "sun protection" stuff - which could indeed have long term effects that won't show up for decades - than I am "managing" my wholly exposed body in terms of quantity of exposure. My body "communicates" to me what it's tolerance is and I pay attention.
     
M: Separately, the skin condition that you have been reporting is very conceptually interesting, even in the manner that you view the condition. There are a number of viruses that seem to "get onto" the body initially rather than "get into" the body. Warts, except in genital form for a woman (known to migrate into cervical cancer) don't particularly pose a threat to the body and they go in general unnoticed by the immune system. One of my sons had a huge history of warts on his hands. He worked in a deli and his hands were moist most of the day, and he has many examples of having the warts burned off. Finally, he decided not to act upon them, and after about a year, all of a sudden, poof! his immune system "noticed" the problem and all the warts went away. Herpes, another retrovirus, has a similar story and it could be projected that melanoma also is similar except that once it breaks out of the form, it mutates and overwhelms the immune system. The successful treatment where the immune system is caused to respond by acting on processed sample of the tumor material itself is new to technology, and very successful, however it cannot be mass produced because the pathology is unique to each event of each person.
     
M: It does not take much imagination to project that if your immune system doesn't notice the problem in time, then it won't react with any certainty or intensity, and diet will have nothing to do with it.
     
M: It is also possible that these viral mutations humanity experience are carried by DNA across generations. We generally now accept that genetics plays a role in the predispositions to these, and other, problems, but we do not have the measurement technology to determine if DNA actually carries, pre-programs, cells to develop the virus itself. Our undifferentiated cells grow into various body parts, and it's not so off the wall that the micro-code that these carry also pre-programs cells into aberrant behavior. It that were to turn out to be true, diet or anything else in the environment, would have nothing to do with many cancers.
     
R: I suspect that it is the nature of refined sugar and other man made chemicals in the body and the bodies attempt to purge itself of them, that, then in the sun, and at a level of chemical toxicity beyond the bodies ability to cope, results in conditions that could well be brought on by that sun exposure. But the "as advertised" notion of staying out of the sun is, to me, another example of how warped current thinking is. But, publish a paper against the sugar industry and you are swept away by the sugar industry who will fight you tooth and nail.
     
M: No industry has much power to prevent the truth at this point, as the tobacco companies have learned. Specifically because of the tobacco companies, the doors are fully open for truth to be exposed. The problem that you cite, however, is missing the compelling evidence that the tobacco companies contrived to hide.
     
R: So the, I speculate, indirect cause, the sun, takes the blame and we're told to stay out of it. It's laughable (except that it's not) when you really think it through. And I wouldn't get bogged down in considering genetic predisposition. Just trust the body to do what is best for itself when given a chance. I really think that so often we out smart ourselves ... just give the body a chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is.
     
M: Actually, for myself, that is my approach. I believe the people, like my protege (who is truly scholarly on the health/diet/cancer subject) less than the supermarket mentality, because of their extremism. The body seems to do just fine as long as it is exposed to moderation.
     
R: No one wants to tell people to change their diets meaningfully (and I understand your stand that no one knows what a "correct" diet is.) That's too much like work for people. We all want what is easy.
     
M: Perhaps, but responsible people will react if they have a clear understanding. The media does not help. The health-food zealots don't help particularly when they are hyping "natural diet" stuff that in itself is processed with very questionable quality and contaminant controls. I would in general "question" the efficacy of an approach when it's discovered that those exposing the approach have a vested interest. If I have cynicism on something (many subjects) this is probably as close as I come - however I'd prefer to think of it as objective observation. I don't say "no, it's not possible" even in this intonation, and I am driven toward the data base.
     
R: So, for the most part, even perhaps those physician who know or highly suspect, don't advice other than "standard procedure." And so we have; for example, the thousands of children having ear operations each year and the physician who admits, "of course we know that milk is the primary cause. I don't tell my patients parents to have their children stop drinking milk, then I wouldn't have any patients." Wrong! then he would be run out of town by the milk industry.
     
M: Hummm. No comment.
     
R: I recommend that you find a copy of Sugar Blues by William Dufty. I would like to hear what you think about it should you read it.
     
M: Actually, no motivation. I grew up in the 40's and the 50's. I never had an ear problem and growing up never knew anyone that had, and I've taken tons of milk through my life and still do because I enjoy it. My experience just does not have the drama that you imply is the fact. If experience and reports don't match, believe experience. My children, aged at the youngest 24 and at the oldest 30, drank tons of milk, still do, never had an ear problem, nor among the parents and children of their peers do I know of anyone that did. My experience just doesn't align anything even vaguely approaching your report.
     
R: Above I wrote "just give the body a chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is." I just looked up "miracle" in the dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate) for the spelling ("a" not "I") and read this definition: "3 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law." I expect so.
     
M: And I do not. "Christianity" is a belief system. "Science" is a measurement system. A belief system cannot be proven or falsified. Anything in science must be falsifyable, must always and forever be "tentative" (e.g. the best data that we have to date, but there may be better data eventually found) or it is not "science", it is a belief system. "Christian Science" by my definition is a oxymoron, as is "Scientific Creationism", both confusing the measurements of what can be found, with philosophical and religious belief systems. These systems are not, in reality, in conflict with each other because they exist in separate and parallel elements of human considerations. Science never knows "why" anything actually happens: it only measures and attempts to define what it can observe; and, it attempts to measure and define the interactions between things that it observes; but, it never knows "why".
     
