Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge - Part lV
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 four of the dialogue. It continues where part 3 left off.
-----------------
R: I'm beginning to work on compiling our E-mails for inclusion with the Castaneda compilation.
M: Since our dialogue is personally applied to you, between us, perhaps a combination might be effective. The intent is as a facilitation for you to really probe yourself. You, in previous times, have spent a considerable amount of effort studying and condensing CC's writings as an aid to understand yourself. My concern was that although there had been a grand amount of book-studying, the application to self required invocation and execution, building in a systemic approach into your whole being. Since this occurred in the past re CC's writings, I have a low level of concern that it may happen with my efforts, although it is wholly understood that this is very different because it isn't theoretical per se, but directly applied to you. Just to "oversell" the point, it's extraordinarily important that you really "work" through these exchanges and incorporate them and the inserted-writing will no doubt assist. That's why, in sum, I'd rather suggest that you make a stand-alone effort with the suggested insert approach, because over reliance on re-reading the CC pieces could cause a reversion to more book learning rather that application-to-being.
---------------
R: Perhaps I owe it to my mom to ... (story removed)
M: Ah, it is necessary that you own nothing to anyone in any real personal term (money is not a personal term - it is another component of petty tyrants). The only person that impeccability drives you to owe anything to, is yourself. YOU must be the "most" important person in your life, because everything else derives from that base point of reference.
M: The goal is that you love yourself unconditionally. Please contemplate that. If (and when) you accomplish this feat, then you can truly love unconditionally (something to think about).
-------------
R: (story cut) ... so the government has transferred 5 trillion dollars in 40 years from the producers of this country to the hand out crowd.
M: I love it when you talk like that! In Ayn Rand terms, they're called "the looters"! (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, is required reading for my "professional" (involved in engineering) proteges)! We have a great deal in common!
M: You basically have some of the same "Impulse Reflex" that I used to have a long time ago, so I understand it. There are, of course, (and not to disappoint you by being silent -) some very significant elements to consider related to this "reflex".
M: Why is it there? Yes, "justice" and "fairness" when it is not uniformly applied, tend intrinsically to "offend" those of us who have fairness as a credo. However, when it is NOT applied fairly, what "is the appropriate" response FROM us? Certainly, "reflexive responses" are basically a primordial early stage of evolution impulse: the emotional equivalent of dodging out of the way of a thrown rock! The contemplation within one seeking the way would be to discover (probably through recapitulation) why, and IF, the response is disproportionately intense given the situation. If it is found to indeed BE disproportionate, then energy (through emotions) is indeed being squandered through needless emotional reflex, and ultimately that would violate impeccability in that wasted energy is caused by impacts that have not been resolved in the process of recapitulation. In observation, these imprints toward responses are formed in very early, pre-teen, childhood. Questions that one could ask self, other than the above, include: Is it self-importance based?; Is the response a "fear" of being constricted? or, constrained?; and, why, from what derivative?
R: And I've often marveled at it in the moments afterward, amazed that I so easily "snap." Even walking down the street, if I perceive that someone walking toward me isn't allowing me "my fair side space," I immediately fill with contempt for that person. But so quickly afterwards I chide myself for not being as don Juan in the story of the young boy who runs into the old man in the market. The young boy is angry that the old man didn't watch where he was going while the old man marveled at the forces of the universe that had this young man and he make contact.
M: Clearly, you understand the processes and significance of the problem, and to this point don't necessarily understand 'the why' of the response. Chiding self, of it's nature, may signal that a problem is known that might be further understood through recapitulation. Responses such as these are usually a long term intrinsic characteristic that were initially based in some situation a very long time ago in an individual's history.
R: So, I find myself somewhat ashamed that, knowing this story, I still loose control in that way. And yet, I know that that is all in the past (until it happens again in the present) and that when I am "being present" I can glide through the same experiences "detached." That is what counts and relaying it to you was for your information.
M: It is appropriate for me to attempt to provide some impetus for you to explore the derivatives, through asking questions that only you can answer for yourself.
R: Also note that I have found it important to write and send this before checking to see if you've responded. A little more self-importance there and wanting to "look good." Sort of like when I caught the teacher catching me cheating and I went up to the desk and turned myself in, claiming that I just couldn't go through with it. Here I'm wanting to confess before you "catch me."
M: The tendency you displayed toward the subject of this discussion, was well understood and perceived long ago in our dialogue: nothing new. The "source" within your history is not known, and the tendency IS known, so the questions raised are not to be responses to me, and may not be the limitation of the internal investigation for yourself, but responses for you yourself. Hastily added, "looking good," particularly in a new relationship is observed to be a typical human form response and it's certain that this is understood, however what is seen, perceived, and was early in the dialogue, is simply 'knowledge', and there are no surprises in this example.
R: I've not read, nor do I know anything about (other that what you've told me) about Ayn Rand.
M: Ayn Rand was a philosopher, and she commented primarily on the relationship between individuals and society. You are urged to read her in this sequence.
M: a. Atlas Shrugged. A difficult book, over 1,000 pages. It takes about 250 pages to set the characters. It has been in continuous publication for about 42 years. About 8 years ago, CNN/Time did a societal survey, and included in this was a question "what book has most influenced your life?". Of those who said that they read books, about 65 percent responded "The Bible". About 30 percent responded "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. In the late 50's she was controversial, as anyone who speaks the truth is, and Ayn Rand discussion groups dotted the nation. There were bumper stickers seen all over with the words "Who is John Galt?," a question in the theme of the book meaning "what the heck, it can't be known".
M: Note: In this book Rand setup a social situation that basically did come true about 20 years after publication, making her book prophetic. In about 1972 she was invited to give a graduation speech to the graduating class at the Military Academy at West Point. Thousands of people showed up for the speech, overwhelming the facility.
M: b. "The Fountainhead," published in the early '40's and in continuous publication for over 55 years. This early work discusses the relationships between individuals.
M: c. "For The New Intellectual," one of her final books, and short. The main purpose of reading this book is the first 60 pages, only, because it's largely the text of the speech at West Point. The remainder of the book are simply excerpts from her other books.
R: And while on the subject, would you recommend any of the Castaneda group books? I've only read his.
M: Taisha Abelar wrote a book called "The Sorcerer's Crossing". The first part of the book "sounds" like it was written by herself, but the last part "sounds" and feels like CC wrote it. It focuses a great deal on her transformation - through recapitulation, otherwise it's much just DJM/CC speak.
M: It might help you in terms of the recapitulation part, but otherwise it won't add much other than another story of her personal experiences.
M: Personally, I would rather that you read "The Way of the Wizard" by Depak Chopra. It emphasizes the search within the internal self, and it's well written.
M: Susan Gregg, now of Hawaii, wrote a book, "The Dance of Power". Susan gives classes also. Susan, in the book, relates her personal experiences with another nagual, but although the process is a little different, it doesn't add much to the CC explanation through it is much more concise. Susan seems to be able to get into the second attention.
