Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

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.