Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

M: There is a point, call it a cross-over, where the teacher might have to do this. In my case, I have actually done this with you but you didn’t notice it because it was subtle, and you made adjustments. A long time ago we discussed the need based on impeccability not to waste energy, teacher or otherwise. You “have” made adjustments in your approach to me.

R: It should be incumbent on the student to listen and not incumbent on the teacher to adjust their teaching to a students attention.

M: Humm. “Should be”. By some infallible standard based on some infallible reality?

M: Yes, the student needs to listen, and work at processing the information. No question. That, though, cannot be taken in isolation.

R: Honestly, it sounds a little new age psychobabble-ish to me to be talking about “in what style and manner CAN they even “receive” the data. These two interact … ” It really sounds like being suckered into thinking that you have to deal with irresponsible listening as if irresponsible listening wasn’t the poor kids fault — so we have to adjust our teaching for poor little Bobby because he listens different than the other kids. Boy, isn’t that about the way of the new age educators in this country. But it is wrong.

M: It is quite obvious that you didn’t get the point, or you wouldn’t have written this.

R: Bobby never learned how to listen.

M: And we can only wonder “why” Bobby never learned to listen …

R: Period. So grab him (figuratively), tell him that fact, teach him how to listen, and get back to teaching instead of screwing little Bobby with what is really condescension, even though it’s not viewed that way.

M: Bobby can never learn to listen if he isn’t motivated. Listening first comes from within, philosophy drives psychology, even though Bobby might not realize he has adopted the ego-driven philosophy of “not listening”. If the teacher attempts to approach Bobby exactly in the same manner that he/she approaches a willing, eager, motivated, bright, student, then Bobby will never have the opportunity to alter his approach. If after using a few reasonable devices the teacher comes to the conclusion that Bobby is “eagle food”, then the teacher has met his/her need for impeccability and viola! Bobby is probably eagle food. The teacher must ascertain that outcome in probability for himself.

R: I mean if you start explaining Maclaurin’s series to someone who isn’t at that level of understanding, they should tell you after your first sentence, “stop, if you really think I need to learn this then there is a whole bunch of basics I need to learn first.” Now it’s no longer incumbent on the teacher to evaluate the students learning ability. Wow, what freedom for teachers … responsible students! What a concept — I wonder if it will ever catch hold?

M: True enough.

M: The two examples that you related above are only different by the meaning of the depth to you, as an observer. Parable: One man, upon seeing the Grand Canyon at Sunrise for the first time, dropped to his knees and reverently bowed his head in deep prayer thanking the deity for the beauty of the moment. A second man upon seeing the same scene stood harshly, threw his hat down to the ground, placed his fists on each side of his waist, elbows out, and said, “Well, goddamned!”. Both men experienced exactly the same emotion.

R: Another thing I do is to rush replys sometimes with the notion that there is too much to do. So let me take more time again with the following.

R: You said, “The two examples that you related above are only different by the meaning of the depth to you, as an observer.”

R: “by the meaning of the depth” hmmmm, the meaning of the depth to me. I’m looking at one case as being a flow from the spirit and one case as being a flow from imprinted experience. Like the poets problem of not being able to write an original thought. I think it was E.E. Cummings who said something about that in a letter he wrote to a college student who’d written to him asking about becoming a poet. Cummings wrote back and suggested that the student do something easy, “like learning to blow up the world,” unless the student was willing to work and struggle for years to the point where if he, after years and years of struggle, could finally write one line of poetry he “would be very lucky, indeed.” I took that as akin to following the way of knowledge and the one line after years was when the student was finally able to get out of the — life-as-imprint-regurgitating — bin.

R: Maybe I’m still missing your point, maybe the key words are “to you, as an observer.” How about; to me, as the one receiving the flow from the spirit, rather than; to me, as the one spitting back imprint. In these two cases, it seems to me that to talk about a difference in how I hold the depth of each case is fine, that is placing both back into the imprint bin in the sense that I can’t “view” inspiration. But back on the experiential level of not me as the observer but rather me as the one having the experience, the better point, as I see it, is not how I hold the imprint of each case, that is the after-the-fact imprint bin, but rather … one is describable/understandable and one is only able to be speculated about after the fact. Again, it then is also describable/understandable form an observational point of view. But what about the actual real time experience of the spirit, the second attention, the third attention, isn’t that totally separate from the imprint bin? This started with my saying that it is too big a jump to go from imprint based thought; psychology, philosophy — relationships of our expressing ourselves — to a relationship/connectedness where our expressing ourselves is from the spirit, from inspiration.

R: But maybe it is “bacon is bacon” … somehow, I don’t think so. Or at least, I still don’t see the connection. I see that I am being taught to open my connection to the spirit so it could then be argued that the connection is already there. I believe that, fine, then bacon is bacon and everything is connected. Is this fate we are talking about somehow. That just occurred to me out of thinking about the first part of this all, your saying “It is all connected together. For a time you really seemed to think that abstractions, philosophy, science, metaphysics, mathematics, music, et al, and the impetus to study, understand and flow – were all separate – and perhaps now there is the beginning of recognition that they are not.”

R: Working for Peace – Rick

M: You are encouraged to contemplate all of the above further. Perhaps it would be of assistance for you to disentangle each component of the thoughts then expand each thought as extensions, then see if after they are extended if they still match in the manner you have concluded to this point.

M: And peace can be yours …

M: Michael

—————

R: Hi Michael, I was thinking that I don’t thank you for your time enough, I do thank you so much for your time.

M: You’re welcome!

———–

Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge – Part Vll

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 seven of the dialogue. It continues where part Vl left off.

—————–

R: I have to admit, when I read your, “You are encouraged to contemplate all of the above further. Perhaps it would be of assistance for you to disentangle each component of the thoughts then expand each thought as extensions, then see if after they are extended if they still match in the manner you have concluded to this point,” my immediate reaction was a brief thought of, “That’s the last thing I want to do.” And I see where that thought came from. It was my reaction to not understanding and therefore putting myself to sleep.

M: It’s wondered if there is more to the reaction than what is reported. Generally, an impulse reaction is more based in other long-held reflexes. Perhaps, you might consider, there is an impulse reflex to the suggestion of doing something. Even though it was not a ‘command’, a true ‘command’ could have provoked almost exactly the same sort of reflex response. These sort of reflexes describe a pattern that is suggested to be recapitulated.

R: Gosh, here I find myself as little Bobby, … okay I have to start by disentangling what you just said (that I copied above).