----------
M: DNA is what "tags": mitochondrial DNA. Many who have heard in their early childhood comments to the effect that "You are different," in a typical childhood self-denial manner, it was simply easier and seems more appropriate to say "Nah! No way!" and THAT posture becomes "cynicism" as a systemic response within them: defensive. It's observed and even projected that a person with these "societally different" tendencies, in the absence of appropriate nurture, would defensively modify his/her operating structure to 'get along' in society. The problem is, that there are other symptoms.
M: a. One of the immediate characteristics of the DNA pattern for "one like myself" (for lack of an appropriate term) are empathic responses. For example, the couple who connected myself with their daughter previously noted, on immediate 15 min meeting (her husband just wanted me to meet her in passing - he suspected something about her characteristics and my own) was instantaneously identified to be "like," at the minimum an empath. After she left (she stopped by as we were having dinner, on the way to a business meeting) I admitted to her husband something about my perceptional attributes, that his wife and self were "the same," and without any prior discussion between us concerning his wife, I told him all about her personality and the emotional problems she had been having. It was related that natural empaths have the problem that unaware of what they are, they become emotionally confused because they often cannot "know why" they are feeling the emotions that they are feeling when around others, and they attribute this to as defects in themselves rather than understanding that they are simply perceiving the emotions of others and don't know how to separate them internally. This causes the natural empath to avoid others. If another rapidly moving toward them approaches too closely, they find defensive revulsion to the approach because they cannot deal with the perceived energy. (It's as if the other who is approaching, is actually threatening contact, where in fact he/she is physically separated optically at a comfortable distance.) This is because the energy field is much larger around the person, and the energy field is what is perceived as threatening. In dealing with people, in social terms or business terms, the empath has emotional responses and confusion because what is being said verbally is NOT what is being experienced by perception when 'the other' does not speak the truth and has hidden agendas.
M: b. It is reasonable that "such a person," a personal with this DNA based attribute set, would be something of a misfit in society, seeking to "be an individualist" and avoiding many normal social institutions, greeting those with cynical attitude - because of the perceptions of dishonesty, hidden agendas, that have been perceived for a long time.
M: c. It is reasonable that when "such a person" gets some hint that they need, not just for survival but for self-development, further information to explain something that they are feeling profoundly but have emotionally become tangled up with and perhaps negatively distorted into self-deprecations and isolation and not healthy objective skepticism but rather negative emotional cynicism, they will seek "others" to assist them, and golly-gee-whiz, books written by others that just might help explain what they have been suspecting and feeling for a very long time. Logically, the problem extends that they have been locked into a form of self denial for so long, that it's become systemic, and then forming a breakthrough becomes difficult because they have locked-down for survival into their own self-imposed-boundary system.
M: Footnote: Relative to the couple, the sorceress and the seer, noted previously... after the husband, got through gasping that so much could be known in a brief social 15 minute meeting about his wife, we setup a schedule for the three of us to meet. My schedule didn't permit this happening for a couple of months. When the schedule was enabled, about two or three weeks before we were going to meet for an evening, the wife was called on the telephone one evening. For the first time it was admitted/related to her in high detail exactly "what" she is, and some would say (gasp) "sorceress". It was also stated to her that after a few hours together, our first "close time" that was scheduled, the result would be that she would say "you have changed my life forever, and I can never go back," AND that some time after that during the same few hours, she would say "I love you" to me. To say the least, she was incredulous! She said that she is so conservative and careful (read "defensive") that she would never, never, experience something like that with another that she had just met.
M: Long story shortened. The meeting evening came. We sat on the sofa, each on an end. Our legs were extended toward the middle that with the sofa back, made the form of a triangle. The husband positioned himself at the apex of the triangle, just outside of where our feet were, sitting on their coffee table. There were some light conversations to break the uncertainty. Attention was called to the woman's....(soon to be "apprentice") feet, and that they were feeling something. She responded "electricity and heat, wow, much more". Attention was called about how these feelings were moving up and thorough her body. She gasped. She said that her whole being had become illuminated with energy that she did not understand. She was asked to describe all she could, and included in this was her understanding that she and self were somehow bonded together, as one being, and that she had no need of attempting to be private or defensive because we were "the same".
M: She said: "I understand what and who you are, and because we are the same, what and who I am". She continued: "This has changed my life, my existence, forever, and I can never go back to what I thought I was before". Then, when the emotion of that moment calmed, she fell toward me and in full embrace said, "I love you unconditionally". The three of us, the woman and self still combined with bonded cocoons and the husband as an observer, were deeply crying as we were overcome by the moment. The time this required to achieve was less than 6 hours. When the emotion was settled, the statements of the telephone call were brought into the conversation. Result: after the gasp; comic relief.
M: Now you know a little more.
---------
M: I have a suggestion that at some point you might wander "through" the file and "insert" what each paragraph, or perhaps sub-section, actually means to you personally. The suggestion is to add two "inserts" after each paragraph or subsection:
M: a) The meaning, or if you prefer, significance of the subsection; and, b) Action item for you derived from the above.
M: (Just a suggestion.)
M: The point of this suggestion is not that this is intended for a review by myself. It is intended as a hard-written review for you. Hard-written comments sometime give pause for more feeling that just reading.
-------
R: I was wanting some clues on directing healing energy.
M: I know; knew then; perceptions inform that this is insufficient.
R: Actually, I think I already know how to direct healing energy and am frustrated by the huge weight that lifting that knowledge feels to be. That is, it involves a kind of concentration I mentioned at the very begining and I then discribed as a kind of pressure.
M: The flow in the exercise that has already been described to you, will when optimized, cause energy to flow through body (with a little navigational intent for direction) up through your torso, symmetrically (hopefully) across your chest through your shoulders, down your arms and out your fingertips. This energy may be utilized to heal by flowing through and out the fingertips.
R: And I may die, and too bad, I won't give myself over to drugs and knives ... to the Eagle, perhaps, but not to drugs and knives. Foolishly or not - Rick
M: Oh boy. This sort of provides it's own description, and it is unfortunate. The eagle has significance that is ultimate. Drugs and knives are only petty tyrants and all petty tyrants provide instruction.
M: At one point you had said that you had self-diagnosed your condition, and it is wondered how accurate that diagnosis might be. It is wondered if there is an ultimate self-defeating process going on here, with the background that there has been significant self-denial and lack of self-acceptance based in the past.
M: This suggests that it's time for you to take a pause, including a pause from "quickly" responding to me, execute your exercise in a quiet mind with peace, let the energy flow, and contemplate your decisions and actions and ask if they really are serving your impeccability, or if they are serving some bias that is based on imprints from the past. It is already known from the prior exchanges that there is some form of self-denial or self-deprecation from the past.
M: The point is always that the warrior, or the candidate, must learn to live in "the now," and that means with the objectivity of "the now".
