01-06-2008, 12:00 AM
Hi Lightly,
From what I understand of aura is that it is an energy that surrounds the body and can be seen to change as the emotions/ thoughts change.
As I said before in scripture we were given "coats of skins", plural.
So, what is commonly believed about auras is that they must be "interpreted" by color and flaws and disconnected energy. It is a very changeable field of color or energy.
This does not fit with Don Juan's description of "direct knowing". I submit the idea that though auras are beyond most people's ability to percieve, they are not to the depth of layer that Don Juan is describing.
I have seen snatches of aura many times, but never clear as it is sometimes described in books. But, it seems to entail a familiarity with the meanings of the colors to sort out what you are seeing.
I have also experienced the direct knowing and vision of the fibers of light that Don Juan describes. It was, in my opinion a much deeper and more pure knowledge than what could be possible with anything that needed any interpretation at all.
But, I am of the opinion that direct knowledge or "Seeing" does not have to come on a person in that exact way that Don Juan describes. I have experienced direct knowledge at times that did not cocern people. In such a case, there would be no eggs or ovals at all. Direct knowing are the key words there and it speaks of something that can be experienced but not neccessarily explained and not necessarily experienced in exactly the same way by everyone.
I think it might be a matter of a very specific position of the assemblage point which was striven for in Don Juan's school of thought.
There are other schools of thought that may be striving for other specific outcomes, but the same basic experiences. We tend to work towards things that the founders of our chosen "schools of thought" have experienced and described. Yet we, if we have had any of these experiences, know that these experiences cannot be put into words without in some way diminishing them.
This is why I said that "direct knowledge" are the key words.
It's kind of like pornography, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
By the way, here is a link to the book I mentioned before. The paintings may or may not be accurate, but the principles of different layers of or depths of seeing the human being would hold true.
www.anandgholap.net/Man_V...S_VEHICLES
From what I understand of aura is that it is an energy that surrounds the body and can be seen to change as the emotions/ thoughts change.
As I said before in scripture we were given "coats of skins", plural.
So, what is commonly believed about auras is that they must be "interpreted" by color and flaws and disconnected energy. It is a very changeable field of color or energy.
This does not fit with Don Juan's description of "direct knowing". I submit the idea that though auras are beyond most people's ability to percieve, they are not to the depth of layer that Don Juan is describing.
I have seen snatches of aura many times, but never clear as it is sometimes described in books. But, it seems to entail a familiarity with the meanings of the colors to sort out what you are seeing.
I have also experienced the direct knowing and vision of the fibers of light that Don Juan describes. It was, in my opinion a much deeper and more pure knowledge than what could be possible with anything that needed any interpretation at all.
But, I am of the opinion that direct knowledge or "Seeing" does not have to come on a person in that exact way that Don Juan describes. I have experienced direct knowledge at times that did not cocern people. In such a case, there would be no eggs or ovals at all. Direct knowing are the key words there and it speaks of something that can be experienced but not neccessarily explained and not necessarily experienced in exactly the same way by everyone.
I think it might be a matter of a very specific position of the assemblage point which was striven for in Don Juan's school of thought.
There are other schools of thought that may be striving for other specific outcomes, but the same basic experiences. We tend to work towards things that the founders of our chosen "schools of thought" have experienced and described. Yet we, if we have had any of these experiences, know that these experiences cannot be put into words without in some way diminishing them.
This is why I said that "direct knowledge" are the key words.
It's kind of like pornography, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
By the way, here is a link to the book I mentioned before. The paintings may or may not be accurate, but the principles of different layers of or depths of seeing the human being would hold true.
www.anandgholap.net/Man_V...S_VEHICLES