Hora: 23-Jul-2018, 06:54 AM ¡Hola, Invitado! (Iniciar sesiónRegístrate)

sorcery vs. seeing
Autor Mensaje
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #1
sorcery vs. seeing
I began re-reading CC's books with an intention to notice any similarities with non-duality, and I came across something I'd overlooked before, or at least it didn't have an impact on me (i.e. I didn't have enough personal power to utilize it then).

DJ specifically says that seeing is contrary to sorcery, and that all the instructions for living as a warrior are only for those who don't see.

Here are some quotes from A Seperate Reality (these may not be word-for-word, I'm taking them from my notes):

"If a man sees, he doesn't have to live like a warrior, or live like anything else, for he can see things as they really are and direct his life accordingly."

After a lengthy description of a warrior developing awareness of death, detachment, mastering the power of decisions, coming to patience and then waiting for one's will, he says:
"A man can go further than will. A man can see. And seeing, he no longer needs to live like a warrior or be a sorcerer. By seeing, he becomes everything by becoming nothing. He vanishes and yet he is there. He can be or get anything he desires, but he desires nothing, and instead of playing with his fellow men like toys, he meets them in the midst of their folly. The only difference is a man who sees controls his folly while his fellow men can't."

"Seeing is contrary to sorcery. Seeing makes one realise the unimportance of it all."

He also says that seeing is an independant entity from sorcery. There are sorcerers who never learn to see but who manipulate reality quite well. And there are seers not interested in manipulating anything (which sounds like non-duality to me).

That was the one biting question for me after getting acquainted with non-duality...
They say, and I have seen, that there is no "I" who does anything... that the "I" is an object and can't be a doer, that it is being done. That there is no choice or free will...
I could see this, but then I also know that I have used my will and manipulated reality. One specific example of when I've done this is in raising the kundalini serpent. I visualised it coiled at the first chakra and watched and intended it to rise through my other energy centers... I saw it red and on fire... I pulled it up with my will. After an hour or so of this visualising, intending and dancing, I had red marks on my back following the path the serpent had taken, and my chest was also flushed in red. I was "ill" for the next few days. I could barely walk, my hips were so sore, not from dancing but from the kundalini burning through the first and second chakra areas. Anyway, I know this event would not have happened to me at that time if I had not been present willing it to happen.
So I thought I might resolve this apparent dispute somewhere in CC's system, and I feel I'm beginning to.
24-Nov-2007 02:19 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
BratscheWarrior Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 446
Registro en: Sep 2006
Mensaje: #2
sorcery vs. seeing
That is true, once you see, you don't have to be a warrior. By that time, acting like a warrior is second nature and all you have to do is to follow the dictates of the Spirit.

So what is sorcery?
24-Nov-2007 05:25 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #3
sorcery vs. seeing
"The world is indeed full of frightening things and we are helpless creatures surrounded by forces that are inexplicable and unbending. The average man, in ignorance, believes that those forces can be explained or changed; he doesn't really know how to do that, but he expects the actions of mankind will explain them or change them sooner or later.
The sorcerer, on the other hand, does not think of explaining or changing them; instead he learns to use such forces by redirecting himself and adapting to their direction. That's his trick. There is very little to sorcery once you find out its trick. A sorcerer is only slightly better off than the average man. Sorcery does not help him to live a better life; in fact, I should say that sorcery hinders him; it makes his life cumbersome, precarious. By opening hmself to knowledge a sorcerer becomes more vulnerable than the average man... A sorcerer has only one means of balancing himself, his will. Thus he must feel and act like a warrior. Only as a warrior can one survive the path of knowledge. What helps a sorcerer live a better life is the strength of being a warrior."