M: Sometimes the analogy of a garden hose comes to mind. Suppose a person is holding a high pressure nozzle of a garden hose in his/her hand. The faucet represents "the source" of the energy driven into the hose (birth). The propagational flow of the water represents "time" directed toward "the now". The "now" is represented by the high pressure nozzle in the hand. The time it takes for the water to flow between the source to "the now" is the time machine of life. From the viewpoint of a molecule of water at the faucet, the nozzle is the future, and the hose is the media through which time passes as the water propagates to "the now".
M: There is noted a problem. The faucet, the source at birth analogy, has plenty of energy and force, but the nozzle that is being directed at "the now" has little pressure, energy and force. Is is observed that there are leaks in the hose, near the faucet. The water, flowing from those leaks, cannot possibly manage to get through time (the hose) to "the now". It is being squandered BEFORE it gets to "the now" - back in time from the point of view of "the now".
M: It could be said that the warrior is doing his/her best with the energy of "the now" that he/she has, seeming to meet impeccability, but the outside observer, viewing the situation, could ask the simple question: why not fix the energy leakage problem of the past so that there is more energy in "the now"? Wouldn't THAT be actually meeting the need of impeccability, rather than flailing around with a low energy nozzle?
M: So, the question extended from that analogy, metaphor, allegory above, is framed toward what is the standard for impeccability for all actions taken in "the now". If the actions are serving imprints and reflex reactions based in "the past," particularly the blind and perhaps non-logical decisions, how can this be impeccable in "the now"?
M: Consider your actions and decisions carefully. If you really are committed to thwarting the eagle, time (to evolve) become of paramount importance.
--------
----------------
R: I would like to know more about something you mentioned briefly. That is, directing energy to heal my right shoulder/arm. I'm quite tired of its worsening and won't go to the doctor.
M: Somehow your approach appears to me to be an issue of self-impeccability. Suppose this process craters you - before you evolve? Food for the Eagle. For you it would be even worse on learning of your consumption because you 'know better'. Impeccability, it is suggested, would require that you "do everything" to continue so that you can evolve. Why take any chance, any at all, that your actions would be self-defeating? How is that meeting impeccability?
--------
R: I've not mentioned that I've been able to "smell/taste?" ... something like that, ... colors. Easily with yellow, orange and pink, rarely with red and green, never with blue or purple. And the sensation, though it varies in degree, is always the same for its color. Yellow and pink are my favorites. But I must intend doing it or it doesn't happen. And the "sensation" is always momentary and it seems that if I do it, say, now, then I can't do it again for awhile as strongly. Sort of like the ability must recharge. But it is such a wonderful thing, ah, yellow and pink ... they are ... I can't describe it other than to say it is similar (but not really) to smell or taste.
M: The varying energy forms, wavelengths, of colors do impact all senses in a varied form. There is no reason why, to an empath, the taste sensations would not be involved in these distinctions.
---------
R: My Castaneda site gets about many hits per month and I'm use to getting many E-mails from it. Having met you, I'm feeling that my responsibility to those who write has changed.
M: This is, of course, because you have experienced modification, enhancement, which extends toward further understanding -of everything (i.e., knowledge!).
R: Before I was just one of them: liking/loving the books for their "practical application," no need to go into the "tales of power" stuff at all. Now that you've come along and opened me, so to speak, to the very real possibility that it is all a true account of the teachings of don Juan, I find myself in a bit of a quandary with E-mails like this one below. Don't really know enough to tell him anything of what I now highly expect to be the case, but I can no longer just act as if only the "practical" side counts, either. Well, this really is not something to bother you with, I suppose (he says as he sends it anyway).
M: Ah, don't be so certain of that last sentence ... however you DID send it anyway ...wonder why??? ...
R: From: (snip) "Greetings from (snip), I enjoyed looking at your site. I'd like to chat with someone who's into the practical application of Don Juan material into their daily life." -(snip)
M: I read the quick ping from (snip) above and conjured up a response for "you". Use it in any manner that you wish: it is written still, as instructional to you. You might find "your" response below, ah, well ... interesting. Since it's got you name hung at the end, it is a demand of impeccability that you review and modify it and fill in one blank ...
M: Greetings, (snip). I'm always pleased to have someone contact me regarding the practical aspects of applying this philosophical concept into their lives. As you might suspect, rather much as Castaneda reported, there exists a system of sequential abilities that are involved with this philosophical approach. In the early phases of application, Castaneda's reports of what don Juan Matus taught him can lead to a very practical form of self-awareness to the level that it can help people in explaining much about their interaction with others and how they perceive and feel as they do. This, naturally, is a form of "knowledge" in the promise of "the way of knowledge". As "knowledge" becomes gained, and as self esteem (not ego) and understanding becomes broadened, the mind becomes freer to perceive. Perception, coupled with objective understanding, becomes another "source" of knowledge and more of the negative dependencies upon the human form are slowly whittled away. In order to develop beyond this point, a whole commitment to the process of "the way of knowledge" becomes required because increased "knowledge" brings with it commensurate responsibilities that test the candidate frequently. Success at this level of achievement confirms that the candidate is committed and this opens the path to the full second attention which dramatically increases knowledge, and further tests the impeccability of the candidate. Beyond the second attention, naturally, is the third attention where whole knowledge based on crystal-clear experiences is achieved. The "power of the universe," although it flows to the candidate in the form of the second attention as a bridge, resides fully in the third attention. In order to travel into and experience the third attention, most of the human form of dependencies are required to be lost, or the conscious energy of an individual's sentience cannot be sufficiently coherent to intend, travel, and navigate. Development of a self to this level means, truly, freedom from the Eagle. The "gift" of the Eagle, freedom, is really NOT a gift at all because each of us, as candidates, earn that freedom. Said in that manner, freedom is a reward from causation rather than a gift, and it requires significant time and understanding, even for the most committed, to achieve this progression of self-development.
M: (snip), as you might gather, many who enter this process as a means of personal development do so on initial curiosity, however, few master it, and even at the level of contact with others that I have, I truly know of only ... The question is, what is your level of interest? Where do you see yourself as a matter of your own situation? What is your goal through this contact?
(NOTE: Michael wrote all of that for me as a sample I could send. Below are the parts I changed in bold to fit my experience along with removed or changed words in parenthesis.)
R: ...Success at this level of achievement confirms that the candidate is committed and this, I'm told, opens the path to the full second attention which is said to dramatically increase(s) knowledge, and further test the impeccability of the candidate. Beyond the second attention, it's said, is the third attention where whole knowledge based on crystal-clear experiences is achieved. The "power of the universe," although it flows, I'm told, to the candidate in the form of the second attention as a bridge, reside(s), I'm told, fully in the third attention. I'm told that, in order to travel into and experience the third attention, most of the human form of dependencies are required to be lost, or the conscious energy of an individual's sentience cannot be sufficiently coherent to intend, travel, and navigate.
R: Development of a self to this level, truly, must mean(s) freedom from the Eagle. The "gift" of the Eagle, freedom, (is) could really NOT be a gift at all because each of us, as candidates, would have to earn that freedom. Said in that manner, freedom would be (is) a reward from causation rather than a gift, and it must require(s) significant time and understanding, even for the most committed, to achieve this progression of self-development, or so I believe.