R: Perhaps you misunderstood what I said above? I said that I expect it to be the case that the body is equal to "a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law." "Divinely natural" means to me that the body is just what it is, no more no less, just what it is ... there is an implication there of its being beyond verbal understanding as well, in that divine would equate to me with don Juan's indescribable force.
     
M: Something has been observed in our dialogues. On occasion, when "clarity" needs to be brought out toward each in our own way, we tend to use a provocative method as an attempt to cause reflex information, and although it can be a challenging methodology of human interface, it is efficient.
     
M: Yes, of course, there is agreement with the flow of the statement. The only real difference to me, based on experience yet again, is that DJM's indescribable force is truly "difficult" to describe, but not indescribable. Once the power of the universe has been explored, touched, travelled upon as the traveller is propelled by it, the experience albeit vast and profound, becomes a "known" component of self and it's energy forms are also found within ourselves, bodies and all. The extension of self, which amounts to the coupling of self, into these manifestations of energy cause us to become "extensions" of the universal energy flow, and ourselves coupled to them. From that point on, almost like one's loosing virginity, one cannot go back into being an isolated individual and to attempt to do so, reaps problems for the traveller/warrior. In any case, the apprentice may be with effort and development brought to understand at least how to experience the touch of the energy, and hopefully, to channel the energy (better said: fields) meaning that this flows with the individual, not just through the individual. Once that occurs, it is truly "not" indescribable at least among/between those having had the experience. If the term "power of the universe", or, "universal fields of energy" are considered as surrogate terms for "divine", then the descriptive match is impeccable.
     
R: So then, it continues to say the we experience that as we experience it and, that, that experience is the fulfillment of spiritual law, or, that experience is the indescribable force's law, say, order, fulfilled.
     
R: Sounds to me like just saying that our bodies are a part of the indescribable force. I don't care that someone in the Christian Science church cooked it up, but since you brought it up, that is a great oxymoron ... Christian Science ... and while your paragraph seemed out of the blue, I totally agree with you and appreciated your words on Science.
     
M: You're welcome.
     
R: Thank you for clearing up the "Why thank you" comment.
     
M: In my early years, it's believed reported previously (not certain), although born in California, my mother immediately (on husband/father's command) took us to my father's family ranch in . Quick review: he was a ranking officer in the Marine Corps, parents had been married about 8 years before conceiving their only child, mother a haughty Andalucian Spaniard (Sevillana), had no infrastructure because sent into San Diego 5 days before birth of son because father was reassigned to Pearl Harbor - wouldn't allow pregnant wife to go there - Japan bombed Pearl about 3 weeks after birth of son, father at war (he was the commandant on the Marine detachment on the Battleship Oklahoma), mother and son sent to rural ranch because San Diego was a military target - a total mismatch for mother, a person of European social stature in a ranch of a "different" social stature (Grandparents were socially prominent), but son raised in "isolation" without other children for the duration of the WWII on the ranch, met father about age 5. The point: Every once in a while, there is an impulse to put ohn mah best country' twang which can be called up in an instant, ahs en, "Waaahy, have ah-nother meant julll-LIP?", and, "Waaahy, Thannnnk yuh". E/mail text misses the intonation.
     
R: It seems to be that I'm expecting a flaw in you and not finding it. I don't mean that I'm looking for one, but there is something there in me that has me continuing to be expecting you to falter in your approach with me. I am thrilled that you don't and it is that consistency that nearly has me in front of the doctor ... nearly. God, I'm a tough case! Aren't I?
     
M: Interesting, perhaps; "tough?" uncertain; and, thank you for the complement. There is awareness that, intended or not, you have been probing and testing me and that intended or not, you have used many communication devices to accomplish this task all to determine if I am "real". There is full awareness that this is difficult to find in another, and therefore not surprising that one might use these devices and probing inquiries as techniques. After all is considered, though, impeccability demands that there be a benefit to the exchange, or impeccability becomes thwarted, because the exchange becomes relegated to something of a pastime, and that is insufficient to justify the energy required. There "has" been a benefit to myself, fulfilled and probably complete, simply because of your uniqueness in being a source for your form of "testing". Our contact has been "unique" for myself because, simply, I rarely "expose" myself in the absence of personal contact.
     
M: It is obviously understood that we are involved in a discipline, or at least discussing philosophical approaches, that are extraordinarily isolated within society, and even my experiences working in China and Japan have instructed that individuals that truly 'have ability' are isolated in those locations also (although many go 'through the motions'). This exchange has rapidly approached the decision point. Certainly if you were to use your competent (sincerely said) "compilation" style in extracting essential elements of our dialogue, with a little creativity (perhaps in not naming yourself as the respondent) you could post on your web site a new piece that was "not" based on CC/DJM by now, and my guess is you might enjoy that simply because you could claim that "there is another ... ", provided that you have finally come to that conclusion.
     
M: The "provocative" point (intended to provoke a response) extracted from a prior e/mail ... "although the discussion has not been particularly effective ... " was a ping to question the efficacy of what is being accomplished through this interchange, and this is another since according to my perceptions, this has come to a threshold point.
     
R: I was having similar thoughts this morning. I've noticed that I've let you become "nothing special" in a way, in my thinking, even though I intuit that you are something very special. I think that this has come out of "who I am being" in this exchange, and largely, "who I am being" has not changed. So, even though you've given me new tools to use to remind myself to "practice" during the day, for the most part, I've rewrapped myself in daily routine.
     