"Sorcery is to apply one's will to a key joint. Sorcery is interference. A sorcerer searches and finds the key joint of anything he wants to affect and then he applies his will to it. A sorcerer doesn't have to see to be a sorcerer, all he has to know is how to use his will."
24-Nov-2007 09:02 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
BratscheWarrior Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 446
Registro en: Sep 2006
Mensaje: #4
sorcery vs. seeing
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 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.
24-Nov-2007 11:21 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #5
sorcery vs. seeing
"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. Big Grin
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.
25-Nov-2007 06:27 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
BratscheWarrior Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 446
Registro en: Sep 2006
Mensaje: #6
sorcery vs. seeing
Cita:
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.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. We are not free. We are not free. We are not free. In all the time that i've been on this Path, i have observed how everyone (including myself) has been programmed to act in certain ways. Ways that we would consider Uncontrolled Folly. You said about the non-dualists (whoever they are):

"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."

Now how naive is that? Thinking that Uncontrolled Folly is acceptable. This is the attitude of the average man. Accepting that things can't change. Accepting that it is desirable to be a stooge. To be an average man. Why accept events whose outcomes are a product of what is less than our best? Jeez, i encounter this attitude every day. The slogan of the average man is "Be Mediocre."

Our slogan? "Get the best out of every situation." Or even simpler, "Save Energy". That is the rule.
25-Nov-2007 11:17 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #7
sorcery vs. seeing
Well I did say that anyone who sees would know that we are already free.
You are thinking about being programmed so you are not seeing. Only by thinking do you become aware of items called "controlled folly" and "uncontrolled folly".
I agree that we are programmed. I don't agree that that makes us not-free. Everything that happens happens in the field of freedom. We are free to program and be programmed. We are free to control and not control our folly.
In other words, is not the island of the tonal existing in the infinite ocean of the nagual? Could the tonal appear if it were not for the ground of being that is the nagual? Is the nagual not free? Is the tonal not springing from the source of unconditional freedom?


Non-dualists are also known by the names Advaita (which means "not-two") and also zen would be considered non-dual... J. Krishnamurti... anyone who claims "all is consciousness" is stating a fact of non-duality... some aspects of yoga focus on non-duality... Gautama Buddha taught non-duality, but I wouldn't say buddhism is non-dual necessarily.


Naive: from the Latin Nativus meaning "natural"
unaffectedly simple, artless, unsophisticated.

Sophism: from the Greek Sophos meaning "clever"
a clever and plausible but fallacious argument.

Sophistry: misleading but clever reasoning.


I think you hit the nail on the head. Naive is the perfect word for zen's natural mind. And sophistication is a good word for the thinking mind.


Thinking that something is acceptable or unacceptable is just thinking. Do you think you can change something by thinking about it? Whether you think folly is acceptable or unacceptable doesn't change the basic fact that it is what is. I never said it is acceptable. You introduced that concept. I'm saying it is - that's all. Direct perception that folly is is nothing like thinking that it is acceptable. The concepts "acceptable" and "unacceptable" require an ego. Direct perception doesn't. "Stooge", "average", "less than our best", etc... all concepts... all ego... nothing to do with reality or the impersonal world of a warrior-seer.

By seeing every situation as complete in itself, perfect in its imperfection, one saves more energy than anyone trying to "get the best out of it". We're on par with the world and its situations. I'm certainly not trying to capitalise on anything.

Unnecessarily labelling things isn't saving you energy. Having opinions doesn't save energy. Trying to deny what is certainly doesn't save energy. Apparently, a rule is something that you don't take seriously. Or maybe you're taking it too seriously?
What if you meet someone who doesn't have any rules? Will you call them a fool or a sage?
26-Nov-2007 01:38 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
BratscheWarrior Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 446
Registro en: Sep 2006
Mensaje: #8
sorcery vs. seeing
Have you read the little story on the Cleargreen site for the new workshop? In case you haven't, here it is. When Carlos Castaneda asks about freedom, ask yourself (after reading the whole thing of course), "Am i really free?"

