Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

R: “There is a simple rule of thumb: in the face of the unknown, man is adventurous. It is a quality of the unknown to give us a sense of hope and happiness. Man feels robust, exhilarated. Even the apprehension that it arouses is very fulfilling. The new seers saw that man is at his best in the face of the unknown. The unknown and the known are really on the same footing, because both are within the reach of human perception. Seers, can leave the known at a given moment and enter into the unknown. Whatever is beyond our capacity to perceive is the unknowable.”

M: Why would one automatically set these limits? Why would one accept it? This suggests that the speaker has not yet moved beyond the boundary of the second attention, and at the time of making the statement, has never travelled in the third attention.

R: “And the distinction between it and the knowable is crucial. Confusing the two would put seers in a most precarious position whenever they are confronted with the unknowable. Most of whatÕs out there is beyond our comprehension.”

M: No agreement, other than “don’t be confused”.

R: * * * “The first truth about awareness is that the world out there is not really as we think it is. We think it is a world of objects and itÕs not. You say you agree with me because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy. But you are merely intuiting a truth. To reason it out is not to verify it.”

M: There is a large body of evidence to state that reason and verification co-exist.

R: “I am not interested in your agreement or disagreement, but in your attempt to comprehend what is involved in this truth. You cannot witness fields of energy; not as an average man, that is. Now, if you were able to see them, you would be a seer, in which case you would be explaining the truths about awareness.”

M: Okay.

R: “Conclusions arrived at through reasoning have very little or no influence in altering the course of our lives. Hence, the countless examples of people who have the clearest convictions and yet act diametrically against them time and time again; and have as the only explanation for their behavior the idea that to err is human.”

M: Disagree with the approach to the statement. Reason, through awareness, simply expands and reason does exist beyond the human form. If by “reason” it is limited to that bound within the human form, okay, but it’s not a complete explanation.

R: “The first truth is that the world is as it looks and yet it isnÕt. ItÕs not as solid and real as our perception has been led to believe, but it isnÕt a mirage either. The world is not an illusion, as it has been said to be; itÕs real on the one hand, and unreal on the other. Pay close attention to this, for it must be understood, not just accepted. We perceive. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive.”

M: Okay.

R: “Something out there is affecting our senses. This is the part that is real. The unreal part is what our senses tell us is there.”

M: It would be more accurate to say that the senses are only partially correct.

R: “Take a mountain, for instance. Our senses tell us that it is an object. It has size, color, form. We even have categories of mountains, and they are downright accurate. Nothing wrong with that; the flaw is simply that it has never occurred to us that our senses play only a superficial role. Our senses perceive the way they do because a specific feature of our awareness forces them to do so.”

M: Okay.

R: “IÕve used the term Òthe worldÓ to mean everything that surrounds us. I have a better term, of course, but it would be quite incomprehensible to you. Seers say that we think there is a world of objects out there only because of our awareness. But whatÕs really out there are the Indescribable ForceÕs emanations, fluid, forever in motion, and yet unchanged, eternal.”

M: True.

R: * * * “The reason for the existence of all sentient beings is to enhance awareness. The old seers, risking untold dangers, actually saw the Indescribable Force which is the source of all sentient beings. They called that indescribable force the Eagle, because in the few glimpses that they could sustain, they saw it as something that resembled a black-and-white eagle of infinite size. They saw that it is the Indescribable Force that bestows awareness and creates sentient beings so that they will live and enrich the awareness it gives them with life. They also saw that it is the Indescribable Force, that devours that same enriched awareness after making sentient beings relinquish it at the moment of death. For the old seers to say that the reason for existence is to enhance awareness is not a matter of faith or deduction. They saw it.”

M: The above paragraph is true enough, but it would take a little elaboration to expand it in terms that are broader and, for that matter, more accurate.

———–

Ed: Since we have been discussing the assemblage point a few things seemed to be revelent, human form dependencies (hfd) . Just to make sure that’s I’m on the same wave length as you regarding the assemblage point, I’ve put together a rather meager list to illuminate some of them. Please let me know if I’m on the right track.

M: Okay.

Ed: The following is the beginning of a list of attributes that make up our assemblage point:

Ed: Pride … there is good pride, for example taking joy in doing one’s “best” and then there is bad pride, such as ego gratification when one can feel “pride” because one has a bigger house, a better car etc. than others.

M: The valid point is “high self-esteem”. This is esteem such that it has nothing to prove to others, and leads to the ability to unconditionally love, which is in turn a high indication of the loss of human form of dependencies. This comment works in alliance with your statement above.

Ed: Satisfaction … the positive type, a feeling that one has done one’s best, and the other; for example, taking satisfaction in seeing one’s peers fail.

M: Yes: knowledge that all actions, thoughts, decisions, were taken with the highest possible impeccability that is/was understood at the time.

Ed: Enjoyment … the positive, feeling good about one’s accomplishments, the negative, feeling good about other’s misfortune.

M: This is more open to discussion. There is “NO” feeling about others misfortune whatsoever, because feelings directed in that manner are dependencies and relate to not having lost the human form component of ego. Anything negative – anything – is really a positive when the lesson of the negative is learned, from within or from another by example.

Ed: Perfection … positive: trying to be conscious when engaged in any endeavor and using a goal of “always trying to do one’s best”, negative: when failing to achieve one’s goals, being critical of one’s self or others.

M: Well, it’s a careful statement because many would take “critical” as self-deprecation, which is a true failure. “Error correction” is an attribute of impeccability, and perhaps a “safer” term to use. Relative to others, it can only be through example and can never become an emotional component.

Ed: Criticism … positive: being realistic when evaluating one’s short-comings, negative: being critical of one’s self or others with no positive intentions.

M: Understood.

———–

Bob: Hello Michael, Rick, Ed, et all About the assemblage point. It is understood from study and experience that the assemblage point did not have QUALITIES, good or bad, but the assemblage point was something with a function. The way you are talking about the assemblage point having qualities makes it sound like we ARE the assemblage point. The understanding gained from reading and experience is that the movement of the assemblage point does not necessarily give qualities as much as opening up a new avenue of perception.

M: This is a mis-understanding. The assemblage point is something like a convergence point where all attributes come together, it by itself has no particular attribute. I’ll try an analogy to communicate this. Suppose there was a single “hub” in the continental USA where all roads came together, and from that “hub” these roads could take one in any direction that he/she desired. The roads each have a function of direction and taking any road leads to varied and new experiences, wherein each road has a purpose and function. If one were to “find” the position of this singular “hub” where all roads joined, then one could simultaneously access “all roads” in parallel. The assemblage point is such a hub: the roads are the analogy of the attributes. If one cannot assemble such a point with intensity and coherence, then one simply is scattered about his/her own luminous form, skipping from road to road (attribute to attribute) with less ability and coherence.