M: Humans who have not made the "transformation", in a CC/DJM manner of speaking, tend to view others based on human form references in terms of labels, et al. These views and judgements are simply based in the observation that within people, there are many "personalities" wrapped up inside, and sometimes those personalities are a war with each other. It is said that these "personalities" are perhaps moods, or individual dramas, or "roles" (more labels), however they are usually turbulent among themselves and because of the dependencies of the human form, humans tend to "hang onto" these labels as a form of self identity: the "I am" statements. Usually, it is noted, these are illusions of the human form because almost all of the "I am ... " statements are pre-established boundaries.
     
M: It is only natural for most to attempt to assign labels to all that they observe, and those labels are established only as extensions of the labels that they have reflexively allocated within themselves. As the internal dramas play out and manifest themselves from an individual, the "who is" (label applied to another) often changes as their human form dependency dictates that it must, and since this process is unthinkingly reflexive, owed to the turbulence within of conflicting dependencies, the decision "who/what is" another, is also an illusion.
     
M: The solution to these conundrums is to discover ultimately "who" Rick is.
     
R: Anyway, this "rewrapping" is, at least, noticed. And having noticed it I'm in a position to fight through it. ...
     
M: Can only hope that you will. The "trick" is to never fully re-wrap, and to use your "knowledge" as "applied ability" even as you walk through your structures.
     
R: Thank you for these new insights .
     
R: Rereading them, I should rewrite my judgements to something like. ... gosh, what is there to say about another when one comes to what you said, "the 'who is' (label applied to another) often changes as their human form dependency dictates that it must, and since this process is unthinkingly reflexive, owed to the turbulence within of conflicting dependencies, the decision 'who/what is' another, is also an illusion."
     
R: God, I love the way you write with pristine crystal clarity!! It's magical, figuratively (maybe literally, I don't know what magic is).
     
------------
     
R: As I was just thinking of how easy it is to stay off of the path when one is letting oneself be just swept along by the tide of daily events, I couldn't help also thinking how foolish that is and how one ought to spend most of one's time in the pursuit of the way of knowledge. Rather than having no structure for fulfillment and therewith(out) having a hit and miss day each day in term of accomplishing anything towards the goal of becoming a man of knowledge, one ought to develop and follow a structure for, perhaps even, formal, following of the way. A time for recapitulation, a time for gazing, a time for walking, a time for writing down the meaning of the exchange so far ... But I have no such structure and don't readily see where to put that all into the way of the mundane.
     
M: Please be assured that it is possible to be in the way of knowledge, every moment, even as structure is "worked". Sometimes, at least in the early form for an individual seeking the knowledge, the process may take a sequence of "structure" in small bits, followed by perception in small bits. The "bits" may start as alternating forms of one to the other, perhaps an hour or so apart. They can be brought down to irregular time bases, e.g., an hour in structure, ten minutes as perception, or the inverse, in any combination. It is possible to walk from a structural point, such as a meeting, and gently let the arms hang to the sides, place the palms of the hands parallel (more or less) to the earth, walk, feel the energy changes through the palms, and gain increasing perception. Even in a meeting of some intensity, it is possible to arise from a chair under the guise of stretching, move a few feet around the room, performing this perception, and gain knowledge of all in the room and self, and with practice this happens instantaneously.
     
R: Said that way, it shows me to be very foolish.
     
M: Self-judgements, based on self-dramas ...
     
R: I didn't mention the dream I had with you: It was about four nights ago. I went by water in a boat to a house, a room, I was with two people I have little regard for one way or another and only have the sense that they were there as an incidental part of it all. You were there with someone else and I was on a lazy boy (I'm laughing, given the above writing) type chair looking at poetry in Japanese that you had given me. The poetry was written on vase forms so that I needed to turn the vase to read (should say, "look at" as I don't read Japanese) the poetry. There was no acknowledge from you that it was you, I just, in the dream, knew that it was you as a "natural" part of the dream.
     
M: Increasingly, there are mysteries in this allegory for you to discover.
     
R: What would be a structure for such discovery? And what is the process by which mysteries in an allegory increase ongoingly?
     
M: Any "mystery" is only a challenge to learn and discover. Anything that "has" been learned as information, is already dead information. Anything that "has" been learned and is incorporated into one's being, becomes part of the process of evolution. Anything that might be called "a mystery" is only something that has not been learned yet. The only real analogy is that all mysteries are beckoning the student to learn. In order to learn the student must quiet the mind, and "feel" with open perception.
     
M: The dreams are only instructional forms and a reality as valid as structural life, and often more valid. Most seem to not quite understand just how deep the illusion of "normal life" really is.
     
R: Are "the flyers" in The Active Side of Infinity more than an allegory for this?
     
M: In CC terms, yes. "Flyers" is something of a dubious term because there is more significance than the "fleeting" images that the term "flyers" might imply.
     
M: There are clues for you in the paragraph that provided the statement. There is a threshold, you are positioned upon it, and it is very significant for you to define it: your impetus to do so.
     
R: Yes, perhaps I was trying to change the subject, I suppose, because I don't want to ... I don't know, I'm pre assigning reactions from you. But that pre assigning is based on my interpretation of what is behind your phrase, ""although the discussion has not been particularly effective ... " was a ping to question the efficacy of what is being accomplished through this interchange": I'm right, you are wrong, go to the doctor.
     
M: The human form is filled from experiences originating in childhood about "struggle". That "struggle" is often formed between the various personalities representing the various role-plays that the human form has dependencies upon, and their interpretations about: he/she versus me; right versus wrong; I versus they, etcetera. These are all human dependency forms and as such they are boundaries that limit the whole state evolution into only "being". In general, "struggle" is also a human form dependency, and the process of "struggle" sets up boundaries that block learning the whole of being.
     

