Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

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 think about it. – Rick

Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge – Part V

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 off. Here.

—————–

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.”