05-15-2011, 12:00 AM
Gonzo wrote:
Well well well! Howdy! Heh. You make some valid points, so I'll address them individually, but will preface everything I'm going to say with the caveat that my original post in this thread, along with everything I have said or will say subsequently, is intended for warriors and sorcerers moreso than what don Juan referred to as "ordinary" folks. You yourself have said many times that you don't consider yourself a warrior, and that you think sorcery is "a crock", so it's with that history between us that I make my responses.
I have the usual problem with this proclamation - the proclamation being that information only becomes knowledge through experience.
What about vicarious experience? What about spiritual experience? What about dream experience? What about fantasy experience? What about the experience of a shamanic journey, or of guided visualization, or of being hypnotized?
All of those things might be considered experience, depending on the circumstances. Vicarious experience is generally hearsay or observation - neither of which is actualized. Spiritual experience is subjective - which is perfectly fine by me. I've had plenty of spiritual experiences, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept my word as their knowledge. It's only information unless they themselves have experienced it. For "ordinary" folks (I don't like that term, but use it only to distinguish "warriors" and "sorcerers" from "ordinary" folk), vicarious experience is fine & good. Even for warriors in the tonal, there are times when vacarious experience is acceptable - such as accepting that the world is round without having had the benefit of flying the space shuttle to observe it for oneself, but "believing" the men & women who have actually been there. But that's tonal stuff. In the nagual, it's a whole different bag o' kittens. A warrior doesn't accept someone else's word that third attention is four degrees to the left of Neverland, or that what Joe-Bob dreamed last night was a true and actual experience. It may have been for Joe-Bob, but only for Joe-Bob. In matters of the nagual, the warrior must have her own experiences, or s/he is only an armchair warrior.
I believe in the efficacy of hypnosis because I've experienced it, both by being hypnotized by a therapist and via self-hypnosis. I suspect there are those who have no belief in hypnosis. Has my information about hypnosis then become knowledge via my experience?
Sure. For yourself, hypnosis is a viable tool because you're experienced it. I have no problem with that.
Things begin to get tricky, in my opinion, when belief systems cannot be experienced. How does one experience being a Christian? How does one experience Zen, or Toltecism? If they truly cannot be experienced, does that invalidate them?
Christianity relies on a set of rules laid down by old men long ago - someone else's rules, someone else's game. To experience being a Christian, one has only to believe those rules and live by them. I can't speak to Zen directly because I know very little about it. Toltec advocates the rejection of all belief systems, including its own. It is not a lifestyle, but a life-alteration. Once the assemblage point is altered, it is no longer a belief system but an actuality. I don't call myself a Toltec per se, having rejected all labels except as they may be required for communication within the tonal. To be a Christian, I would have to 1) believe in Christ; and 2) attempt to pattern my life in a Christ-like manner. In other words... blind faith is required. Why should I believe in Christ? And even if I believe the man existed, why would I believe he was the son f God and the rest of us are just "wretches" waiting to be saved by Amazing Grace? Saw a good sign the other day, actually on a church marquee: "Reason is the biggest enemy of faith." Thank god! LOL In Toltec, the warrior is not only encouraged but required to create her own experience. If that doesn't occur, s/he is only a "true believer", eagle-snack.
In regard Toltecism (assuming that's the valid term for the teachings of don Juan), I presume in order to have true knowledge, one must experience the nagual, second and third attention, pass through the seven gates of dreaming, engage in recapitulation, and apprentice to an acknowledged Nagual and obtain the guidance of a Benefactor. Without doing all these things, the information provided by Castaneda remains just that - information...there is no knowledge since few, if any, have experienced all the teachings, yet many believe in the teachings. Are they invalid, then?
It's possible to experience most if not all of the teachings through the course of living with impeccability. The Castaneda legacy is simply that he left us a blueprint. With that said, I wouldn't advocate following the books blindly - 'cuz that's just another religion. What Castaneda did was Castaneda's journey - but I think the map itself is valid based on my own experiences. Or, let me clarify. I think a LOT of it is valid, while some remains mired in obfuscation - either deliberately or accidentally.