     
R: Back to the dream: I sat in the chair with the slight uneasiness of someone who was at a party and didn't really know the people but was trying to fit in and was uncomfortable, though trying to "look good" and feeling not terribly out of place for the effort. As I looked at the vase forms, the words (characters) were no longer there. Again, this should have clued me to the fact that I was dreaming, but it did not. That was it.
     
M: The dreams are only instructional forms and a reality as valid as structural life, and often more valid. Most seem to not quite understand just how deep the illusion of "normal life" really is.
     
R: What is the "threshold point" that you perceive?
     
M: There are clues for you in the paragraph that provided the statement. There is a threshold, you are positioned upon it, and it is very significant for you to define it: your impetus to do so.
     
-------------------
     

     
R: Yesterday while walking, I became very aware of all of the reactions I have to life as it flows; of how easily I get into the automaticness of my reacting.
     
M: Great! From the randomness, you seem to have found a pattern! (NOTE TO READERS: I deleted where I told Michael that I'd compiled his email's paragraphs alphabetically into one, therefore randomized, file)
     
R: So, I began to think of my reactions to the flow of life as though I could file the thoughts that came into my head. I was therefore looking newly at each thought and evaluating it as to what to do with it like I would a file.
     
M: It seems that although you "were always there" during the process, the retrospective was of real benefit to you!
     
------------------
     
R: It's amazing the nonsense thoughts that come to me but the fun thing was to notice them and categorize them saying things to myself about the noticed thoughts like: file that thought under "to tell Michael" followed by the command to myself, "done" and if the thought would re occur I'd note it as already handled (by way of a decided upon intention) and drop it. The end result of the process of doing that with the thoughts was that I was no longer annoyed by the thoughts, first of all, and second, I found myself much more able to be as without thoughts as I've ever gotten. So it was good.
     
M: Sometimes it us very useful to deal with these matters of self-development is this manner because one can learn what is "closed" and still what is open. Sometimes if we don't get that "down" in a way that we can reflect on and understand, keeping it only in active minds, just increases the mind noise because there are reflections on issues that no longer require reflection, and these can become tangled up with the open items, causing something like a jumble.
     
R: Exactly!!! That has exactly been my "normal" way of being daily: "reflections on issues that no longer require reflection, and these can become causing something like a jumble."
     
R: Telling you now reminds me to work on the same while in the house even.
     
M: Great!
     
R: And I must admit, since that walk a few days ago, I've not been doing it, but the important thing is that I know how and, that reminds me, I was noticing that it is different when I have something that requires visual attention; computering, TVing, dish washing, cooking, you name it. The ease of it while walking was that my eyes were not focused on anything (dj style) so what I was focused on WERE the thoughts and categorizing them. Interesting, I just made that distinction. ... It just came to me that I could evaluate what I see in the same way: "not necessary to look at," "pay attention to what you are doing". It strikes me that I am venturing into a whole new way of being here.
     
M: Why, yes indeed, it is true. You are on a journey to a new way - the way of knowledge. The journey will lead to a transformation, then to another and another, until your full expansion of evolution as you define it, or let it freely progress of it's own.
     
---------------
     
NOTE TO READERS: I've removed most of my part form the next few pages.
     
M: It seems that when you apply yourself to it, you are successful in gaining income, even though you report that you don't respect yourself "in" that business. Why not? If you can gain income from it, and you are not taking actions that place you in conflict with yourself, then why not just accept the profit and success at that?
     
M: Observations:
     
M: Thinking of yourself as a 'con' is something like what psychologists used to call "the imposter syndrome" where someone has sufficiently low self-esteem that any success becomes self-denigration because a person with low self-esteem cannot accept him/herself and this includes accepting reward for effort.
     
M: This condenses to an issue of impeccability. If you are having conflict with it, then it is an internal conflict and it fails your own test of impeccability.
     
M: The denial of money is by itself hypocritical. Money, if not taken to be a path of wealth obsession, provides a structural footing so that one can progress in "the way". It's rather difficult to be free if one's body is starving.
     
M: If you cannot live "for yourself" then you cannot truly, honestly, live for anyone. Everything is derived from how you perceive yourself. If you cannot truly and unconditionally love yourself, then you cannot truly and unconditionally love anyone. Unconditional love of self requires high self-esteem, or all one can attain is a form of "dependent love".
     
M: Expanded further: why not unstick yourself. The self-esteem problem is also a self-definition problem.
     
M: Once in your rant you said that "you don't give a damn about the Eagle". Well, the secret is out: the Eagle is you. When CC/DJM said that the goal of the warrior is to gain sufficient ability to thwart consumption by the Eagle metaphor, somehow it wasn't understood that the consumption is that of self. The goal of "freedom" allows the Eagle that is you to fly, and not perish by self-consumption.
     
M: We've had "Eagle" discussions before, so this is just an expansion. Start with the goal. The goal is freedom. The metaphor is "freedom (to avoid consumption) from The Eagle. When the body dies, or for that matter when the full consciousness leaves the body and travels into the third attention, body death or not, dependencies must be lost. This is simply necessary because to keep oneself together as coherent energy, i.e., a coherent sentient consciousness energy form (sometimes called "pure being") there can be no distractions of self. If you can imagine your "being" consisting of energy only, then what holds it together? Intent. Yes. What causes intent? Will. If one is hanging on to dependency, or self-denigration, then there will simply not be sufficient intent or will to maintain coherence of self. What happens is that the energy, (the soul) simply dissipates into space: oblivion.
     