R: (person's name), as you might gather, many who enter this process as a means of personal development do so on initial curiosity, however, (few master it)Who masters it? (and) Even at the level of contact with others that I have, I truly know of (only)... none (that's because I'm so stuck in practicality that I can't yet even acknowledge the one I honestly believe that I do know of). The question is, what is your level of interest? Where do you see yourself as a matter of your own situation? What is your goal through this contact?
M: COMMENT: Very, very appropriate. Very self-impeccable, for more than one reason. Congratulations.
------------ R: N0TE: This begins what becomes know as my "rant." It leads, in a few months time, and after at least one more rant on my part, to what is, for me, a major breakthrough in how I view myself in the world. I've taking out much of the personal stuff as it is too much self-induldgence (understatement), but for completeness sake, I've left enough to make Michael's replies relevant. I actually wrote the whole thing as one long self-induldging paragraph. This contains, then, most of the rant and Michael's comments and my comments to comments, interspersed reply. But there is a problem with putting it into the style of "already answered" as opposed to my whole E-mail and then Michael's interspersed answer. The problem is that, after writing the rant, I E-mailed again twice before receiving the reply. That was an attempt to soften the harshness of what I wrote and acknowledge that I understood at least part of my foolishness. As I now don't know where else to put the "after rant" E-mail just described, I'll put it first. These two also contain Michael's reply, so, this is all ahead of where it should be. The only way to make it in the order it was written would be to include the rant, then the two added preemptive notes, then the rant again plus Michael's interspersed comments, then my comments to his comments ... I'm trying to make this condensed and still work. I've added [] sections to try and explain more. Here goes with the two after rant E-mails and one reply:
R: From page five of your/my E-mails compiled you said: "Just as we can assume and develop anything (positive or negative) we are free to go into self-denial, even self-denigration, and write off anything to the extent that nothing will be accomplished for ourselves. We tend to learn in fits and starts on occasion, and it requires a true commit to 'the way'. One element has been really profound: the more I have evolved the further down the crater becomes, if I slip off 'the way.'"
R: Thank you, have been re reading [old E-mails]
R: Again I felt the "need" to answer my own last E-mail [the rant that follows] myself before reading [your] expected next notes [answering my rant].
R: I will hold my breath and go look for them [your reply] now.
M: I'm quite certain that you have been holding your breath ...
[and here then, it is ... the rant ... with reply interspersed] Subject: Re: a hellish mood revealed:
M: Hummm. I wonder "how" one can be hellish and use the preface "dear" ... ? Seems like a contradiction.
R: Dear Michael,
R: I was feeling rather stupid for having bought Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Somethinged, today. I don't really give a damn about finding out who Ayn Rand is or what she thought. It was a patronizing act on my part. Yes, I'm in a hellish mood right now and probably shouldn't be writing, ... so I will.
M: Oh my. Where does this bipolar intensity come from? This is really self-defeating by it's implication, but I'm pleased to have you exhibit it.
R: I... (bla bla bla, about 500 words acknowledging and complaining about my then life situation)
M: Summarized this only boils down to "I've made some bad and rattled decisions". Only your negative emotions are the issue, the rest is just structural management stuff. Objective learning of the lessons is not possible when embraced in negative emotions, by observation. Learning the lessons of negative experiences immediately turns the negative into a positive since something important has been learned. This is observed not to be possible within the construct of negative emotions.
R: and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend five cents on a ("f" word deleted) idiot know-it-all doctor who basically was just some spoiled kid who studied a bunch of crap in school and was then told he could go out and practice "medicine" when, through all of that, he was never required even once to take a single solitary course on FOOD/NUTRITION ... ever!!!
M: You probably don't have to spend anything. By law, there are no-cost avenues available, and your blatantly emotional judgement of everyone, just because they are within the western system of medicine is about as warped as saying "there is no one in society who's worth a damn," (which is a form of direct self-condemnation since you are in society) and many in medicine, just like many in science or any informed disciplined effort, even artists, work their way into success.
M: We know less about food and nutrition than might be suspected. Nathan Pritikin founded his approach on studying the nutrition of cultures that had a high proportion of centurions, particularly in primitive cultures. It turned out that his studies were flawed, and they didn't work although it required 20 years to learn this. In Japan, it has been thought for a long time that their diet caused the better-health result than has been experienced in most of the developed Western cultures. Now, we learn by hard data, that their incidence of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, et al, essentially matches ours. The stress of the imploded economy, the tension in every day lives, has made the impact: diet had nothing to do with the prior-suspected results. Those who struggle for 'the truth' tend to follow false premises something making themselves self-important, that they know more in all aspects, than all common wisdom which although flawed, is not wholly irrelevant.
M: We know that moderation in alcoholic consumption, MODERATION, is healthy. The body itself converts certain foods into internal alcohol. The acid and enzymes in wine and beer - in MODERATION - promote digestion and health and the salicylic acid in processed aspirin is also contained in wine, that when taken in MODERATION assists in cleansing arterial plaque, and the reports are firm and based on decades of data.
M: Accordingly, your rant may be emotionally satisfying to you, however it seems that the truth is illusive for you and probably negated by negative emotions that in turn can only block objectivity.
R: And your petty tyrant argument was pretty weak if you ask me, which you didn't. But who can blame you with the screwed up society we live in where I could probably have you arrested if you recommended anything other than the spoiled little (fatherless person and "f" word deleted... boy, I was really ranting ... b f idiot ... gosh!) idiot know-it-all doctors after telling you what I did about my condition -- impeccably diagnosed by me!
M: Since you have made yourself your own tyrant, in this dialogue, it's at the least, well, interesting. You might consider this thought: the act of healing comes from energy that individuals can develop. This energy is organically derived, for the most part, and healing moves about healthy energy, one could say, into unhealthy areas requiring repair.
M: If the body is overwhelmed with damaged or incorrect cells, it is observed that there is insufficient positive energy to heal anything.
M: In my experiences wherein my body has clinically died, or approached death (depending on specific experience of many), and whereby I have travelled into the third attention (some travels have been volitional, others forced by clinical death) I have "willed" myself to return to finish my evolution. However, this would not have been possible if my body had become sufficiently damaged to the point where it could not organically function.
M: The medical profession that you so vehemently rant upon, saved my body from organic death. My will allowed my consciousness to return to my body as a willing host. This process has occurred on more than one occasion.
R: It is about the money! If I had the money I'd go to the little bastards and let them cut the melanoma out. How easy can it get! Then, what the hell, throw in a little Chemotherapy if needed and likely at this point die anyway in a couple of years. Then I could start drinking again too, wow, this is getting better all the time, I've just about convinced myself with that one. And candy, god, I love candy. Moderation!? You mention moderation!?
M: In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, somewhere there is a speech about money. It starts with one of the characters commenting to a looter about money, where the looter, the user, had said "money is the root of all evil". The character, Francisco, a wealthy person and a major player in the novel responds: "You say that money is the root of all evil, what then is the root of money?". The explanation goes on to define the significance of money and what it really means.
