children seers
Are all young children seers?
My daughter, now seven, is a seer. I have known that she is a seer for 3 years. There is no way I am going to prove that to any of you, so I hope you will take my word for it. I was not a warrior when my son was in preschool, so I never found out if he was a seer then. He is not now. I am not now. My question is simple: are all young children seers, or is my daughter exceptional? Does it make a difference whether the child is a boy or girl? I have read that all girls are seers and that boys are not. Girls lose the ability to see when it is not encouraged by adults and boys never learn because it is not addressed by adults. I am encouraging this with my daughter now because it is something that all of us yearn for. I have told her that it is special, but I tried not to make a huge deal of it because I don’t want her to be conceited about it.
D5 Creation
Hi Crow!
My answer is not simple. :unsure:
(If you want to skip this part, I’ve responded to your questions at the bottom, below the line.)
It’s difficult to say without defining the specifics of seeing, since individuals use the term differently, even when we’ve read the same books. But to avoid the tedium of posting back and forth about the specifics of what entails seeing and what isn’t, I’ll just reply with some knowledge that agrees with my experience.
I’d say children see until they are trained how to look. And that training is a process, intentionally or unintentionally given by parents, siblings, peers, relatives and society as a whole. In Toltec manuals (CC and Miguel Ruiz), it is explained that we are taught to perceive the world as our parents, etc, perceive it, through conditioning, punishment and reward, acceptance and rejection, yes and no, good and bad, etc.
This makes it seem like we’re getting all our parents negative crap (ignorance) forced on us innocents. It also leaves the possibility that it can be avoided… that a conscious person could not impose these constraints on their children. However liberating that may seem, it is not ideal. Lemmee esplain:
What non-dualists say about this process is that it IS programming, but it IS NOT unnecessary or negative. What they emphasize is that this process is the initiation into the false seperate sense of “me”, and without this “me”, we would never survive to enter adulthood… (which is something that happens in ALL THAT IS, the totality, infinity).
So my point is, these seemingly two events or two descriptions – the loss of seeing and the gain of a false sense of “me” as seperate from the world (not-me) – are two descriptions of ONE event.
And that is significant because seeing is thus defined as the LACK of this seemingly seperate “me” WHICH IS IT’S OWN INTERNAL DIALOGUE which consists of beliefs/ideas about itself and the world around it, ALL BASED ON THE FOUNDATION BELIEF THAT THIS “ME” EXISTS AS A SEPERATE BODY-MIND-IDENTITY.
And THAT is significant because now we have a very direct path to seeing. Seeing needn’t entail years of laborious techniques and re- or de-programming. Seeing can be accomplished now by “seeing through” the illusion of this “me”. Who is this “me”? What is it? Where is it? What is it’s source? (It may take some people years still… but some get it rather quickly.)
When we see that it (the “me”) ISN’T (just thoughts arising), then it is “seen through” as illusory, and along with it, it’s concepts, and it’s main concept of seperation are “seen through” (all personal beliefs/concepts are based on this “original belief” in seperation, which co-arises with the “me”). They don’t have to disappear or go away. They are just seen for what they are – nothing more, nothing less.
So I define seeing to be direct perception without concepts or knowledge. I don’t know for sure if that agrees with CC. For the most part it seems to… all but the seeing people as luminous eggs or spheres, which sounds like an event to me. That is, it may belong specifically to the sorcerers’ description. I don’t know. I’m not an authority on sorcery.
So, back to the children… (Will somebody please think of the children!!! 😛 )whatever you choose to do is fine… you are the authority on you and your family… but I would suggest to be aware of what seeing and the sense of a seperate “me” are and what purpose they serve in the greater picture. A child who does not develop a sense of self is labelled ‘autistic’. They have a hard time getting along in the world and you may have to look after them for many years after other children have entered adulthood. As in the Matrix movies, you have to be careful about when you choose to ‘unplug’ a person. After adolescence and puberty, a child should have “naturally” (as unnatural as it seems) accumulated a good sense of self (tonal) to take care of themselves in the world. And then it can be dismantled at their discretion. Personally, I don’t think a parent should interfere or try to control any of this. You can choose to emphasize (by being the example) what makes a strong tonal, and you can be fluid and never forget how to play and revel in mystery and adventure… and your kids will probably think you’re pretty cool and want to grow up and be like you. Who knows, though?
————————————————————————————-
So to your simple questions… 😉
From my limited knowledge and limited experience…
All babies see the world without concepts and without a sense of personal doership. I don’t know if they see people as luminous eggs or spheres. (I’m not doubting at all that people can be seen this way. I’ve seen it on occasion. I just don’t know if babies or children see that).
So seeing isn’t exceptional, but the longer one maintains the … I don’t want to say ‘ability’… connection (?), the more exceptional that would be IMO.
I’m not aware of any difference as boys and girls (physiologically) that concerns seeing, but if you raise a boy different than a girl, that would make a difference. Boys being groomed to be responsible, heads of the family, men who don’t cry, etc… would tend to imbalance the tonal and thus be “farther” from seeing.
Your daughter may lose the connection with her seeing if social life (being accepted at school) becomes important to her and others do not see or discourage it (by calling her ‘weird’ or whatever). Maybe not.
To possibly avoid conceit, IMO, practice behaving as if the extraordinary is ordinary, (and the ordinary extraordinary), thus avoiding extremes. If something is special, it must be at odds with what is not special and conflict will arise. Nothing wrong with conflict, if that’s what you want. 🙂
My best to you and your family Crow.
P.S. – Just as children learn to develop a “me” and have varying degrees of success with this, so too do elderly people “drop” the “me” at varying degrees. Alzheimer’s is someone losing their “me”. Memory is the cohesive factor that holds the bundle of thoughts called “me” together.
Thank you true. This is something that I think is very useful, and I truly liked your response. I don’t believe that raising children has been discussed enough in Castaneda’s books, nor in many others that I’ve read for that matter.
I’ve been very interested in how children should be raised and, though I have none, I’m always trying to be aware of how I might best accomplish that task if it ever becomes an eventuality.
Hi ensonar,
Well look who woke up with their sweetness mask on today!
I’m just playin’.
I was just about to post something clever to you, and now you go and switch masks on me. Well, I’ll post it anyway, in another thread so as not to disrupt this topic.