11-25-2007, 05:27 PM
"So why do you suppose that the New Seers (or New Seer wannabes like me) are not interested in sorcery? i can't say that i concretely know what sorcery is so i can't say that it's something i desire if i were to desire anything."
From my simple understanding of it, I'd say the New Seers (warriors who see) saw that sorcery did not lead to freedom. The Old Seers (sorcerers who may or may not see) were caught up in fixating the awareness of their fellow men to manipulate them - they were interested in power; New Seers are interested in freedom, and thus emphasized the practices of stalking, dreaming and intent. That's my understanding from The Fire From Within.
But from my personal understanding, I'd say anyone who sees must already know that we are already free. Our imprisonment is merely conceptual. It begins with the concept of "I". But "I" and "imprisonment" are just concepts; they have no actual independant existence. You can think about them, but you can't hold them in your hands or see them or be them. Freedom has no requirements. It is not a condition or a state. It is the ground of being in which all thoughts, conditions and states arise in.
"From what i understand, the most important part of the Warrior/Seer/Sorcerer trifecta is the Warrior part. The Way of the Warrior is connected to saving enough energy to get to the Seeing part."
That was my understanding too, until recently. I guess I assumed that because so much attention was given to becoming a warrior in the books. But now I think that that is because CC didn't see for so long. Until one sees, it is necessary to stress the way of the warrior. But DJ also had this to say:
"It is my commitment to teach you to see. Not because I personally want to do so, but because you were chosen by Mescalito. I am compelled by my personal desire, however, to teach you to feel and act like a warrior. I personally believe that to be a warrior is more suitable than anything else. Therefore I have endeavored to show you those forces as a sorcerer perceives them, because only under their terrifying impact can one become a warrior. To see without first being a warrior would make you weak; it would give you false meekness, a desire to retreat; your body would decay because you would become indifferent. It is my personal commitment to make you a warrior so you won't crumble."
I guess I have to agree with that. Whatever success I've had with seeing has come only after many years of self-observation and tightening up my life. I didn't see the connection before because I haven't worked on myself in order to see. Seeing wasn't my goal. I just didn't want to live unconsciously and sleep through life. So there's no way for me to step outside of my life and say this is or isn't a result of that. But with the evidence at hand, I wouldn't de-emphasize becoming a warrior prematurely, but I am now aware that seeing surpasses all that.
For the record, I'm not seeing people as luminous eggs if that's the qualification for seeing. But I've seen the void nature of all things and I've seen the absence of any ego-self, especially as the "center of the world", and this has allowed me to perceive the equality of all things and thus their unimportance. To me, that is more essential to freedom (if we pretend that freedom has essentials) than seeing luminous eggs which can become an achievement which one can gain or profit from: "If I see their luminosity, I'll be able to read their thoughts/energy or manipulate their assemblage point, etc." Without anyone to gain something, what does it matter if one sees a body of flesh or a body of light? If "that which is" is bodies of light, then I'll see that. But for now "that which is" is bodies of flesh.
I understand the "unit of cognition" called "freeing up energy to be able to see", but I just don't know if it makes sense to me anymore. What makes more sense to me right now is freeing myself of concepts. It's concepts that seem to hinder our perception; to be a cloud in our sky of naked awareness. So it falls again on whether we want 'seeing' to be "seeing energy bodies" or "seeing what is". As a non-dualist, I'd say that seeing energy bodies isn't happening in my present awareness, so it must become something I strive for and will attain in the future... but then my now is fractured, an "I" has arisen and a "not-I" (energy bodies) and then all is lost (you know the game, right?).
As a warrior, DJ says "The spirit of a warrior is geared only to struggle." And struggling for the ability to see would be a great goal. But struggling only reinforces the sense of "I". Could that really be his intent? Or is language so limited that he has to say "struggle" but he doesn't mean an "I" struggling?
Questions seem to create more confusion.
The "I" that wants something - be it seeing, enlightenment, freedom... - assumes knowledge, assumes "otherness", assumes that it is lacking and that there is something other than itself, other than the present moment, that will create fulfillment. I cannot agree with these assumptions. My ability to perceive reality directly does not confirm these assumptions.
Sorry if I seem to stray from orthodox nagualism (is there such a thing :lol: ). There is so much in common with non-duality, but maybe I'll find I can't reconcile the two. But here's another common point:
DJ says that we are perceivers and that is a "given", but what we perceive is not a "given". The non-dualists say something similar. They say the only thing one can confirm is that "I am" or that we are aware. No one can say "I am not" or "I do not exist". So we are aware, but what we are aware OF is different, not a "given".
So the non-dualists and zen leave it at that. That's all that can be known for certain, so rest in that naked awareness... it is your source.
The Toltecs are more complex. They say that we are perceivers, but what we perceive is a description, one of a million... but then they go on to say "exchange your old items of perception for these new sorcerers' items of perception. Perceive your self-importance; perceive energy bodies; perceive the concept "freedom"; perceive Old seers and New seers as different... but from naked awareness we can see they are the same - one strives for power, the other for freedom, but the striver is the same in each case.
Anyway, they agree on the one basic fact of existence: I perceive, I am aware, but the contents of perception/awareness are folly/lila.
They respond to this one basic fact differently, however. The warrior says, "Let's control our folly." And the non-dualist says, "If folly is what is happening then it is what is. There's no need for me to identify with it or think about it in any way."
Maybe I just identified the difference... the warrior says "it's all play, so let's play!" and the non-dualist says "it's all play, so let's witness the impersonal unfolding of the play."