R: My idea of a moderate is someone who stands for nothing but rather goes a little this way when someone says they are for that and a little another way when someone else says they are for the opposite. Wishy washy worthless is what moderates are. And moderation in eating right is no different. Are you going to put poison in your body or not? Period. Moderation!!!! God!!!
M: At the moment, your diatribe is not moderate, but in most other discussions you have been moderate. The Nagual, as a mentor, frequently has to be moderate or he/she would overwhelm a student, and yet you now condemn this fact of "reason" as worthless. Interesting.
R: You set me off with that one. Translation: you said what you said and I set myself off. But back to the money, ... what an easy way out!
M: It is observed that you are using money as an excuse for being self-defeating.
R: I'm damn lucky that I don't have the money or I'd probably not have "qualified" for having you come out of the woodwork when you did.
M: Not relative to the discussion.
R: Add it up yourself: I finally start living my know-all-along "correct way" on 2-26-99 after being scared to death by the impeccable diagnosis. Suddenly, after 25 years of knowing what was right, I finally started doing it PERFECTLY. An amazing thing, I couldn't be happier with myself about it (well, that's not true, I've GOT to get the exercise (physical) going, damn!) ... And then a truly amazing thing happens ... YOU.
M: Since this rant is evidence that you are not well along toward loosing the negative emotions of the human form, there is not really much that I can accomplish, other that to add confirmation to what you have already "read" but do not choose to incorporate.
R: Suddenly, in a couple of short weeks, I've found (come to be convinced, anyway) that the way really is the way; that the teachings of don Juan really are real. I knew it all alone, I knew they were, ... but I just didn't "know" it! ... you know what I mean, ... and it's been your absolutely amazing writings that has shown it to me.
M: In the end, it won't matter if you carry these negative emotions to your clinical death.
R: But I CAN'T go to the doctor, I just can't, I won't, I WILL die first if that is the way it is to be. And trust you as I do, I must say that I really don't give a damn about "the Eagle" nor about being "consumed" by the Eagle. I KNOW it won't happen to me and doubt that it happens to anyone.
M: Then that is precisely what you will accomplish for yourself.
M: Can't only means won't, and unless you are far more possessive of ability than you have revealed, you probably "don't" know, and your revelation that you "do" know cannot accordingly be based in objectivity.
M: My neighbor has terminal lung cancer. When he was diagnosed about a year and a half ago (his impeccable self-diagnosis - being facetious - caused him to think he had influenza so he did nothing for a time). He and self are close. When he was diagnosed, the medical profession in full integrity, said "we can do nothing for you". It seems that he has a form of lung cancer that is very rare, almost unheard of, and cannot be cured by drugs or knife. They were impeccable because that is what they told him, the medical profession. He didn't believe it. He and his wife of 40+ years went to many specialists. They all said exactly the same thing. The diagnosis was simply that Chemotherapy could extend his life at significant toxic reaction and discomfort, but that is all that could be done.
M: He came into contact with healers. Healers cannot have an impact unless the client has an intent TO BE healed.
M: In the frame of mind that this E-mail represents, your intent to be healed is seriously called into question.
M: In any case, he has opted to take chemotherapy and it has extended his life. He and wife travel and the progression of the cancer has been somewhat contained, but it's just a question of time. Myself, and others, have been working with him in preparation for the termination of his body because that is his intent. In his case, "can't" also means "won't".
R: If that is just my ignorance, too bad. Total Freedom! Give me a break. If that is to ever be more than a metaphor for me, then fine, right now I will follow the path of knowledge for knowledge's sake.
M: It is observed that you are not following the path of knowledge.
R: That is what matters to me. And if I do that impeccably, if I intend to do that impeccably, then; read next slowly and in a sing songy voice, the eagle and total freedom; back to normal voice, don't make a damn bit of difference to me.
M: Only your experiences will instruct the truth, and the truth in all probability will inform you otherwise than you relate by the above.
R: Speaking of the blond lady (oh yeah, we weren't) I intended (as opposed to just having one show up) another volitional dream the other night. In it I intended to find the blond lady and sure enough, there was this lady in the distance. I walked over to her and noticed her reddish blond hair and I asked her if she was the blond lady.
M: I wonder if she imaged herself in the yellow dress with the blue flowers spotted around it.
R: She answered in a sarcastic voice that she was and then she asked me equally sarcastically if I wasn't going to lift up her dress. I took that as a chiding for a bad habit I've had in dreams to indulge in taking advantage of women in dreams as I knew it was safe to do.
M: If you lifted the dress, you failed the test. There were many important discussions that you could have had.
R: I do love you unconditionally and I WILL never be the same. And thank you so so very much for that.
M: If you love yourself unconditionally, then this is progress. Without that attribute, the love is dependent, not unconditional.
M: You said that "this is a hellish mood". Moods, it is observed, are only intrinsic components of self.
---------
Note: At this point I've read his reply and I clip out (in E-mail to him) parts of his reply to comment on. Later Michael answers my comments and that is all here as one.
R: The computer shut down when I pushed "send" on "that" E-mail but I started it back up and sent it anyway, boy oh boy, talk about not listening!
M: your blatantly emotional judgement ... is about as warped as ...
R: Yes, I know that. I apologize for such foolishness.
M: No need for apologies. Actions, and results and whole exposure of self in these dialogues is far more important. Apologies mean nothing because they accomplish nothing.
M: ... it seems that the truth is ... probably negated by negative emotions that in turn can only block objectivity.
R: Yes. I know you are right about "many in medicine, just like many in science or any informed disciplined effort, even artists, work their way into success."
M: The act of healing comes from energy that individuals can develop. This energy is organically derived, for the most part, and healing moves about healthy energy, one could say, into unhealthy areas requiring repair.
R: Thank you for your writing that, again, I apologize for the foolishness throughout.
M: Always consider (for yourself) all premises that emotions are based upon. This is a form of introspection that leads to recapitulation.
M: ... you are using money as an excuse for being self-defeating.
R: I've needed to look at that, it's the self-pity I've let myself be run by, just in another form.
M: Self-pity is an excuse to expend no energy, correct nothing, and become consumed ultimately. Eagle snacks. Self-pity is a high order of dependency to use as an excuse to suck energy from other sources. Self-pity causes a crater that then a false self-aggrandizement based on illusions of accomplishment/self-worth, then lifts one from, only to have self-pity crater occur again. This oscillation continues, goes up and down, but has no lateral progress just up/down stress.
M: ...I wonder if she imaged herself in the yellow dress with the blue flowers spotted around it.
R: I didn't notice but I will pay attention to that if there is a "next time."
M: There are two of them, they work in pairs, and a third - a brunette- sometimes appears separately. You were visited in the second attention.
M: ...If you lifted the dress, you failed the test. There were many important discussions that you could have had.
R: I didn't even consider it but rather got the message clearly from her that I better not do that stuff anymore. I then left her and I forget what happened next. What discussions?