M: So, in other words, we/you are our own worst enemies. Freedom from the Eagle means loosing the human form of dependencies so that the being can be intact, coherent, and can then travel through space and time. If you are dependent, self-negating, you in the role of the eagle metaphor, basically self-destruct, albeit through inadvertence.
     
M: Self-denigration is hardly freedom: it is the imprisonment into self. If you stay locked within yourself, the energy cannot leave: door to travel locked; no freedom; only imprisonment; and, no third attention.
     
M: Wouldn't it be better for you to care about yourself?
     
M: This is only a report of your choices. It is suggested that by isolating yourself, you have found a statement of ego dependency and don't recognize it as such.
     
M: The negativity, and isolation, places one "away", imprisoned in self. Look at the "snobs" that you have viewed and in general despise, according to your prior reports. The "snobs" have placed themselves "away" from others in a stratification process. If you withdraw, self-negate-imprison within yourself, you have also "placed yourself away" from others. It is exactly the same as the ego-driven snobs, just setup on a different layer of stratification.
     
R: So, I haven't been writing ... but I've wanted to write and so this is it. I could have asked some trying-to-be-profound question (actually, I've been wondering, How do you, personally, know that you are evolving toward your goal of the third attention ... what does the evidence look like?)
     
M: Okay. I learned that self-isolation is a dependency, just like "suicidal" thoughts are high-ego, selfish, dependency. My travels beyond the 1st and 2nd attentions, at the bridge of (or into) the third, permit contact and communication with allies. There is nothing vague about the communications, or the visions. The information gained through these processes inform me as to my progression. It only happened because it was learned that the withdrawals were ego-based as noted in the responses above. When I committed myself to 'the way of knowledge', then withdrew, I paid a terrible price that has the color and sound of your reports. While out naked in the sun a few weeks ago, there was a travel to the 3rd attention and a message. My past history is filled with examples of connecting to the power of the universe, then withdrawing, then reconnecting etcetera. Now, finally, it is no longer acceptable for me to engage in this oscillation: I am open fully and linked to the universe; I can be never lonely again; or, withdrawn.
     
M: There are couple of very obvious things to note: one cannot progress while lashed to a dependency on self-negation/self-denigration. If you could find yourself sufficiently to loose this syndrome of the deeper dark side of the force, and learn that the only reason that it exists is the dependency on self-negation, then the bounds would be loosened and you could make progress. From your prior reports this process has been in force within you for a very long time. Find out why.
     
-----------------
     
R: Dear Michael,
     
R: I should review your last two emails before writing as there is something in them that has made apparent to me something obvious but overlooked ... wrong word, anyway.
     
M: Perhaps.
     
R: The discovery began with, in the background, the recognition that you have been dealing with me from a place that was a mystery to me. That is, I could not quite account for your ability to have responses to me that were beyond what I've come to expect with people.
     
M: In terms of normal societal expectations, the dialogue could be classified as "different". It's certainly reasonable that one might have to recalibrate their "expectations", and it might be useful to bring to mind the concept that "expectations" are only based on historical imprints and that as such they cannot be uniformly applied. Expectations might be valid on one level and on some applications, however illusionary on others.
     
R: I'm having trouble verbalizing this, You have been able to respond to me in a way that has continuously kept me somewhat amazed by your ... pointed clarity? ... objective unattachment to my human form dependencies ... well, now I'm giving it away. Yes, that is it: your objective unattachment to my human form dependencies.
     
M: Yes.
     
R: What I realized today was that you have been observing me, my writing (perhaps more), from an unknown by me condition, that of having lost the human form. And it is because of that that you have been constantly and consistently, impeccably; simply holding a mirror in front of my face -- as I've rattled on -- with nothing of my "rattling" ever touching you, as it could not, you saw my rattling for what it has been: a spouting of human form dependencies.
     
M: Yes: to all in the paragraph above; even the nuance.
     
R: I think I got it when you just now told me that the secret was out, that I am the eagle. Or perhaps it was something else there in the last two emails, but anyway, I see it now. I see my attachment to the human form dependencies, I see that that is all I have allowed myself to be: an expression of those dependencies and a "rattling on" about them. I imagine that it could almost be amusing to one who has lost the human form to watch as another, such as myself, continues to swim around in the same muck no matter what you say, all the while you are simply continuously saying the same thing to me: Knock Knock Knock ... hello! YOU'RE LOCKED IN THE HUMAN FORM DEPENDENCIES. GET OUT OF YOURSELF THAT YOU THINK YOU ARE AND BE WHO YOU REALLY ARE. So much of don Juan's teachings have been screaming the same thing all of these years and I would come close to breaking into seeing it ... but not quite.
     
M: Well said and summarized, however the observations carry nothing approaching "amusing", or for that matter, anything else: they just "are". It is simply a normal component of the human form that individuals attempt to define themselves by labels, titles, wealth or stature, and all of these are only functions, dramas, or roles, that humans integrate into their self-identification to the point where they become integral to personalities they carry internally. Stripped of these labels (et al), most individuals would panic because that is all they believe they are, or perhaps, can be. This self-negation may also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there is a tragedy, it is that individuals have little or no concept of what they truly can evolve to become with this being true to the extent that if they were to be told without preparation, they would have wholly no identification or understanding with it and would consider it "not credible".
     
R: While pondering this all while walking today I noticed a bicycle rider go by on his bike. He glided by in a way I've not noticed before. He just glided by. It was like he was flowing on a canvas. I don't know why it struck me. It was a visual thing no different than what I've seen before, but, somehow this time the gliding struck me as different.
     
