R: I even danced around letting it be directly known that I’d done dreaming in my introduction. Of course, that was, as I noted, written before I learned of the Stanford U stuff, now I tell anyone because it’s a “common” thing. So when will going into the second attention be common?
M: The Stanford – U stuff, is simply in confirmation of potential, not denial. Dreaming in the sense they implied carries only so far. It does not direct or project one into the other attentions, but it can open a gateway.
R: Don Juan: “Nothing can be done to give people a more balanced understanding of the glow of awareness. At least, there is nothing that seers can do. Seers aim to be free, to be unbiased witnesses incapable of passing judgment; otherwise they would have to assume the responsibility for bringing about a more adjusted cycle. No one can do that. The new cycle, if it is to come, must come of itself.”
M: The problem is that “the new cycle” is that of each individual, not the collective. Here’s something that also describes something of responsibility that requires contemplation: if knowledge invokes the failure of a human, there is nothing that can be done per se. Agreed. What is seen is simply seen.
R: How could “knowledge invoke failure” except that one doesn’t live up to the knowledge that is one’s highest standard of what is right action. But would — not living up to one’s “standards” — be equal to knowledge invoking failure. I suppose that is what you mean, isn’t it? But your next line has me thinking that I’m missing something of your meaning: “What is seen is simply seen” … in other words, do you mean, that if one’s knowledge isn’t acted upon properly; that is, according to one’s highest standard of right within that knowledge at each point of evolution, then what is seen, learned, experienced, in effect loses its value? Yes, OK, I think I’ve got it now. That is it, isn’t it?
M: I believe you ‘have it’, but to be certain the following clarification is offered. “Knowledge”, or course however derived, is information. In terms of perception as a media of knowledge, there are primarily two forms: a) the form that instructs; and, b) the form the demands ‘action’. If another is perceived to be in a failure mode, and the failure is preordained, then “what is seen, is simply seen” and there is no responsibility for any invoked intervention simply because there’s is nothing to do that would be effective in any case. The ‘able one’ has always (emphatically said) a requirement to conserve effort and energy as a matter of impeccability, therefore, the “highest standard” of action in this situation, is no action whatever, adding quickly that observation of the events and the processes of others, even in the failure mode, provides confirmation of ‘knowledge’.
M: Suppose, though, that the perception provides knowledge that ‘it is intended’ (in a manner of speaking) that effort be extended toward “the other” who is initiating a failure mode, in order for “the able one” to: learn from the interaction; and, alter the course of “the other”. In this situation, “the able one” is driven by impeccability, in his/her own interest, to extend him/her self toward the other as a facilitator. If this were not true, then there could never be a progression of apprentices and the grid of power in the universe would be at a loss for the energy gained by the apprentices not joining. DJM invoked CC primarily as a reporter to distribute information with the intent that others, albeit small percentages, would gather new awareness of themselves (that society normally blocks, or at the least – does not facilitate) even though the reporter himself did not have much natural ability.
M: In the matter of the energy conservation of the nagual (the able ones) as mentors, a major segment of the test and validation structure that is coupled to loosing the human form, is (of course) the matter of dependencies, and high ego is a very significant component of those dependencies. Therefore, the mandate is that information be gained while quietly stalking, observing, perceiving (gaining information/knowledge) on a continual basis, impeccability driven, about self and about the relationship of self to others and “knowing” if “another” is intrinsically to be an apprentice. Failing to act, extend oneself, to another in the situation where knowledge instructs that it is appropriate, then fails impeccability and any failure extracts a price.
M: Hope that helps.
M: **However there is another condition: knowledge can drive those able into fully “knowing” that they will be responsible for the failure of an intended candidate – if – they don’t extend themselves.
R: I was once told by a numerologist that “if one knows before hand, the reaction his words or actions will elicit from another, then he is responsible for those elicited responses. This is the meaning above. Yes?
M: Yes. In these (rather delicate, in terms of judgement, to be certain, meaning that caution is an important component of impeccability) matters of self-extension, the result is already “known” and, accordingly, there is culpability on the part of ‘the nagual’. However, assume that the apprentice candidate does NOT respond in the affirmative in real-time, and that this non-response was (probably) known also. The “contact” with the apprentice candidate does start a low-level cycle, in the sense that the candidate was identified. In a allegorical manner of speaking, the candidate was “marked” (some might say, “tagged”) by the contact and eventually there will be alterations as the candidates’ evolution progresses and his/her candidacy will become activated. (Taisha Abelar thoroughly reports how she was “tagged” in her book “The Sorcerer’s Crossing”, for example.)
M: Somewhere, somehow, you were tagged but I’m not certain by whom although it was perhaps 25 or 30 years ago.
M: In that construct, failure to extend means that ‘the able one’ would be partially responsible for the failure of the intended other, and that is not acceptable.
R: As I just said, with “not acceptable” added to the point.
M: Yes.
M: The impeccability of ‘the able one’ is limited to the extension toward the candidate. If the candidate rejects ‘the able one’, then the requirement of impeccability is met and the able one is not culpable in the failure. Please think about that, deeply.
R: Done!
M: Good!
R: Well, shall we engage in a little idle talk now? Ha Ha, … ah, didn’t you just turn up the heat?
M: Tee heee …
M: In any case, back to the point of this discussion – you. Considering that you have found this discussion to this point informative, there are decisions that you will process in your own manner. At any time, it is very easy to stop: just say stop; and I will be gone; with full acceptance and no negativity.
R: Not a chance!!
M: Point is, my impeccability demands that energy not be foolishly expended, and that the initial imperative must be yours or your commit to self will not, cannot, occur. Energy conservation for those with ‘the ability’ also requires navigational skills to maintain course, including that of the candidate.
R: I feel that I float around your writings and would like to start drawing back some pieces for clarification, if you don’t mind.
M: Hope so. It’s needed but as a very careful exploration. You have, at this point, a great amount to work with, some of which within the text, you have not yet discovered. You might expect to find some “wow’s” as you carefully re-process what has already been sourced to you.
———————
R: Moving on with a few observations:
R: 1) Impeccability is this moment defined by me as vigilance in intending off the internal dialogue, rhythmic deep breathing, and most important, being that “unbiased witness” to life and lives experiences and interactions. And then intending the openness to the … whatever it is … “spirit,” “indescribable force” …
M: Yes. You’re on a roll!
R: My sense is that “unbiased witness” is the key to the preparation but that truly believing must be equally important and you’ve indicated as much.
M: Very true: the role of the stalker/observer TO LEARN – GAIN KNOWLEDGE, so that “knowledge” becomes the operative code, not belief system.
M: NOTE: I read the intact paragraph below, and there are some very direct and a few subtle elements within your text. Accordingly, the responses or comments will be inserted within your paragraph.
R: I feel I stumble there. Though my connection with you has given me a huge expectation, and yet … having no experience with this, whatever it is, … Phenomenon of a wakeful second attention experience, I don’t know.
M: As said and emphasized, it cannot be a ‘belief’ system but rather an experience system. Heisenberg accurately projected, based on his vision of quantum mechanics, that the act of observation alters the result of what is being observed! There have been several hard-science experiments that demonstrate this, and I’ll write about one at the end of this letter just to provide an example. Okay, now you are motivated to become “an observer” (in DJM-speak, a stalker). How are you going to approach activating this motivation? With doubt as a bias, or with objectivity that would allow whatever will happen TO happen – what ever is to be learned TO be learned; and what ever is to be experienced TO BE actualized into experience.? Certainly, it’s up to you and impeccability for me requires that I do my best to emphasize the point above. The only thing that you’ve got to loose is the ignorance of non-experience.