M: They tend to introduce themselves with a direction toward the weakest point of a person's commit. The presentation, the lure, was the sex. This means that there is a history of violating a commit to another in sexual matters. The important point is NOT that it's sex, but that history has experienced violation of self by violating commits and covering up with deceit, which a violation of self-impeccability. The initial discussions will center on the meaning of what I have written here. The secondary discussions will expand on what impeccability means.
M: ...If you love yourself unconditionally, then this is progress. Without that attribute, the love is dependent, not unconditional.
M: ... Moods, it is observed, are only intrinsic components of self.
R: Very instructive, thank you
M: Welcome.
-------------
R: You know, Michael, I've worked about five hours on this and now it is just this long. I'd commented to your comments and to my rants at great length, but each time I read it over there were more things to toss out. Then I spent all of today, Sunday, with it in the back of my mind and am finishing it up now having thrown way more out and adding this last paragraph (which probably could be edited out as well).
M: So far, so good. It means that you're learning to use energy efficiently in your interface with me. This is a prototype for your learning to interface with yourself.
R: It's been a strange day. I think what strikes me is that perhaps you can't consider what it is to doubt the existence of the second attention. Your letter from me to (snip) made me think that. I mean, you've known it most of your life, but imagine, and you probably can't, that you NEVER experienced it!
M: You probably have already experienced the second attention, or at the very least, the introduction to it. Rather than use these "glimmers" that you've already experienced in a mild way as indications that there is more, you seem to go into a self-denial mode. Please consider this possibility for yourself.
R: I've never "felt" anything other than the everyday 5 sences. OK, maybe I get a great strange "sensation" of colors at moments, but other than that, nothing but what I might describe as, "only seeing is believing."
M: Are you really so certain of that? Really? (I don't need a response, but you do.)
R: My edited "(snip)'s letter" shows that that is where I am ... with my having to put in all of the "I'm told's." And then, here you show up totally unexpectedly, validating all of my supposition as best it could be validated without my actually experiencing it myself. Well, I don't have a point about all of that, I guess. I don't need to be making excuses for my rant.
M: No, you don't. It provides a metric for me, though, in my dialogue with you.
R: But I do see so much of all you've said and CC reports, so clearly, yet I will fall totally into the pit of self-pity like that. And again today: this morning I was so "up" about it all and "knew" just what to do to "be present" but by night the doubt has creeped back and somehow, even though I know the same stuff I knew in the morning, I don't pull out of it.
M: I have apprentices that have also had this background, and it's understood that it takes a very high commit to alter because it's become a life-style of self-defeat in the form of what I've written above in this E-mail.
R: Well, look, I feel like I'm treating you like "dear Abby." What if I made a rule that I only write "enlightened" thoughts. I'm sure I could do it. Would that be the way to go? ...
M: Then it would be a lie, and that is unacceptable. It wastes time.
R: Hello, Michael.
R: Today is today and what you see is what you see. Silently wittness without judgement and there are no moods.
R: DJ: "Come on, Out with it! Don't have any secrets from me.
M: It's, ah, well, difficult to deceive ... there are perceptions that connect to knowledge ...
R: DJ: I'm an empty tube.
M: While that sounds good, it's only an invitation for the apprentice to open to the mentor. The mentor is never empty because he/she is filled with knowledge.
R: "Whatever you say to me will be projected out into infinity." dJ
M: Because whatever you trust and feel deeply within yourself will construct your alternate reality of infinity.
R: What is a "reality of infinity."
M::The third attention is infinity, eternity, continuance, heaven, or whatever term suits your comfort level.
M: The attribute set (the ability set, or level of personal power attained - again, all same thing, whatever term suits your comfort level again) we achieve "in the now" before body-death, determines: a) if we can continue (thwart the metaphorical consumption by the eagle) "at all" into the third attention; and b) the "level" (same as personal power, attribute set, abilities - pick your term again) that we evolve to gain for ourselves in "the now" that then we take for ourselves into the third attention - this is what we have for infinity. The decision is "now," not later in the third attention. There are several components of what has been stated above. Probably the point that might be the most difficult for you to grasp (although it's been said in these dialogues in a more subtle way) is that the level of ability (power, blah-blah) that you develop "now" is what you're stuck with forever, that is assuming that you develop sufficient ability to continue - at all. Back a few E-mails ago when you/we were rattling about the small percentage that engage - the points made above place another emphasis on it because this states that a very small percentage evolve to continue - at all - and that even a smaller percentage evolve to the point of the higher levels achievable - and that those levels we hold for infinity/eternity, blah-blah.
M: When you recently said "you don't give a damn about the eagle.."..etcetera, ... you were basically stating that you are not choosing to evolve, or continue. Since you are still in this dialogue with me, the statement you emotionally made 'in the rant' is questionable. If you had said, and if you fully understand that this statement is ultimate, and if you really had already chosen not to evolve, you would have ended the comment with, "and therefore you (M:) have no purpose in my life, so goodbye". You haven't done/said that yet, but you came very close.
M: To those of us who have experienced the third attention, particularly in the situation of clinical death where we willed ourselves to return and finish our evolution (at least those of us who were given the choice) we understand that the third attention, infinity, and our ability to prosper within that state), is a state of evolution that is an alternate reality to any of the other attentions or states of being. Through our will, our philosophy that drives our psychology that causes us to evolve, we construct for ourselves an attribute set that allows us to complete our evolution, and prosper in (what is to us) the reality of the third attention.
R: DJ (From The Active Side of Infinity): "You say that you have only complaints and that you are exactly like all the people you know. That there's no way to talk to a single one of them without hearing an overt or a covert complaint. In the ups and downs of daily living, you win, and you lose, and you don't know when you win or when you lose. This is the price one pays for living under the rule of self-reflection. There is nothing that I can say to you, and there's nothing that you can say to yourself."
M: A little clarification: there's nothing I can say to you - that can be effective - because the self-denigration blocks your objectivity to even know.
R: DJ: I could only recommend that you not feel guilty because you fail, but that you strive to end the dominion of self-reflection." -- don Juan
M: Ah, as used above, self-reflection might be replace with self-denigration, the dominion of self-denial.
M: Peace (with hopes for your discoveries)
M: Michael --------------
R: Hi Michael, I wrote below to my father and got a reply. I wanted you to read it.
R: Dad, I have a request of you if you don't mind. While growing up, I'd heard it said on a couple of occasions that your mom was said to have some "special gifts" along the, I don't know, that's what I appreciate hearing as much about as you can possibly remember. Did she sense things to be about to happen that then happened? Could she read peoples thoughts? I've never heard, or I don't remember, any details at all, I just remember hearing that she was special in some, I believe it was, psychic way.