M: Understanding such as that above represents the beginning of seeing beyond the normally obvious human form, and it matters not that you don't know why it struck you because it is only important that it does and this concept of acceptance facilitates more perception.
     
R: Hopefully this new awareness will build ... I can't quite imagine how I could go back, thinking wise. I can see myself forgetting to remember at times as that has, in fact, been going on today as well.
     
M: Anyone can "slip" off of "the way of knowledge" of course, because dependencies that most tenaciously (sometimes desperately, based on fear) hang on to, are quite pervasive. If you can build on and evolve into this new awareness it will change you forever, and after a point, one can never return and if one were to try, the penalty would be devastating. Sometimes at this sort of "crossing" it is useful to have a mantra of something appropriate and very personal, such as "I, The Eagle, duality as friend and foe" said here only to make a point.
     
R: It's all very interesting
     
M: Yes.
     
R: I understand your "peace" before your sign-off now and imagine that, if you have with you those who have also lost the human form, that you don't use it because they are (at) "peace."
     
M: You are correct in that understanding, and "yes", we do not use "peace" after a point crossing (or transition) of our evolutions since peace is a baseline for "us". Congratulations are in order because this is a profound conclusion, though it could seem so obvious the profundity impact might be lost as it tends to be when truth is discovered.
     
M: Expanding;
     
M: When the human form (of dependencies and negatives) is lost, we are automatically "at peace" because there is no internal conflict with the various internal "personality roles" that humans carry around within themselves. In subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle ways, it is as if every human carries with him/her a form of multiple personality disorders because of these conflicts. With "peace" a given in our systemic structure, what is then gained is the ability to u n c o n d I t I o n a l l y love oneself, without dependencies or condition in the absolute sense. The ability to unconditionally love oneself then facilitates the ability to unconditionally love, bringing to fore that the term "unconditionally" is an absolute by itself.
     
M: From this expansion, you might be able to intuit how we close every dialogue, every verbal conversation, every e/mail: "I love you"; and, this expression among those who have completed, or are near completion of, their process is unconditional and even irrevocable by the definition of unconditionality. There are additional benefits to this "state of being", as you might suspect, however at this time it is a bit premature to attempt expansion of that further in our dialogue. If you wish to contemplate what this might really mean, however, I will respond.
     
R: Moving along with your guidance.
     
M: Congratulations on your progress.
     
------------
     
R: Hi Michael,
     
R: I was just listening to Art Bell on Broadcast.com's archives of his shows at: http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/sept99.stm and clicking on Thursday Night / Friday Morning 09/30/1999 -- Then one hour and 10 minutes in, starts an interview with Dr. Evelyn Paglini (qep@msn.com). She claims to be a practicing witch. I've not paid attention to this kind of stuff in the past. It was quite interesting and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I used to think it was all a bunch of crap, but am now recalling all of the references to similar stuff in CC books that I left out of the compilation. Any comments on the possibilities of another's influencing, say, health, through spells? I can't believe I'm asking you that. I've always "known" that even if there was such possibility that I could never be effected by it. I wonder. It all seems, if it is so, that it is on the wrong side of the coin. This, Evelyn, just commented (I'm listening as I write) "knowledge is a double edged sword." I really hope you will listen to it and tell me what you think.
     
M: Quick note to let you know I've received this and haven't had time to listen to the Art Bell piece, though I will as soon as activity permits. I did listen to the "intro" piece and it seems interesting enough to merit the whole story. In the absence of this, my reply might be too limited, so it's important for me to gain the information.
     
R: I believe it was in the last hour, a fellow called in and mentioned himself being a, I thought he said "gardener," Dr. Paglini apparently thought he said "Guardian" and she mentioned a thousands of years old group called the guardians that she was a member of. That triggered in me the memory of the before referred to dream where I was "split" and fell backwards into a new dream where the two men were and said "this is what temptation is like" bla bla, ... but before that point in that dream I'd asked about my exercise program (at the time it was something I called "an exploration of the infinity which is balanced movement at changing speeds) ... I forget what I asked exactly but I remember the tall guys reply "we are the guardians" ... I took that to mean that he was including me but did not comment on it further. Hearing this woman made me wonder about it more.
     
M: Rick! Finally, I managed to finish listening to the Dr. Evelyn Paglini piece. My action was to bite this off in pieces and take notes because of the large time block otherwise required.
     
M: There was a lot discussed, obviously, so here are my comments. You might have some specific questions that I don't cover, so ask away.
     
M: 1. Dr Evelyn is very knowledgeable, obviously, however much of her "knowledge" comes in the form of studied information. She does discuss the "5 Levels" of ability, which with some modification compared to my own description about what each level implies agrees with my understanding. She openly states that she is on the lower end, seemingly with the idea that if she can "do this or that at this level, the listener could imagine what would happen at a higher level. My "impression" of her is is that she is about at a Level 2, and has been stuck there for quite some time. This happens when the student sets up boundaries and uses those boundaries as references. Being stuck at Level 2 also means that she requires far too many artificial "props" in ritual forms and as symbols (candles, oils et al) to help her gain focus that higher, more evolved forms, do not require.
     
M: 2. This particular discussion of the show focused on the dark side. With changes in terminology, much of what has been said is true. Unfortunately for humanity, most are pathetically weak (we've had this discussion in the past) and are "eagle food" and they are subjected to parasites that usurp their energies, and often even their lives.
     
M: 3. Much of society is, in fact, highly manipulated and their fear does not allow that to be seen, and yes the intent is to keep fear and ignorance in place so that the sheep can be used.
     
