Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

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.