R: Dad: Rick, Yes, my mother exhibited intuitive sense at a very early age. I believe she was only about 10 years old when one of her family's cows (they lived on a farm) was scheduled to calve. Mother told her Dad that the cow was going to have twins. Her dad didn't believe it, but when the birth came about, sure enough there were twin calves. Her father immediately hid one of the calves, and insisted that the Cow had only had one baby. Mother wouldn't buy it, and started a personal search for the other calf. Soon she found it, and her father then, had to admit that she was right. After Mother and Dad were married, there were numerous occasions when Mother "knew" if some family member was sick; or she would have an intuitive insight that friends were about to visit. Mother, however, never tried to develop that intuitive power because she didn't want to know, in advance, anything about the future if it wasn't going to be good. As far as I know, niether my sister nor I inherited that sense.
M: it's about what I would have expected, and it's very good that you took the time to learn. It brings a form of closure and opportunity for you. The report of your grandmother reads a lot like what I might have written at an early age, or that of my mother. Re your immediate family, father, aunt, it's not know how much of the attribute they have versus how much they block ...
R: As for me telling you to get lost, I never felt a bit close to that until after your reply to the rant in which I said/you said: "Add it up yourself: I finally start living my know-all-along "correct way" on 2-26-99 after being scared to death by the impeccable diagnosis. Suddenly, after 25 years of knowing what was right, I finally started doing it PERFECTLY. An amazing thing, I couldn't be happier with myself about it (well, that's not true, I've GOT to get the exercise (physical) going, damn!) ... And then a truly amazing thing happens ... YOU." And you replied, "Since this rant is evidence that you are not well along toward loosing the negative emotions of the human form, there is not really much that I can accomplish, other that to add confirmation to what you have already "read" but do not choose to incorporate.
R: But I later cut out my comments on that as unnecessary. Basically, I'd felt that you must have interpreted my line above: "And then a truly amazing thing happens ... YOU." as sarcasm. I did not mean it sarcastically at all, I was actually coming around a bit at that point in the "rant" and was expressing my appreciation for you. It struck me by your comment, that you suddenly had me as your own petty tyrant. It seemed to me that I'd inadvertently pushed you to your limit of impeccability. Did I read it wrong?
M: Actually, truly, no, I did not take it as sarcasm even vaguely. My response was to take it primarily as an acknowledgement. Relative to "pushing to the limit of impeccability," and the "petty tyrant" mode, it needs to be said (I believe) that all interactions provide counterchecks of self re impeccability. From that overview point, it could be said that "all" interactions could offer themselves to be "petty tyrants" and that they "all" offer the potential for pressing impeccability, depending on the "knowledge and understanding" that is poised by the interaction. Your rant, for lack of a better term, was a test for me as so many are, however it was not abnormal in my experience.
R: Also I'd said: "And trust you as I do, I must say that I really don't give a damn about "the Eagle" nor about being "consumed" by the Eagle. I KNOW it won't happen to me and doubt that it happens to anyone. If that is just my ignorance, too bad. Total Freedom! Give me a break. If that is to ever be more than a metaphor for me, then fine, right now I will follow the path of knowledge for knowledge's sake.That is what matters to me. And if I do that impeccably, if I intend to do that impeccably, then (read next slowly and in a sing songy voice) the eagle and total freedom ( back to normal voice) don't make a damn bit of difference to me."
R: While quite irreverent, what I say is not so out of line with my experience. You were correct that "I do not KNOW," that was more foolish talk, rant, but the important point is where I say, "right now I will follow the path of knowledge for knowledge's sake.That is what matters to me. And if I do that impeccably, if I intend to do that impeccably, then (read next slowly and in a sing songy voice) the eagle and total freedom ( back to normal voice) don't make a damn bit of difference to me."
M: Yes, however it's very, very conditional in the manner that it is said, meaning that it's said as a "temporary commit". This is observed by the prefix "right now, I will follow ... ," it's the implication made by the "right now" that is under inspection here.
R: Isn't that absolutely correct? Isn't impeccability all that counts in the path of knowledge, as CC reports dJ saying? Believing that, it seemed to me that I was still your petty tyrant when I read your, "It is observed that you are not following the path of knowledge." And it was only then that I had a very small thought that perhaps you were not the one for me.
M: In the manner that you are questioning "if" this exists at all, your statement makes sense. Ultimately, it will all be determined by you in any case, in terms of the understanding and the resolution to your statement.
R: I really hate telling you what I just did there, but I have to believe that honesty and full disclosure is the only way and that that is what you would demand of me. I am very grateful for your support, for your large amount of time spent with me, and I am honored to have you as teacher. Thank you.
M: Yes, full disclosure is really necessary, and thank you yet again for the acknowledgement. As you continue 'on the way', and learn more of yourself, the term "impeccability" and the challenge that it continually offers in the manner of self-interrogation, will become expanded, as you, yourself, become expanded. By the way, in interacting with individuals, there are many processes sometimes required of the interaction, and being provocative at the correct moment, is one of those processes.
-----------
R: Your last E-mail provided a very satisfying closure for me over my rant. Not in the sense that I've completed anything, well, no, it does complete some things for me as well, ... well, that's interesting, I just noticed that I expect the worst at times. Thank you, once again.
R: And the "right now" comment was interest. I had not noticed that I'd phrased it that way: "right now I will follow the path of knowledge for knowledge's sake"
R: That does set it to be conditional. Perhaps I've never really committed to following the path of knowledge! I think I will cut myself a little slack on that one and just "get" that I need to take a look at just what my commitment to that path is. "JUST"! that's a good one.
M: You're welcome.
-------------
R: As I said, I've been working on The Active Side of Infinity. Please comment on this quote, "By means of discipline it is possible for anyone to bring the energy body closer to the physical body."
M: My experience with the above would be described a bit differently. The energy body, is a component or extension of ourselves. In those that are not well integrated, it might seem like it is separate, however the physical body and it's energy image are linked. Although the energy body may persist after the termination of the physical body, the relationship is such that there physical body always has at least "some" energy image, though in most it is a low level, low intensity, low amplitude, image.
R: I assume that discipline is the path of knowledge.
M: Broadly said, yes, and as you are aware there are many elements of that knowledge. By saying that the physical body can bring the energy body closer, really what happens is that energy that extends from the physical body helps assemble the energy body and links with it as a component of self.
R: "Normally, the distance between the two is enormous. Once the energy body is within a certain range, which varies for each of us individually, anyone, through discipline, can forge it into the exact replica of their physical body -- that is to say, a three-dimensional, solid being. Hence the sorcerers' idea of the other or the double. By the same token, through the same processes of discipline, anyone can forge their three-dimensional, solid physical body to be a perfect replica of their energy body -- that is to say, an ethereal change of energy invisible to the human eye, as all energy is."
M: In my experience, this is a little misleading. What is known as a physical manifestation of "the double" is, no doubt, an energy form that others even in the physical state of being (normal humanity, in other words) may interact with. The energy form, to them, appears as a physical structure to all of their senses, but it is energy nonetheless.
R: I've always pretty much left this stuff to just speak for itself, having no knowledge/experience of it.