M: 4. The "energy beings" that Dr. Evelyn notes are ubiquitous in the universe. From the view of the universe there are no aliens, only neighborhoods. She places way too much emphasis on humanity being "seeded" by aliens, simply because we are all derived from universal energy that is as ancient as the universe itself, and I find it laughable to place these discussions in terms of "aliens" because that is a very simple human-centric view.
     
M: 5. There does exist a group of what might be called "guardians". They do not use that term since labels for the truly accomplished are not acceptable, and everything "just is". Suffice it to say that this group is highly accomplished, and they form something like an umbrella organization. Their purpose is to "guide" others to evolve. Their candidates are identified partially through their DNA predispositions and subsequently through the independent actions that individuals take. Once the candidate is identified, s/he is contacted either through visions or seemingly verbalized communication (really telepathic) rather much in the manner reported variously by biblical figures. If the candidate does not become self-important and can gather sufficient loss of the human form to "simply be" as an individual, or in the early phases, demonstrates a goal to do so, the candidate-apprentice becomes a fully-engaged candidate and a profound series of "tests" commences to validate that the candidate is committed to the way of knowledge, which facilitates evolution. By bringing others into their fold, the sentient energy in the universe itself is increased and a form of collective knowledge is gained. Also, suffice it to say, this consortium is well known to myself and as nearly as can be determined, they have been around for about seven Earth millennia in slowly increasing numbers and they formed the basis of some of the reports of Jacob in the Old Testament, for example.
     
M: 6. The "energy cones" that Dr. Evelyn reports take two forms: one as a pathway; one as sentient beings; and, they can be seen and experienced. Jacob, renamed as "Israel", of the old testament called these "ladders" (my term has always been "columns") and hence the term "Jacob's ladders" which is a very poor description of what Jacob really tried to describe as "pathways, or ramps". "Israel", meaning "struggle with god", came upon this individual description because he resisted his progression and formed in fact a struggle with his boundaries which like all early boundaries met with primitive terms and descriptions.
     
M: 7. The practitioners of 'the dark side' are basically forms of the petty tyrants that DJM discussed, and they only exist because they have victims to supply them. All practitioners of the dark side are stuck at low levels, and in the stratification of things, they can only impact lower forms of evolution.
     
-------------
     
M: There is a piece that you might be missing, or at least it might be significant for this to be stated.
     
M: There is a transition that occurs when one can "just let go" and merge with positive energy, into the universe. The "let go", of course, means the dependencies of the human form - BUT - there are precursors that can jump-start the process. If you can do your "exercise", and literally feel the energy of the universe, and allow it to flow through your being as the course of a river (this takes some letting go by itself) then as this process continues, "feel" the energy and commit to all in the universe that you wish to be open and to conjoin - as a commit - your life and your fortunes will change as long as you stay committed. When you feel the tendency, after this commit, to withdraw into the confined shell of your body, if you refuse this temptation and rather than suck in your energy, do the reverse and allow it to connect and flow once again, you'll be exhibiting evidence of the commit and your processes will be further facilitated.
     
R: Another question that comes to mind for me at times is this one I spoke of before related to the sense of blackness I once had: How is it that there IS anything?
     
M: This response can be entered in several approaches, and since you have previously been reluctant to flow with "science" discussions, I'll try to keep this simple and retain accuracy.
     
M: Everything - repeat, everything - including all that you and anything else, structural, or organic, everywhere ubiquitously in the universe, are constructed from only a handful of particles and energy that binds these together. These (sub-atomic) particles have been within the universe forever. We don't know why, but "it is" this way. As processes evolved in the whole of the universe, the particles organized and everything that exists including nebula, galaxies, solar systems, planets, and all matter, organic or inorganic, was formed. You, Rick Mace, are formed from the very beginning of constructs that are timeless. There is a great deal more to say about this, but at least this is a start.
     
R: Where IS the universe and what IS it?
     
M: The universe is a formation of energy. It exists in several dimensions including the subatomic quantum electrodynamics level of energy formation which we understand to require about ten dimensions, and sentience itself requires many of these dimensions.
     
M: The energy is carried and propagated as fields and through fields the motions of particles at the subatomic and atomic levels. Some of those form Rick, and everything else that can be conceptualized, including the constructs of all sentience, organic or inorganic. Everything is derived from these basis. The universe is around and within you. It is ubiquitous.
     
R: So that if one were to fully evolve, where would they then be and what would be the purpose?
     
M: The direct answer to your question is that one becomes a field of sentient conscious energy. The difference between "this" energy and the random energy in the universe is only that it is organized into sentience. Normally one would intuit that this energy might simply scatter and rejoin the like-energy in the universe. This would be true, except for "intent". It is "intent" that is held within the energy of sentience itself that binds it together. In order to have sufficient intent, it is necessary to loose all dependencies or the energy will "scatter" into the universe from which it was derived, and it might be said that this is to dissipate into oblivion: Eagle snacks.
     
M: So the answer to the question "what would they then be?" is simply: pure beings of energy.
     
M: The next question answer, "where would they then be" is simply: anywhere in the universe. Travellers, capable at will of moving a light wave speed, perhaps more.
     
M: The next question answer, "what would be the purpose" is simply: to continue to evolve. As pure beings of energy, the same energy that is replete throughout the universe, sentient or not, it is possible to conjoin with others. Since all energy has the same formational components, the being of pure energy may, on intent, conjoin with others as a form of a consortium, to gain infinite knowledge, and to impact outcomes and events. By bringing others to the same evolution, the sentience of the universe becomes increased. About in the late 1600's, a mathematician/philosopher, Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, published a model for consciousness in the universe that was essentially correct.
     
