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.

…Only you can prevent forest fires.

I have some insights into some sorcery terms and teachings coming from a zen/non-dual perspective. I think the two complement and enhance one another.

The 1st attention, according to CC, is our everyday ordinary awareness, the tonal, the first ring of power – the ring of doing.
The 2nd attention is extraordinary awareness, the nagual, the second ring of power – the ring of not-doing.

The emphasis for CC, to get from here to there, was on stopping the internal dialogue, not-doing, losing self-importance, dropping personal history, habits and routines, and dreaming (lucidly).

You might be surprised to notice that in non-duality, one accomplishes all these in one fell swoop, so to speak, by realising, through investigation, that the “I” (ego, or sense of self as seperate from the world and others) is simply non-existant. This so-called “I” is merely a bundle of thoughts which arise and pass away, just as all thoughts and objects are arising and passing away. The “I” has assumed itself to be real, to be the center of reality, the subject, but it is merely another object. The only true subject is the source (the unmanifest), and all manifest objects are arising from and passing away into this one source, which is labelled consciousness, awareness, being, that which is, etc.
Its just as CC’s tonal which has taken the throne from the nagual. Except it can never actually do so, just in appearance. The nagual is still the ground of being, no matter how much ranting and raving the tonal does, or appears to do.

So from my experience, the tonal or 1st attention is nothing other than identification with the “I” thought in which case seperation and the “I” struggling with and against the world or “other” are prevalent.
The 2nd attention describes the “stateless state” of this “I” merging back into its source or disappearing (same thing, different perspective) – no subject/object distinction: awareness and its content are one.

In the words of one non-dualist: “The commentary is what gives the impression of a “me” having thoughts. In the absence of the commentary, or when the “I” is seen through as mere commentary, it’s quite obvious that everything is happening of its own accord – no one is doing anything.”

Not-doing is not an exercise; it’s the way it already is!

That is where the emphasis lies in non-duality: that deeds are done but there is no personal doer; thoughts arise, but there is no thinker. If you look for the thinker, you will only find more thought-objects arising and passing away.

By realising the transitory nature of the “I”, by abiding in one’s natural state: naked consciousness, pure awareness, the items previously identified as personal history, self-importance, internal dialogue, not-doing, etc, need not be dealt with. In fact, that would only empower the 1st attention, the sense of personal doership. Instead of claiming these thoughts, ideas and descriptions as one’s own, they are simply thought-objects arising as consciousness (notice I didn’t say “in consciousness” which would be dualistic).
But these are just descriptions, or as advaitists would say, “concepts”. It has to be more than mental understanding, or any kind of understanding, which implies an “I” who understands. Sounds alot like intent, doesn’t it. For CC, there is much to practice and much effort to put in to recapitulating and working on self-importance, etc. But for the non-dualist, “you” cannot do this. “You” cannot do anything. “You” are not a doer, but what is being done. All effort arouses the “I-sense” and maintains the 1st attention and the world. For a non-dualist, there is nothing to be done, nothing needs to be changed, enlightenment and freedom already are the nature of what is. THIS is all there is. The ordinary IS the extraordinary. Nirvana IS Samsara; Samsara IS Nirvana. You can never not be THIS.

I think that the difference between non-dualists and sorcerers is that sorcerers dont mind “leaving” the “I-less state” in order to manipulate reality (controlled folly) whereas it seems rare for the non-dualist to capitalise on this. Patanjali is one of the few who has devoted any attention to describing the powers that become available.

Just a thought… recently i was talking to my father and he has read all the CC books (he was the one who got me reading them) or most of them at least. He also use to study with a group of people awhile ago that had to do more with spirituality and decrees (dont wanna touch on it to much considering i dont know that much about it). But he brang up alot of different things about Saints and Angels and how we each have an individual guardian angel.
Now, i dont completely aggree on the whole aspect of angels (and im not about to try and tell him he’s wrong cause everyone is entitled to there own opinion of different things) but i dont like to beleive that there is something else out there watching me and ready to do my bidding, cause if that was the case wouldn’t we all be better off? But i was putting some serious thought into what he was saying and it is just so much the polar opposite of the CC books that i can’t even see myself trying to ask an “invisible” angel to make my day perfect, and now that i think about it it seems more like a way of intending rather than having an outside force do something for you.
But anyway this was all brought on by a movie that i watched recently that is somewhat groundbreaking its called “zeitgeist” (yes my name, Google it). I would think that if any people were open minded enough to watch it, it would be people who look at these posts (cause its so non-main stream).
I just feel really confused lately about where iam going and what im even doing… Its like i feel like im so close to the answer (or what have you) that it is almost driving me crazy trying to figure out where i should start and what to believe anymore.
-Just another confused energetic being. :unsure:

Has anyone ever had any experience with flyers, other than jus fleeting shadows. I thought it wierd that in all the books (granted there was usually something different in each one) that CC only mentions the “flyers” inside activeside of infinity i believe.
Jus thought it a decent discussion because at times i “think” i see shadows out the corners of my eyes, but when i turn they are gone, kinda freaky sometimes. :ph34r:

Carlos was quoted as having said that sorcerers have only one point of reference: infinity.

This has amazing implications.
If infinity is one’s reference point, do you understand that it is impossible to make a comparison or reference or measurement in infinity?
Do you realise where that leaves one?

Utterly stopped and empty-minded!
I love it.

And what’s more, not only does this deny one of attaching to any single perspective or opinion, if your reference point truly is infinity, will you not see all viewpoints simultaneously?

Can you imagine?
Please try it for a moment if you haven’t already.
If you don’t know what this source is, what power can your source-ery hold?

Greetings!

Who is your favorite author, besides Carlos Castaneda of Toltec Teachings? Personally, I like the down to earth style of Theun Mares, but his books are hard to find these days.

Is it possible to fight against your own Intent? I feel like I have a strong Intent for a particular direction but I’m purposefully put off realizing it. I now know that patience plays a significant roll because a path for attainment that intent sets up takes time to unfold, but how do I know I’m not fucking up? If I’m fighting against it, could it be a old intent that I’ve lost a connection with or is Intent renewed and I’ve lost an original purpose?

Just curious, does anyone here use power plants?

“The Nagual is not a human,” she said.

“What makes you say that?”

“The Nagual is a devil from who knows what time.”

What do you guys think this means? Is she misguiding him or does it shed light on Don Juan?