04-11-2011, 12:00 AM
Jessica:
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.
Nu Lang,
I'm not sure you responded to the above or not. It's not necessary that you do in any case, however, as I've continued to read through the thread a saying came back to me that a teacher/nagual said to me:
Argue for your limitations, and they're yours.
I spent some time in the car today listening to the audio book, A History of God, by Karen Armstrong. As I was listening I was struck by her changing descriptions/definitions for God and how those descriptions/definitions changed ideologically, philosophically, historically and spiritually over the entire history of mankind. What particularly struck me was how often I could exchange the word "God" for "Nagual" and the sentence still make sense, all the way through to the argument for "God is nothing"! And the synchronicity of this thread and listening to the ideologies of "God" had the hallmark of sorceric timing. The defense of definitions begins to feel very dogmatic to me--- and that's when I bow out.
I also see that we (all of us responding to this thread) may be looking at the Nagual/Tonal from the developmental stage we're currently in. I argued your point of view with righteous indignation five years ago! And because I was sure I was accurate in my seeing, that's exactly what I saw--funny how that works. A sure case of clarity as the enemy.
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.
Nu Lang,
I'm not sure you responded to the above or not. It's not necessary that you do in any case, however, as I've continued to read through the thread a saying came back to me that a teacher/nagual said to me:
Argue for your limitations, and they're yours.
I spent some time in the car today listening to the audio book, A History of God, by Karen Armstrong. As I was listening I was struck by her changing descriptions/definitions for God and how those descriptions/definitions changed ideologically, philosophically, historically and spiritually over the entire history of mankind. What particularly struck me was how often I could exchange the word "God" for "Nagual" and the sentence still make sense, all the way through to the argument for "God is nothing"! And the synchronicity of this thread and listening to the ideologies of "God" had the hallmark of sorceric timing. The defense of definitions begins to feel very dogmatic to me--- and that's when I bow out.
I also see that we (all of us responding to this thread) may be looking at the Nagual/Tonal from the developmental stage we're currently in. I argued your point of view with righteous indignation five years ago! And because I was sure I was accurate in my seeing, that's exactly what I saw--funny how that works. A sure case of clarity as the enemy.