M: Many exchanges ago, I commented to you that there is a spectral gradation of "ability" once the human become inorganic, meaning in CC/DJM terms, looses the human form sufficiently to circumvent self-dissipation into oblivion, i.e. gain freedom from the eagle. The comment was made that these "levels" could be viewed in five increments, although these are for purposes of description only since in truth it all forms a spectra of various levels of awareness or ability.
     
M: At the metaphor of "level 1" although the Eagle has been thwarted, there is insufficient ability to travel. It's sort of a form of stasis. Religions might say that the "soul is stuck" somewhere. It's like being trapped in a peaceful library without the ability to travel or to influence. Skipping to "level 3", there is the ability to travel and even "observe" others. There is learning from observation, but no real power and events and others cannot be influenced. A good analogy would be a traveller who can observe - like watching a travelog movie as the metaphor of the armchair traveller - and there is travel but little in the way of experience. At "level 5" there is sufficient energy to travel universally, and not only that, to conjoin into a consortium of consciousness, with others wherein all experiences and power of all in the consortium become conjoined. One is not restricted to "being" conjoined, since this is a resource to gain more ability and knowledge. Since the energy form of consciousness is comprised of components that are replete in all formations of the universe, structural or other, then this energy has the ability to interact with, alter, enhance, impact, any other form of matter or energy. Thought, space, time, energy, and matter are NOT the separate constructs of formation that humans are led to believe.
     
M: Whew. That was a lot for your one sentence question set.
     
M: I believe that the response above is sufficient, if not in detail, in concept. Healers, by the way, simply have the ability to project their fields of energy, to alter organic matter and assist in a correct reorganization of that matter. This is possible because the constructs of the fields themselves are components of what constitutes all matter at the quantum level - in the quantum universe.
     
---------------
     
R: Thank you, Michael. There is a lot to take in there. Still, though, I continue to have the sense of "nothing" as in "Why is there anything?"
     
M: It doesn't matter "why" - it just IS, and can be limitless as one builds and evolves.
     
R: I don't really care about the answer ... or maybe ... I do care but think that the answer is "there is no purpose"
     
M: The purpose is to continually evolve. Once the apprentice/candidate evolves to the ability to avoid self-oblivion, then the gateway opens to truly evolve. If you believe that "there is no purpose" then your actions in "working" with me cannot be possible. When actions and words don't match, always believe actions, and so I believe yours. If you really "feel" anything when you say "there is no purpose" then you are only hanging on to a convenient method to find an excuse not to evolve and to self-destruct. Although this might be further evidence of barriers that are self-imposed, they are begging to be brought down - with your will.
     
R: I recall dj telling cc that a warrior is not interested in the meaning of life but only striving for impeccability.
     
NOTE: This next (one) paragraph seems to best be inserted here. It was a lone E-mail from Michael that came:
     
M: Greetings, Rick. I returned from a trip yesterday, and I have this open item to return to you. On the trip, other than handling technical physics schnarff, it became possible to conjoin, finally, with another apprentice who after 17 years of hit and miss acceptance and rejection of "what she is" has committed to her evolution and in the frame of two evenings, catapulted two levels of ability set simply by loosing the form of self-denial and late in the first evening saw, for the first time, her cocoon and it's brilliant formations.
     
M: Well, the apprentice has been nibbling around the fringes for many, many, years. About two years ago when visiting, the decision was made to "catapult" her in front of her husband. Her husband, although he is not particularly accomplished, determined correctly that if his wife continued to refuse to accept herself and her abilities - that had been identified as far back at 1982 during experiments with me - she would eventually self-destruct. So, I "linked" (bonded our energy cocoons) together with her about two years ago in front of her husband. Using this awareness as a powerful tool, it was setup for her to find the boundary of her husband's being, and on command (to make a point) while standing about ten feet away from her husband, she was able to push him down to the floor only with telekinetic energy. As he fell, he was (geeze, cough) "impressed", and her mouth dropped open as she realized what she had done. Although it was true that this feat was facilitated because of my intervention and bonding to her, and also facilitated by my intent, the direction and channeling of the energy was hers.
     
M: So, with this impressive demonstration of "ability" ("power" would not be an unreasonable term) what would one suspect that she would do?
     
M: Answer: continue to deny, and continue to not accept herself! (This has been going on as a process since our initial interactions circa 1981-82.)
     
M: Until last Wednesday evening.
     
M: Again there was a link, privately with her in isolation. All privacy between us was vacated as it must be during the melding of selves. (By comparison, the "intimacy" of sex is analogous to a simple pro-forma handshake.) Using this form as a tool, and after perhaps five hours the latter two of which included her husband, the corner was turned and her life, her very existence, has been altered forever. She will conjoin the consortium that includes myself, and that process has already started.
     
M: I talked to her husband late yesterday, and he said that the change was remarkable and continuing. Thursday night, she spontaneously saw her cocoon and started interacting to move it's energy forms.
     
M: It's much easier after an irrevocable commit is made. -----------
     




Introduction

The Teachings of don Juan

A Separate Reality

Journey to Ixtlan

Tales Of Power

The Second Ring of Power

The Eagle's Gift

The Fire From Within

The Power of Silence

The Art of Dreaming

The Active Side of Infinity

Appendix A thru E

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part l

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part ll

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part lll

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part lV

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part V

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part Vl

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part Vll

Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part VllI


Please send e-mail to me by clicking on my name.Rick Mace
My pottery page is here. Rick Mace Pottery