01-30-2011, 12:00 AM
lex icon wrote:
""What is unfortunate, in my opinion, in DJ’s words above, is when he tags on that last bit, “but a universe of eagles emanations.” You see we need more space to contemplate the no objects before (DJ not me) jumping to what I believe is a level of metaphysical interpretation, “eagles emanations”." Lex
""There you go getting spooky again. lol. Eagle's Emanations are just a word he used to describe something he actually saw/experienced. You are discussing a reality and you want to make it "metaphysical." And therefore you think it needs to be interpreted. Bob""
""No Bob. I believe I have been consistent concerning this. It is unfortunate that DJ (or CC wrestling with what he thought DJ meant) uses the words eagle’s emanations. I do not want to get to a level of metaphysical interpretation, I am pointing out that is what DJ or CC are doing by personally interpreting the experience this way. That is why I used the word "unfortunate" to begin with.""
My apologies, maybe I misunderstood your understanding. My point was there is something "out there". To speak about it Don Juan put a name on it. That is not metaphysical in my understanding of the term. There is something that fits his description of the Great Bands of Emanations. I've seen them. As I've said they seem to fit some biblical and Qabalah descriptions. Anyone who has seen them would agree with me.
Just as you and I can agree when we see a rock, or a chair or whatever.
To say there is really no eagle and no emanations is the akin to saying there are no rocks. Because if there are no objects that would be true. Yet we agree on the rocks.
""The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness that becomes entangled and confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no eagle and no eagle’s emanations. What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” FFW""
Here, I believe is the crux of the matter, he said above, "when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves.." It is not that simple and he knew it wasn't. If it were a simple case of explaining that, then there would be no need for explaining because we would already know it. It is too abstract to explain, yet he has to use words to explain it.
He still has to use the same concept of ""emanations".. acknowledging themselves", to say that he wished that he didn't have to use that concept.
I suppose you could skip steps along the way. In the Qabalah there is a teaching that by going up the middle pillar you gain an understanding of the side pillars. So, if Carlos skipped the whole emanations thing somehow it's possible, (like somehow having Don Juan just put it into his head, or taking him to a higher plane where he would then know), but then there might not be any books to be discussing here. When this type of thing happened in biblical literature the descriptions are very hard to understand, ie. Revelations or Ezekial's vision. Paul had a vision that he didn't even try to explain,..said it was unlawful to even talk about and hard to be uttered etc.
That there are Emanations in earlier books and then aren't Emanations in later books may also have been a method
to keep Carlos from getting trapped in a way of thinking.
""He experienced the emanations. What he is saying here is that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations. Bob""
By saying this Bob you give the world of emanations more credence than the the world of objects. But as DJ says there are no emanations, and certainly not filaments of light which can be seen. So he is definitely NOT saying "that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations."
I believe he is. And I don't see any definite about it. Or maybe "rather than", or "behind this world of object there lies,...", might have been better phrases. It can definitely be read that way “but a universe of eagles emanations.” So, I respectfully disagree on this point. But I could be wrong.
In certain ways I do give that world more credence because it is as I see it "above" or "behind" this world. It definitely felt more real than ""This"". As can be said for every spiritual experience I've ever had.
But I do not believe it is the ultimate Reality. We are still talking about "forms" here, after all. But any "legitimate" step outside of this world of rocks and chairs is a step in the right direction.
""What is unfortunate, in my opinion, in DJ’s words above, is when he tags on that last bit, “but a universe of eagles emanations.” You see we need more space to contemplate the no objects before (DJ not me) jumping to what I believe is a level of metaphysical interpretation, “eagles emanations”." Lex
""There you go getting spooky again. lol. Eagle's Emanations are just a word he used to describe something he actually saw/experienced. You are discussing a reality and you want to make it "metaphysical." And therefore you think it needs to be interpreted. Bob""
""No Bob. I believe I have been consistent concerning this. It is unfortunate that DJ (or CC wrestling with what he thought DJ meant) uses the words eagle’s emanations. I do not want to get to a level of metaphysical interpretation, I am pointing out that is what DJ or CC are doing by personally interpreting the experience this way. That is why I used the word "unfortunate" to begin with.""
My apologies, maybe I misunderstood your understanding. My point was there is something "out there". To speak about it Don Juan put a name on it. That is not metaphysical in my understanding of the term. There is something that fits his description of the Great Bands of Emanations. I've seen them. As I've said they seem to fit some biblical and Qabalah descriptions. Anyone who has seen them would agree with me.
Just as you and I can agree when we see a rock, or a chair or whatever.
To say there is really no eagle and no emanations is the akin to saying there are no rocks. Because if there are no objects that would be true. Yet we agree on the rocks.
""The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness that becomes entangled and confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no eagle and no eagle’s emanations. What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” FFW""
Here, I believe is the crux of the matter, he said above, "when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves.." It is not that simple and he knew it wasn't. If it were a simple case of explaining that, then there would be no need for explaining because we would already know it. It is too abstract to explain, yet he has to use words to explain it.
He still has to use the same concept of ""emanations".. acknowledging themselves", to say that he wished that he didn't have to use that concept.
I suppose you could skip steps along the way. In the Qabalah there is a teaching that by going up the middle pillar you gain an understanding of the side pillars. So, if Carlos skipped the whole emanations thing somehow it's possible, (like somehow having Don Juan just put it into his head, or taking him to a higher plane where he would then know), but then there might not be any books to be discussing here. When this type of thing happened in biblical literature the descriptions are very hard to understand, ie. Revelations or Ezekial's vision. Paul had a vision that he didn't even try to explain,..said it was unlawful to even talk about and hard to be uttered etc.
That there are Emanations in earlier books and then aren't Emanations in later books may also have been a method
to keep Carlos from getting trapped in a way of thinking.
""He experienced the emanations. What he is saying here is that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations. Bob""
By saying this Bob you give the world of emanations more credence than the the world of objects. But as DJ says there are no emanations, and certainly not filaments of light which can be seen. So he is definitely NOT saying "that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations."
I believe he is. And I don't see any definite about it. Or maybe "rather than", or "behind this world of object there lies,...", might have been better phrases. It can definitely be read that way “but a universe of eagles emanations.” So, I respectfully disagree on this point. But I could be wrong.
In certain ways I do give that world more credence because it is as I see it "above" or "behind" this world. It definitely felt more real than ""This"". As can be said for every spiritual experience I've ever had.
But I do not believe it is the ultimate Reality. We are still talking about "forms" here, after all. But any "legitimate" step outside of this world of rocks and chairs is a step in the right direction.