Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

R: You’ve experienced it from very early, but imagine not knowing it at all and only having read some wild descriptions. While I’ve long been attracted to the don Juan reasoning and now to yours, and it does make sense to me, there is still the doubt. I think it is partly because I’ve not had much success in turning off the internal dialogue.

M: It can only be suggested that you explore your source of doubt, and it’s probably an extension of something from early childhood. There is no doubt, somewhere, you were ‘tagged’ (using the analogy from earlier) by something or someone, at some time. Perhaps in your early years you blurted out something that “you knew” and were chastised for it. Perhaps you saw or perceived something that scared you. Perhaps, rather unfortunately but accurately, you (as many of us have been) have observed humans saying that “they have the power – come follow me (and bring your wallet)” and have been SO turned off by the plethora of these that it’s become systemic within you.

M: All that is really required is that these ‘whatevers’ as suppositions (grin) above be exposed to be biases which are in turn the antithesis of objectivity. All that is really required is to drop these veils and allow what is already within yourself to be free into exploration. Book reading, or Michael reading, won’t accomplish that because these are only facilitations. Many times I feel very much like the Jodie Foster character in the movie “Contact” who has vast experiences but they mean nothing, zippo, zero, to those who have not had the experiences.

R: Though I must say, having met you, I have more success while walking in intending listening, and that seems similar to turning off the internal dialogue. I’ve read the CC books countless times and heard my tapes of the compilation probably 1000 times, and yet, do you know that, with all the repeated description of the second attention experience, I have not a clue as to what it is like. And so my grounding in pure reason is magnamic (a word I just made up combining magnanimous and gigantic) … and all I have to base you on is my sense that no one could write the way you do without being in the second attention and having it flowing through you from some great source. It is too pure to be anything else.

M: The acceptance is of course, appreciated. This can only be YOUR agenda, not anyone else’s. You would be amazed how ‘close’ you really are to a breakthrough and while that might seem provocative, it’s “only” a perception. Something that fascinates me (and many-many things do – by the way, I really like your coined word) is that somehow second or third attention experiences do not seem to fall within the boundaries of “reason”, or for that matter, “grounded reason”.

M: Phooey!

M: Knowledge, and the ability to gain knowledge, is the essence of reason! CC/DJM called this process “the way of knowledge”, not the “way of magic that no one could experience based on a religious belief system”! More phooey!

R: And I am at the same time disgusted with myself for knowing that and not being able to experience it myself, and thrilled that it is being directed to me. I truly don’t know what else to do. As you say, I can re read your notes and more will open, well … I suppose I am relegated to that and I will do it without judgement as best I can.

M: There is no doubt that ‘the way’ will open to you, and all you have to really do is just open up yourself, feel in quietude and peace, drop the veils of boundaries and protections. Another fascination is that people think that they have to work, in the sense of expending energy, to gain the peace that facilitates opening the gateways to knowledge – like it could be forced. It opens, you open, by passively intending to perceive, to feel, in peace and objectivity, and it can open in any environment whatever.

—————-

M: Re Heisenberg/quantum mechanics, the act of observation alters the result of that being observed. One “pure” attempt at demonstrating this was a famous “lensing” experiment (my words for description) with subatomic particles. Without going into all the details, and using a few analogues and metaphors for description while still being accurate, the process is described.

M: Suppose one could “isolate” an electron. It has been observed in science that electrons always come in pairs (more evidence of symmetry in nature). Of the pair, one electron spins in one direction (like counterclockwise) and it’s pair spins in the opposing direction (this is now called up-spin, and down-spin). Suppose that the two electrons could be isolated and suspended, and that the isolation occurred between the electrons as well as from their environment. This was accomplished, and a field of energy was applied to ONE of the electrons to reverse it’s spin. The force of the energy did indeed reverse the spin of the electron targeted. The “pair” electron, remaining in isolation, did NOT have a force applied. It was just observed. Surprise: the non-impacted and isolated electron reversed is spin. Science does not have a clue why or how, but it did.

M: There was an experiment performed with a heart surgery patient, by memory in Chicago area. The rhythmic beating of a heart muscle occurs at the cellular level as well at the whole organ level. If one collects a few cells of a beating heart, the cells themselves, cut away from the host heart, actually electrically and mechanically maintain the same beating sequence. The heart-bypass patient had some heart cells removed and taken several miles away to be monitored during the heart-transplant operation at a remote location. In the process of the surgery, it is required that the heart be stopped then restarted by electric shock. The remote isolated heart cells, removed from the heart and taken several miles (by memory, seven miles) away from the patient, reacted to the stop and the jolt of restart as if they were still within the body of the host heart.

M: Back to the “lensing” experiment to provide some indication if Heisenberg might have been correct. The experiment setup a flow of particles. Although I remember that they were electrons, my memory might be flawed. The particles were “aimed” at what might be called a “lens” or “wedge”. The stream of the particles was in centerline with “the wedge” such that there would be an randomly equal opportunity for the path they took to either go right or left. The experiment was setup so that the path would be recorded automatically by detectors, without human observation in real time. The recorded “after the fact” data indicated that yes, indeed, the particles randomly propagated either left or right of the wedge, with equal probability in time or quantity distribution.

M: Subsequently, with significant quantified data of the intrinsic randomness of the experiment, the experiments were re-performed, this time with humans directly observing the “action” as it occurred. There was a dramatic change in the result: the electrons would propagate dramatically either to the right, or to the left, with significant distribution and alteration of the original results, and, the decision about going right or left, was depending on the exact individual person observing the result.

M: A professor at Cornell University, a couple of years ago, decided to test the theory of work-function derived from the mental focus of people. He setup experiments like fine streams of water, and measured the path of the stream while human observers stared at the path and attempted to move it. They did. A mild form of telekinesis was proven.

M: Some colleagues of mine at (snip) wanted to explore the possibility of energy projected from humans. They didn’t have a clue what to look for, or what the metric might be, however, they had a concept: if a field involving electron (like an electromagnetic field) propagation is possible from humans, then although they might not know how or what to measure, perhaps it was possible that the human-derived field would interact with another “known” electromagnetic field. In this manner, they considered, they could continually measure the lab-setup “known” field to see if humans could displace or alter the field. They even connected with a local para-psychological/metaphysical group, including “healers” to learn if “healers” had more energy available than others. To make a long story short, the result was yes, that humans could displace and alter “known” lab set up fields, and that healers had far more ability to do so, on will and direction, than “normal” people.

M: You might want to revisit the piece that I copied you that was extracted from the dialogue with the apprentice in (snip).

—————

R: Thank you, once again. I look forward to today and will write tonight, if not sooner.