04-10-2011, 12:00 AM
Nu Lang:
Jessica, about the tonal and nagual. Tonal is form.
Earlier post:
Nu Lang: The nagual can only be witnessed
yet its nothing.
Jessica: As can also be said about the tonal.
You are reiterating your earlier position which is to separate the tonal and the nagual unnecessarily. It's all energy---and when we differentiate that energy between awareness and attention and intent and form and nothing we think it helps us to grasp those abstract concepts better when, in actuality, we only limit ourselves.
The attention placed
upon the tonal can be the one-size fits all mentality, which is the FI,
false mind.
What does this sentence mean? Because you've decided that the tonal and the nagual are different, you must then force other concepts to follow suit--to support your initial proposition. But if that initial proposition is limited, the supporting evidence also becomes limited. The attention placed upon the tonal can be the one-size fits all mentality--but, you exclude what else it can be. The attention placed upon the tonal can also be what leads us directly to the nagual.
I've gone to a cave on the side of an ocean cliffside for nearly 10 years now. The cave, as you can imagine, is form. Over the years, the cave has taught me many, many sorcery concepts. For a portion of those years, I continued to make a distinction between the tonal and the nagual---the cave was a substitute until a "real" nagual appeared, the cave's teachings could only be accessed if I was physically seated in it, the cave was, in essence, my "higher self". All of these were ways for me to make the cave exclusively the realm of the tonal---after all, it is a physical object. I was limiting what I could perceive because I had expectations that distinguished the tonal from the nagual.
When one uses this attention to perceive the world, the
nagaul is what's missing. Thats why we have average men and warriors.
Average men cannot access the nagaul, warriors can.
Average men access the nagual all of the time---they see beauty, they love others, they pursue "spiritual" pursuits. What they are less inclined to do is to pursue it in its entirety--as we, warriors/sorcerers/seers/naguals, claim to do. Part of what CC did--maybe it was the 'tonal of his times', to use a phrase from his writings---was to make sorcery exclusive, so exclusive that the "average" man didn't stand a chance. Limiting.
The nagual I agree
with you is witnessed here, but the nagual is not the tonal, the nagual
is nothing. It changes the perception of the tonal into a magical world.
What does "the nagual is nothing" mean? Can you provide me with an example of the nagual is nothing from your experience? The reason I ask is because sometimes I do the same thing that you may be doing here: using syntax philosophically or theoretically, without having hands on experience. And----I don't necessarily think that experience is the sina quo non of sorcery---but, it sure gets one further than the idealistic use of syntax.
Jessica, about the tonal and nagual. Tonal is form.
Earlier post:
Nu Lang: The nagual can only be witnessed
yet its nothing.
Jessica: As can also be said about the tonal.
You are reiterating your earlier position which is to separate the tonal and the nagual unnecessarily. It's all energy---and when we differentiate that energy between awareness and attention and intent and form and nothing we think it helps us to grasp those abstract concepts better when, in actuality, we only limit ourselves.
The attention placed
upon the tonal can be the one-size fits all mentality, which is the FI,
false mind.
What does this sentence mean? Because you've decided that the tonal and the nagual are different, you must then force other concepts to follow suit--to support your initial proposition. But if that initial proposition is limited, the supporting evidence also becomes limited. The attention placed upon the tonal can be the one-size fits all mentality--but, you exclude what else it can be. The attention placed upon the tonal can also be what leads us directly to the nagual.
I've gone to a cave on the side of an ocean cliffside for nearly 10 years now. The cave, as you can imagine, is form. Over the years, the cave has taught me many, many sorcery concepts. For a portion of those years, I continued to make a distinction between the tonal and the nagual---the cave was a substitute until a "real" nagual appeared, the cave's teachings could only be accessed if I was physically seated in it, the cave was, in essence, my "higher self". All of these were ways for me to make the cave exclusively the realm of the tonal---after all, it is a physical object. I was limiting what I could perceive because I had expectations that distinguished the tonal from the nagual.
When one uses this attention to perceive the world, the
nagaul is what's missing. Thats why we have average men and warriors.
Average men cannot access the nagaul, warriors can.
Average men access the nagual all of the time---they see beauty, they love others, they pursue "spiritual" pursuits. What they are less inclined to do is to pursue it in its entirety--as we, warriors/sorcerers/seers/naguals, claim to do. Part of what CC did--maybe it was the 'tonal of his times', to use a phrase from his writings---was to make sorcery exclusive, so exclusive that the "average" man didn't stand a chance. Limiting.
The nagual I agree
with you is witnessed here, but the nagual is not the tonal, the nagual
is nothing. It changes the perception of the tonal into a magical world.
What does "the nagual is nothing" mean? Can you provide me with an example of the nagual is nothing from your experience? The reason I ask is because sometimes I do the same thing that you may be doing here: using syntax philosophically or theoretically, without having hands on experience. And----I don't necessarily think that experience is the sina quo non of sorcery---but, it sure gets one further than the idealistic use of syntax.