The nagual Carlos Castaneda, Florinda Donner-Grau and two apprentices were at a local eatery having lunch. A romantic song, a ranchera was playing in the background and Carlos Castaneda, smiling, said: "Great omen! Let's talk about love. That's what all of us want, isn't it? We want luuuuuuve."
The apprentices giggled, and squirmed in their chairs.
"C'mon put it on the table," the nagual continued. "You'll never be free if you don't. But first we have to know what our story is. We want to be free to feel what true love is, affection without investment."
He turned to the young woman. "You've been recapitulating a great deal. What do you think is your story?"
"Well, I did all I could to try to please men, so they would love me. My mother did the same. One example was with one man, I did everything for him. I cooked for him, I did all the housecleaning, "I tried to please him sexually," she said in a whisper to Florinda, then she raised her voice again. "I even paid some of his bills. And he left anyway..."
"That happened to me," interrupted the young man.
"Really?" the nagual said. "Tell us."
"Well, there was this woman; I realize now that we were really made for each other…I really loved her. I even showed my feelings to her; and it was not enough. She left me! I couldn't believe it."
"Why did she leave?" the nagual asked, eyes sparkling.
"I don't really know…she never"—
Just then, there was a shattering sound behind the young man, the sound of glass breaking at a nearby table, and a woman's voice: "You've got to be kidding! You've got another woman and you expect me to stay with you? When were you gonna tell me?"
The man who was sitting at the table with her responded defensively, "Look, you've got to understand, I didn't tell you because I was thinking of you, I just wanted to protect you."
Suddenly the woman realized the whole restaurant was looking, and rushed out crying.
The two apprentices were open-mouthed. Florinda's eyes were beaming.
"Whoa," the nagual said quietly, as the people in the restaurant tried to resume their lunches. "Fighting to defend our secrets. Whoo,"—he said, giving a shiver.
"So," he said, returning his attention to the young male apprentice, "is there anything you are leaving out of your story?"
"Well, I had other women, but my girlfriend didn't need to know that! "Hunh!" the nagual grunted. "And you call that love?"
The young man seemed not to hear. "My father did the same, and my grandfather before him! And my mother and grandmother seemed to accept it. It runs in the family! Anyway, nagual, isn't that what freedom is about? Getting past the noxious aspects of socialization, not being tied down?"
"Ay, you're very clever, caballero," the nagual said. "Clever for yourself. Yes, freedom is getting past the noxious aspects of socialization, like hiding, or trying to manipulate other people, or assuming you're entitled to get out of certain responsibilities because of your gender; if you perceive energy directly, which is what don Juan said that freedom is, it will lead you to perceive and participate in the evolutionary aspects of socialization, such as cultivating a finely tuned awareness of your impact on others."
"How could freedom be self-serving?" he continued. "That's slavery—a nightmare. Freedom is freedom from judgment, freedom from our socialized expectations, not freedom from responsibilities; in fact, I'm sorry to tell you, freedom brings new responsibilities—you are more aware, therefore you cannot hide from what you know—and integrity requires you to act on that new knowledge. A warrior-traveler is willing to put his life on the line to act and communicate in a way that honors the Spirit—in himself and in others."
"What you were doing," he continued, "is not freedom; it's imitating the worst aspects of your lineage, such as keeping secrets to further your own agenda. And it's not just men doing this; they find women who like to go along with this, even support it, true Florinda?"
"True!" Florinda said. "Women who cater to men who don't want to commit, making excuses for them, settling for a few crumbs of affection, because they feel unworthy of real affection—like in your story, true?" she said to the young woman.
"True," she replied.
"Or women who expect the man to take care of them," Florinda continued, "because they think they're not capable of doing that themselves—and then they want to blame the man for not making them happy! Or we have women who are trying to act like men, making conquests. Or trying to steal someone else's man. And in all these cases, they are giving their power away to men, and fighting to defend their right to do so!"
"Does any of this sound like freedom to you?" the nagual asked.
"No it doesn't," the apprentices mumbled.
"Freedom is our birthright," the nagual continued, "and yet it has to be earned, by polishing our links with our lineage, so that we can embody and evolve its excellent parts. As it is, you're trapped in the fixed assemblage point of the human form: the glossed-over parts of your inheritance."
"Don Juan told me that if we want to get out of this fixation, we have to stop wasting the best energy we have, energy from here," the nagual said, making a sweeping gesture that indicated the area below his navel all the way down to his feet. "The lower disks! We use this energy to hide, to seek comfort, to struggle for power, or to feel overpowered—whatever is familiar, whatever makes us feel certain, or secure—and above all, whatever keeps us from questioning our acts."
He paused and looked at the apprentices intently.
"Don Juan said that a thorough recapitulation of our stories related to the area of the lower disks can free us from the human form, and lead us instead to embody human possibility—the sublime essence of our lineage, of human beings," he continued. "It can bring us the energy and the awareness to ask, without judging anybody: 'Am I living the dream, or the nightmare, of my lineage? Am I nightmaring alone? Or am I dreaming with it—with infinity, with the Spirit.'"
27-Nov-2007 02:51 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
ensonar Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 624
Registro en: Apr 2006
Mensaje: #9
sorcery vs. seeing
Thank you for posting that!
27-Nov-2007 05:06 PM
Visita su sitio web Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #10
sorcery vs. seeing
No, I hadn't read that. Thank you for providing it.