I could be wrong. I don't mean to misrepresent anyone. This is my current understanding of these two traditions.
From my simple understanding of it, I'd say the New Seers (warriors who see) saw that sorcery did not lead to freedom. The Old Seers (sorcerers who may or may not see) were caught up in fixating the awareness of their fellow men to manipulate them - they were interested in power; New Seers are interested in freedom, and thus emphasized the practices of stalking, dreaming and intent. That's my understanding from The Fire From Within.
But from my personal understanding, I'd say anyone who sees must already know that we are already free. Our imprisonment is merely conceptual. It begins with the concept of "I". But "I" and "imprisonment" are just concepts; they have no actual independant existence. You can think about them, but you can't hold them in your hands or see them or be them. Freedom has no requirements. It is not a condition or a state. It is the ground of being in which all thoughts, conditions and states arise in.
"From what i understand, the most important part of the Warrior/Seer/Sorcerer trifecta is the Warrior part. The Way of the Warrior is connected to saving enough energy to get to the Seeing part."
That was my understanding too, until recently. I guess I assumed that because so much attention was given to becoming a warrior in the books. But now I think that that is because CC didn't see for so long. Until one sees, it is necessary to stress the way of the warrior. But DJ also had this to say:
"It is my commitment to teach you to see. Not because I personally want to do so, but because you were chosen by Mescalito. I am compelled by my personal desire, however, to teach you to feel and act like a warrior. I personally believe that to be a warrior is more suitable than anything else. Therefore I have endeavored to show you those forces as a sorcerer perceives them, because only under their terrifying impact can one become a warrior. To see without first being a warrior would make you weak; it would give you false meekness, a desire to retreat; your body would decay because you would become indifferent. It is my personal commitment to make you a warrior so you won't crumble."
I guess I have to agree with that. Whatever success I've had with seeing has come only after many years of self-observation and tightening up my life. I didn't see the connection before because I haven't worked on myself in order to see. Seeing wasn't my goal. I just didn't want to live unconsciously and sleep through life. So there's no way for me to step outside of my life and say this is or isn't a result of that. But with the evidence at hand, I wouldn't de-emphasize becoming a warrior prematurely, but I am now aware that seeing surpasses all that.
For the record, I'm not seeing people as luminous eggs if that's the qualification for seeing. But I've seen the void nature of all things and I've seen the absence of any ego-self, especially as the "center of the world", and this has allowed me to perceive the equality of all things and thus their unimportance. To me, that is more essential to freedom (if we pretend that freedom has essentials) than seeing luminous eggs which can become an achievement which one can gain or profit from: "If I see their luminosity, I'll be able to read their thoughts/energy or manipulate their assemblage point, etc." Without anyone to gain something, what does it matter if one sees a body of flesh or a body of light? If "that which is" is bodies of light, then I'll see that. But for now "that which is" is bodies of flesh.
I understand the "unit of cognition" called "freeing up energy to be able to see", but I just don't know if it makes sense to me anymore. What makes more sense to me right now is freeing myself of concepts. It's concepts that seem to hinder our perception; to be a cloud in our sky of naked awareness. So it falls again on whether we want 'seeing' to be "seeing energy bodies" or "seeing what is". As a non-dualist, I'd say that seeing energy bodies isn't happening in my present awareness, so it must become something I strive for and will attain in the future... but then my now is fractured, an "I" has arisen and a "not-I" (energy bodies) and then all is lost (you know the game, right?).
As a warrior, DJ says "The spirit of a warrior is geared only to struggle." And struggling for the ability to see would be a great goal. But struggling only reinforces the sense of "I". Could that really be his intent? Or is language so limited that he has to say "struggle" but he doesn't mean an "I" struggling?
Questions seem to create more confusion.
The "I" that wants something - be it seeing, enlightenment, freedom... - assumes knowledge, assumes "otherness", assumes that it is lacking and that there is something other than itself, other than the present moment, that will create fulfillment. I cannot agree with these assumptions. My ability to perceive reality directly does not confirm these assumptions.
Sorry if I seem to stray from orthodox nagualism (is there such a thing :lol: ). There is so much in common with non-duality, but maybe I'll find I can't reconcile the two. But here's another common point:
DJ says that we are perceivers and that is a "given", but what we perceive is not a "given". The non-dualists say something similar. They say the only thing one can confirm is that "I am" or that we are aware. No one can say "I am not" or "I do not exist". So we are aware, but what we are aware OF is different, not a "given".
So the non-dualists and zen leave it at that. That's all that can be known for certain, so rest in that naked awareness... it is your source.
The Toltecs are more complex. They say that we are perceivers, but what we perceive is a description, one of a million... but then they go on to say "exchange your old items of perception for these new sorcerers' items of perception. Perceive your self-importance; perceive energy bodies; perceive the concept "freedom"; perceive Old seers and New seers as different... but from naked awareness we can see they are the same - one strives for power, the other for freedom, but the striver is the same in each case.
Anyway, they agree on the one basic fact of existence: I perceive, I am aware, but the contents of perception/awareness are folly/lila.
They respond to this one basic fact differently, however. The warrior says, "Let's control our folly." And the non-dualist says, "If folly is what is happening then it is what is. There's no need for me to identify with it or think about it in any way."
Maybe I just identified the difference... the warrior says "it's all play, so let's play!" and the non-dualist says "it's all play, so let's witness the impersonal unfolding of the play."
I could be wrong. I don't mean to misrepresent anyone. This is my current understanding of these two traditions.