M: By the time CC got late into his writings, he had become detached, really decoupled, from DJM for quite a number of years. Since, in my very best impression and knowledge, CC didn't have "the power" directly (as previously stated) it is my opinion that he wandered off the path of first-experience knowledge quite a bit. The Eagle's gift, the Power of Silence, The Fire from Within, were about the end-points of what I'd consider to be accurate reporting.
R: "I've not described a mythical proposition. There is nothing mythical about sorcerers. Sorcerers are practical beings, and what they describe is always something quite sober and down-to-earth.
R: "The difficulty in understanding what sorcerers do is that they proceed from a different cognitive system."
R: Is that inner silence?
M: Cognition is defined as ... 1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. 2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.
M: ... taken from the dictionary. Note that perception is one of the "paths" that "knowing" comes through. The inner silence only makes the process of gaining knowledge through perceptional means, more efficient or for many, even possible. Those with strong abilities (like your grandmother, and perhaps even you when open) can often "get through" their own mind noise with little choice. Others must "quiet" the mind to find the perceptionally based information. All of this is like someone hearing something "through" or blocked by, the rumble of a large vocal crowd. The "crowd," in my analogy, is akin to internal "mind noise". The one that is attempting to be heard is a source of information that has a clear message if the crowd would be quiet. Some individuals can "tune" through even their own mind noise to hear, metaphorically. Others need to quiet their mind noise, and the best-case path of perceptionally based knowledge comes in any case for maximal efficiency, with both quiet minds (inner silence) and tuning.
R: "The energy body is of key importance in whatever has been taking place in your life. It is an energetic fact that your energy body, instead of moving away form you, as it normally happens, is approaching you with great speed."
M: Some have a sense of fear of "something approaching" and they even try to push it away. The energy body is intrinsic to ourselves. Being afraid of "it" is being afraid of some element, of ourselves.
R: "It means that something is going to knock the daylights out of you. A tremendous degree of control is going to come into your life, but not your control, the energy body's control."
M: This is another way of saying that when one truly recognized him/herself, the knowledge can "knock the daylights" out of you. The cognition of rapid awareness, knowledge, of self can be the most frightening. I've had these experiences, of course.
R: "There are scores of outside forces controlling you at this moment. The control that I am referring to is something outside the domain of language.""
M: Outside the domain of language, yes. Outside the domain of knowledge, no.
R: "It is your control and at the same time it is not."
M: Two components to this. First, anyone can block or distort knowledge, and awareness. Secondly, anyone can trigger emotions based usually on fear, and this process is reflex, not in control when it occurs to the novice. Blocks and distortions are also usually reflexes, and reflexes to the novice are not "controlled". With sufficient evolution, the individual has NO need to control, only have cognition of knowledge from all sources, with full objectivity (detachment from the human form).
R: "It cannot be classified,"
M: Disagree. All knowledge can be understood ...
R: "but it can certainly be experienced. And above all, it can certainly be manipulated. Remember this: It can be manipulated, to your total advantage, of course, which again, is not your advantage, but the energy body's advantage. However, the energy body is you, so we could go on forever like dogs biting their own tails, trying to describe this. Language is inadequate. All these experiences are beyond syntax."
R: Does it all boil down to inner silence? To get there, that is?
M: As said, a quiet mind is quiet because it does not have to be noisy to mount defenses. A noisy mind, is a dependent mind, hiding behind the noise. This - all of it - works closely together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. To have an objective mind, a detached mind, that can stalk and observe, and wholly perceive, then integrate knowledge, one has to be comfortable with him/herself and their environment. The body is the world's smallest prison.
-------------
R: I've been having a feeling of, a sense of, a moment of a kind of knowing something that when the feeling comes, it's like I already knew that, but then it is so fleeting, like the fleetingness of sensing colors as "smell/taste," to the point where writing about it now seems next to impossible and I literally have know idea, at this point, what I'm even talking about, other than to try and somehow describe ... what I can't even recall ... that sounds crazy, but here goes: It has to do with people and our place with each other as people living/being together on the earth (though I'm adding the "on the earth" as an obvious that isn't involved in the sense, the sense is of just ... people together interacting). And there is a sense of relief involved with it. Relief from ... preconceptions ... false preconceptions ... preconceptions about our responsiblities in our interacting roles. It's like a sense of a higher order that is actually real but we don't see it. And it's the sense of it IN ITS REALNESS that is uplifting to me, like, this is real and it needs to be brought into focus so that it is no longer fleeting and out of mind.
R: Well, that's beating around it, lets see if I can zoom in on it ... nope, ... maybe I can beat around it somemore ... I know that it has come over me about ... it's come over me twice. Both times while walking in crowds ... I just can't nail it down ... but it's like we don't owe each other anything out of our already being everything for each other, no, there is no sense involved of "not owing," that's my "now added," it's just the sense of being everything for each other ... not like an obligation at all, though, just as how it really is ... so there is no thought about creating it that way, it just is that we are somehow all together in a way that is whole and complete ... and we are, in our ignorance of this, running all around on our daily tracks presenting ourselves "out of" a place that we hold ourselves in as not related to each other other than in our socialized ways.
M: I'm going to purposely not add anything in particular to this, because you are getting really close and I don't want to meddle in that process. Stay with it. Stay with whatever you did to permit the perception to "open" and enter you. You came upon something that opened up a gateway, and ability/knowledge entered. You seem to be afraid of it, so you don't leave the gateway open too long. Find, again, the gateway. You have been touched in the second attention. You have begun to experience it.
R: You were speaking of how, were you to take me over the edge without my earning it (my phrasyology), I would then long for it, possibly obsessively. Perhaps this gives me a small taste of how powerful that longing could be.
M: Imagine living every minute of each day with "it". There is an immense responsibility because the ability is immense and the two effects are commensurate. For those as myself, we are wholly flooded, and exist every moment, on the bridge between the first and second attentions and alternate between them, never quite leaving the second (it becomes our reference point). Migrating between the second and the third attentions takes much intent and focus, and is done only when necessary. In the third attention, discipline of high nature is required, or we'd never return to the first attention to complete our evolution.
M: You ARE beginning to understand. Bringing another to "taste" these abilities and attributes is wholly irresponsible UNTIL the other is "prepared". That, meaning preparation, is the point, and "powerful longing" is actually an understatement. The tragic thing to note is that any obsession would block the path to evolution because obsessions are dependencies and dependencies of the human form are the antithesis of the freedom required.
R: I wanted to contact you this morning but I had just spent three days totally in routine. So I used the paragraphs from the compilation as a means of getting started back again. But this turns out to be what I had to say although my "inner silence" subject line also server to remind me of the course I'm on. I don't like not having control over it ("the course") and I feel that I don't. Like this sense I've just described, where did it come from and why doesn't it stay but for that, perhaps, tenth of a second?
M: As noted above, imagine existing every moment of every day, bridged between and in "the attentions," with whole knowledge that normal humanity cannot understand. The "abilities" also cause isolation, and isolation integrated to the point where it is an attribute for evolution, is mandatory to travel in the third attention.
R: Thank you for your time.
M: Welcome
--------------
More to come ... let me know what you thinkabout it. - Rick
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