If you want me to read that, and then agree that those are the rules and requirements of freedom, and then ask myself, according to those rules, am I free? Then the answer is, "no".

But listen to me carefully, and sincerely... I am not playing games with you or myself nor finding solace in mere words.... if we must agree to those rules and requirements, if we have to fit into them and say "this is the only reality"... BratscheWarrior, don't you see that no one is free? You gave me a box to squeeze my infinity into, and then you said, "now do you feel free?" lol!


Now, conversely, I've told you that all requirements, conditions, thinking and boxes are only conceptually real, and infinity is the actually real. If you agree to my description, can you honestly tell me you are not free?

You've mistaken the conceptually real for the actually real... you write with the conviction that your description is not just a description... and so you believe that you are not free... but that doesn't make you actually not free.

So what good is that? What use is that? None whatsoever. Big Grin It is the mind that believes itself not free that asks and searches for use, for profit, for gain. You're free, that's all. It doesn't change anything. But please listen sincerely... it's the mind that thinks, that believes something needs to be changed. I assure you, this moment is complete, right now, already. There's nothing to add or take away from this infinity, this nothing. The mind still strives? Yes. Let it strive. That's what mind does. Does that necessitate that freedom is not because in this small portion of infinity there are minds striving? Didn't spirit/infinity reserve this small portion for just that? So that we could be free to experience that too? Everyone born here must, as infants and children, go through the programming that instills a sense of our identity as an individual seperate mind. That's not a bad thing. It's a function of the whole. It's necessary or it wouldn't be what is.


No, I don't expect my assurances to mean anything to you. I don't expect you to be free because I've told you you are. But maybe you won't be as certain as you were before.
It's not up to me or you. This is spirit's jurisdiction. Smile
27-Nov-2007 07:47 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #11
sorcery vs. seeing
Do you recall how we have to take the inventory, as a rule, as the Eagle's command, but then after we take it we can throw it away?

Well that's all I'm saying. Everyone in this portion of emanations has to acquire/develop a mind, but you don't have to worship it, or keep it. I'm saying it, and CC said it.

The inventory, as you'll recall, is the mind. DJ no longer had one. Recall also that the old inventory was replaced by the sorcerers' description, but that that too must eventually be thrown away. These are CC's teachings, not mine. But I realise them, so they're mine too. But they really belong to no one.

Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, we can say I'm prematurely insisting that your sorcerers' inventory is useless. But to say it's premature is to bow to time as if it's real.

I'm throwing all the rules out the window. This feels alright to me.

My best intent towards you, BratsheWarrior. Sincerely.
27-Nov-2007 08:04 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #12
sorcery vs. seeing
Why this concern over being free or not free?

Life is here, now.

