Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

M: You’re welcome!

————–

More to come … let me know what you think about it. – Rick

Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge – Part lV

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 four of the dialogue. It continues where part 3 left off. Here.

—————–

R: I’m beginning to work on compiling our E-mails for inclusion with the Castaneda compilation.

M: Since our dialogue is personally applied to you, between us, perhaps a combination might be effective. The intent is as a facilitation for you to really probe yourself. You, in previous times, have spent a considerable amount of effort studying and condensing CC’s writings as an aid to understand yourself. My concern was that although there had been a grand amount of book-studying, the application to self required invocation and execution, building in a systemic approach into your whole being. Since this occurred in the past re CC’s writings, I have a low level of concern that it may happen with my efforts, although it is wholly understood that this is very different because it isn’t theoretical per se, but directly applied to you. Just to “oversell” the point, it’s extraordinarily important that you really “work” through these exchanges and incorporate them and the inserted-writing will no doubt assist. That’s why, in sum, I’d rather suggest that you make a stand-alone effort with the suggested insert approach, because over reliance on re-reading the CC pieces could cause a reversion to more book learning rather that application-to-being.

—————

R: Perhaps I owe it to my mom to … (story removed)

M: Ah, it is necessary that you own nothing to anyone in any real personal term (money is not a personal term – it is another component of petty tyrants). The only person that impeccability drives you to owe anything to, is yourself. YOU must be the “most” important person in your life, because everything else derives from that base point of reference.

M: The goal is that you love yourself unconditionally. Please contemplate that. If (and when) you accomplish this feat, then you can truly love unconditionally (something to think about).

————-

R: (story cut) … so the government has transferred 5 trillion dollars in 40 years from the producers of this country to the hand out crowd.

M: I love it when you talk like that! In Ayn Rand terms, they’re called “the looters”! (Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, is required reading for my “professional” (involved in engineering) proteges)! We have a great deal in common!

M: You basically have some of the same “Impulse Reflex” that I used to have a long time ago, so I understand it. There are, of course, (and not to disappoint you by being silent – ) some very significant elements to consider related to this “reflex”.

M: Why is it there? Yes, “justice” and “fairness” when it is not uniformly applied, tend intrinsically to “offend” those of us who have fairness as a credo. However, when it is NOT applied fairly, what “is the appropriate” response FROM us? Certainly, “reflexive responses” are basically a primordial early stage of evolution impulse: the emotional equivalent of dodging out of the way of a thrown rock! The contemplation within one seeking the way would be to discover (probably through recapitulation) why, and IF, the response is disproportionately intense given the situation. If it is found to indeed BE disproportionate, then energy (through emotions) is indeed being squandered through needless emotional reflex, and ultimately that would violate impeccability in that wasted energy is caused by impacts that have not been resolved in the process of recapitulation. In observation, these imprints toward responses are formed in very early, pre-teen, childhood. Questions that one could ask self, other than the above, include: Is it self-importance based?; Is the response a “fear” of being constricted? or, constrained?; and, why, from what derivative?

R: And I’ve often marveled at it in the moments afterward, amazed that I so easily “snap.” Even walking down the street, if I perceive that someone walking toward me isn’t allowing me “my fair side space,” I immediately fill with contempt for that person. But so quickly afterwards I chide myself for not being as don Juan in the story of the young boy who runs into the old man in the market. The young boy is angry that the old man didn’t watch where he was going while the old man marveled at the forces of the universe that had this young man and he make contact.

M: Clearly, you understand the processes and significance of the problem, and to this point don’t necessarily understand ‘the why’ of the response. Chiding self, of it’s nature, may signal that a problem is known that might be further understood through recapitulation. Responses such as these are usually a long term intrinsic characteristic that were initially based in some situation a very long time ago in an individual’s history.

R: So, I find myself somewhat ashamed that, knowing this story, I still loose control in that way. And yet, I know that that is all in the past (until it happens again in the present) and that when I am “being present” I can glide through the same experiences “detached.” That is what counts and relaying it to you was for your information.

M: It is appropriate for me to attempt to provide some impetus for you to explore the derivatives, through asking questions that only you can answer for yourself.

R: Also note that I have found it important to write and send this before checking to see if you’ve responded. A little more self-importance there and wanting to “look good.” Sort of like when I caught the teacher catching me cheating and I went up to the desk and turned myself in, claiming that I just couldn’t go through with it. Here I’m wanting to confess before you “catch me.”

M: The tendency you displayed toward the subject of this discussion, was well understood and perceived long ago in our dialogue: nothing new. The “source” within your history is not known, and the tendency IS known, so the questions raised are not to be responses to me, and may not be the limitation of the internal investigation for yourself, but responses for you yourself. Hastily added, “looking good,” particularly in a new relationship is observed to be a typical human form response and it’s certain that this is understood, however what is seen, perceived, and was early in the dialogue, is simply ‘knowledge’, and there are no surprises in this example.

R: I’ve not read, nor do I know anything about (other that what you’ve told me) about Ayn Rand.

M: Ayn Rand was a philosopher, and she commented primarily on the relationship between individuals and society. You are urged to read her in this sequence.

M: a. Atlas Shrugged. A difficult book, over 1,000 pages. It takes about 250 pages to set the characters. It has been in continuous publication for about 42 years. About 8 years ago, CNN/Time did a societal survey, and included in this was a question “what book has most influenced your life?”. Of those who said that they read books, about 65 percent responded “The Bible”. About 30 percent responded “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. In the late 50’s she was controversial, as anyone who speaks the truth is, and Ayn Rand discussion groups dotted the nation. There were bumper stickers seen all over with the words “Who is John Galt?,” a question in the theme of the book meaning “what the heck, it can’t be known”.

M: Note: In this book Rand setup a social situation that basically did come true about 20 years after publication, making her book prophetic. In about 1972 she was invited to give a graduation speech to the graduating class at the Military Academy at West Point. Thousands of people showed up for the speech, overwhelming the facility.

M: b. “The Fountainhead,” published in the early ’40’s and in continuous publication for over 55 years. This early work discusses the relationships between individuals.

M: c. “For The New Intellectual,” one of her final books, and short. The main purpose of reading this book is the first 60 pages, only, because it’s largely the text of the speech at West Point. The remainder of the book are simply excerpts from her other books.

R: And while on the subject, would you recommend any of the Castaneda group books? I’ve only read his.

M: Taisha Abelar wrote a book called “The Sorcerer’s Crossing”. The first part of the book “sounds” like it was written by herself, but the last part “sounds” and feels like CC wrote it. It focuses a great deal on her transformation – through recapitulation, otherwise it’s much just DJM/CC speak.