Do we have any option but to live this present moment from right where we are, (wherever you place your feet, as DJ would say) whatever we call it? Why waste time naming the place where our feet are? Whatever we end up calling it, we're still going to have to take a step off of it eventually and plant our feet somewhere else. Then what will it matter what we named that old place?

It won't matter then, and it doesn't matter now. Life moves too fast for names.
27-Nov-2007 08:25 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
BratscheWarrior Sin conexión
Senior Member
****

Mensajes: 446
Registro en: Sep 2006
Mensaje: #13
sorcery vs. seeing
AHA! So you do agree that you aren't free according to Castaneda's view! You do tend to quote Don Juan Matus a lot so i assume you would take stock in what he says!!! So i am not squeezing you into a box, defined my reality. i am just using Castaneda's words to back up my puny ones.

You bring up the 'mind'. Which mind are you speaking of? If you are NOT free, you are still under flyer control. It is beinging a slave. Yes, we don't have to keep the flyer mind and yes it is desirable to rid oneself of it. But is that only a part of being free? Or is it the 3rd Attention? Or is it Seeing? Or all? But it definitely is not the flyer mind.

Why would you throw away the Sorcerer's Description? Isn't what we want to adopt for as long as we are here?

Why concern over being free? Because i want to experience the mysteries of this world. i am a perceiver. i am a traveler.
27-Nov-2007 10:46 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #14
sorcery vs. seeing
Actually, what I agreed to is that I'm not free according to ANY view. But you do not understand that views (partial) are not free (whole) by definition.

Castaneda is not my authority. I don't respect him any more than I do you. Your words are fine.

How many minds are you aware of? For me, as for CC, mind = inventory. There's just one. But if you want to describe several, I beieve I can adopt whatever syntax you'd like to use.


For a mind, freedom will always be in the future. It will always be something you're not. Drop the mind.

We would drop the sorcerers' description because it too is only a description. As long as there are descriptions or views, you miss the entirety, the totality. You are the totality. I suppose sorcerers do adopt it for as long as they're here. Do you want to be a sorcerer?

The mystery is right here. You don't have to fit into any conditions to perceive it. You're a perceiver, but you're busy thinking. Stop thinking and just perceive and the mystery will be apparent.

If you want to travel, that's fine. But you'll still be where you place your feet. The mystery isn't localized to just certain places or states of consciousness. Consciousness is the mystery - all of it. Right where you are is mystery. Isn't it a wonder that you can formulate thought? That you can operate a keyboard and interpret these symbols and give them meaning? Isn't that mysterious, or do you presume it to be ordinary?
28-Nov-2007 03:13 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #15
sorcery vs. seeing
In the introduction of Journey to Ixtlan, CC defines seeing as "responding to the perceptual solicitations of a world outside the description we have learned to call reality."

This is exactly how it is in non-duality. When the mind is not in the forefront and you are just perceiving the world without talking about it or describing any of it, your whole mode of functioning is purely sensory - what you see, hear, touch, smell and taste. That is the actual world. That is what CC calls "perceptual solicitations". They're solicitations because you're in silence until something engages one or more of your senses. Watch a dog - they respond to any noise or sound, they investigate any smells that hit their noses, they respond if you touch them... they're good teachers on responding to perceptual solicitations.

It's funny because in many spiritual circles or systems, the senses are looked upon as limitations. But if you just look at this, what else can there be when the mind has stopped?

The energy body? What is it? Could it be the hightened unified sensory input?

I'm not sure of the direct quote, but I recall somewhere else DJ saying that he never said seeing is done with the eyes alone. And something about engaging the entire body. When I find it, I'll post it.

Here's a quote from U.G. Krishnamurti:
"The natural state is not the state of a self-realized God-realized man, it is not a thing to be achieved or attained, it is not a thing to be willed into existence; it is there -- it is the living state. This state is just the functional activity of life. By 'life' I do not mean something abstract; it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. It has a profit motive: thought directs the activity of the senses to get something out of them, and uses them to give continuity to itself."
20-Dec-2007 02:49 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #16
sorcery vs. seeing
A bit more from U.G. Krishnamurti's "Mystique of Enlightenment", for those interested:

"Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- ordinator who is co-ordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense -- the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-ordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is co-ordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside (perceptual solicitation - true) which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-ordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the unco-ordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

Can this make any sense to you? It cannot. All that you know lies within the framework of your experience, which is of thought. This state is not an experience. I am only trying to give you a 'feel' of it, which is, unfortunately, misleading.

When there is no co-ordinator, there is no linking of sensations, there is no translating of sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations. I do not even know that they are sensations. I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving -- it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?"

What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought."



"There must be a living contact. If you walk out of the room, you disappear from my consciousness. Where you are, or why you are not here -- these questions do not arise. There are no images here -- there is no room for them -- the sensory apparatus is completely occupied with the things I am looking at now. There must be a living contact with those things that are in the room, not thoughts about things that are not here. And so, if you are totally 'tuned in' to the sensory activity, there is no room for fears about who will feed you tomorrow, or for speculation about God, Truth and Reality.

This is not a state of omniscience, wherein all of man's eternal questions are answered; rather it is a state in which the questioning has stopped. It has stopped because those questions have no relation to the way the organism is functioning, and the way the organism is functioning leaves no room for those questions (CC's 'inapplicability' - true)."
20-Dec-2007 03:14 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #17
sorcery vs. seeing
Uno mas! U.G. on the internal dialogue:

"You must always recognize what you are looking at, otherwise you are not there. The moment you translate, the 'you' is there. You look at something and recognize that it is a bag, a red bag. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. Why does thought interfere? And can you do anything about it? The moment you look at a thing, what comes inside of you is the word 'bag', if not bag', then 'bench' or 'bannister', 'step', "that man sitting there, he has white hair." It goes on and on -- you are repeating to yourself all the time. If you don't do that, you are preoccupied with something else: "I'm getting late for the office." You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at this moment, or else you are looking and saying to yourself "That's a bag, that's a red bag," and so on and so on -- that is all that is there. The word 'bag' separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the 'you'; otherwise there is no space between the two.

Every time a thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives continuity to this 'you' is the thinking. Actually there is no permanent entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You think that there is 'somebody' who is thinking your thoughts, 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings --- that's the illusion. I can say it is an illusion; but it is not an illusion to you.

Your emotions are more complex, but it is the same process. Why do you have to tell yourself that you are angry, that you are envious of someone else, or that sex is bothering you? I am not saying anything about fulfilling or not fulfilling. There is a sensation in you, and you say that you are depressed or unhappy or blissful, jealous, greedy, envious. This labelling brings into existence the one who is translating this sensation. What you call "I" is nothing but this word 'red bag', 'bench', 'steps', 'banister', 'light bulb', 'angry', 'blissful', 'jealous', or whatever. You are putting your brain cells to unnecessary activity making the memory cells operate all the time, destroying the energy that is there. This is only wearing you out.

This labelling is necessary when you must communicate with someone else or with yourself. But you communicate with yourself all the time. Why do you do this? The only difference between you and the person who talks aloud to himself is that you don't talk aloud. The moment you do begin to talk aloud, along comes the psychiatrist. That chap, of course, is doing the same thing that you are doing, communicating to himself all the time -- 'bag', 'red bag', 'obsessive', 'compulsive', 'Oedipus complex,' 'greedy', 'bench', 'banister', 'martini'. Then he says something is wrong with you and puts you on the couch and wants to change you, to help you.

Why can't you leave the sensations alone? Why do you translate? You do this because if you do not communicate to yourself, you are not there. The prospect of that is frightening to the 'you'."


You can read more by U.G. at http://www.well.com/user/jct/index.html

Many of his books are reproduced there. They are not his books. He didn't write them and said he had nothing to give to anyone, but people transcribed notes and compiled books of these talks.
20-Dec-2007 04:21 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes


Salto de foro:


Usuario(s) navegando en este tema: 1 invitado(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group. | | Theme Created By effone of Equinox Design