The point is there are many beliefs (reincarnation noted in the post, for one), that cannot be experienced. Does that make them invalid? It's of interest that within physics, for example, there are theories which work to explain the workings of the universe but which cannot be experienced, yet remain valid because they DO work...for example, the theory of atoms - rather like the wind, which cannot be seen - only its effects.
What is implied in the post is that holding onto beliefs somehow is a hindrance to spiritual evolution, assuming the acquisition of knowledge equates to spiritual evolution.
The acquisition of knowlege might equate to spiritual evolution if one becomes a wo/man of knowledge. Then again, people acquire knowledge and still sit on the couch - so it depends on the intent of the seeker. Like I said - I'm referring to warriors, sorcerers, and those on the path to freedom. What ordinary folks do really doesn't concern me. So it's no harm, no foul if "ordinary folks" want to hold onto their belief systems regarding reincarnation, Christianity, Buddhism, the flat earth or anything else. Belief systems serve a purpose - but they are also a liability if one is really seeking freedom. Intent determines which is which and who is who.
... your beliefs hold you back from Knowledge, rather than moving you toward it. It is only when the seeker is fully aware of her [sic] beliefs that she [sic] might be able to access the power required to process those beliefs into actual Knowledge - a trait of only the most diligent seekers, because ultimately most human beings do not want to release their existing comfort zones (beliefs, faith, information).
I can say I have a belief in Zen, for example. My belief is not in traditional or formal Zen (that which is promoted and practiced in monasteries under the guidance of an acknowledged enlightened master), but rather in what I like to call "Essential Zen", that Zen which denies its own existence and which points whole-heartedly to full experience of the moment. Essential Zen may be experienced in the same manner aspects of Toltecism may be experienced - by reading about other's experiences, then trying them for oneself. Lucid dreaming comes to mind. Is it valid to cherry pick?
Not sure I understand your point here. If you have "experienced" essential Zen, then your experience is your own, and obviously valid to you. No problem. Yes, we can read about stuff and then try it. Again, the experience itself is valid to those who have the experience. No problem. As for reincarnation... I think some of the so-called "experiences" may be valid, but I challenge the conclusions people have formed around the experience, just as I challenge the conclusions many have reached regarding the so-called "near death experience". The thing itself exists and is valid, but leeches really don't cure epilepsy and flies don't cause garbage. The conclusions may be erroneous even if the experience isn't.
I think the point of the post needs to be more explicit. What is being criticized really is faith, which can be considered to be belief in something without any critical thinking about it. If so, what then of beliefs which have been examined critically, yet are still held to?
My only point is to challenge warrior and sorcerers to question why they might hold to certain belief systems. I've known "religious" warriors who claim to practice Toltec teachings, yet I don't see how that's possible anymore than it's possible to be a "good gay Christian." The Bible rails against homosexuality, yet there's no shortage of gay Christians - which essentially means that the followers really can't have examined the belief system very carefully. They have "cherry-picked" as you put it - which is okay by me if they are "ordinary folk", but not okay if they are warriors. When a warrior really examines her belief systems, she usually discovers that she believes something because she's been told to believe it - often since early childhood, so it's just accepted as a given, but may have NO basis in reality whatsoever. I assume you have reasons for believing in Zen that go beyond "it sounds good to me." Belief can serve a purpose, but it can also become a dangerous comfort zone if not constantly challenged. The warrior challenges. The non-warrior stays in the comfort zone with a bag of cheetos.
Are they invalid because they cannot be experienced? And if so, so what? Perhaps the author of the post is attempting to say if your beliefs do not correspond with mine, they are invalid.
Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Believe what I believe or else. Heh. You will be absorbed. I have that kind of power, you realize. Bwahaha. You know better... and if you don't, it's because you are choosing to believe within your comfort zones rather than really examining what's right in front of you. But I know you very well... and I know how much you enjoy argument & debate. So... I chose with awareness to engage your indulgence.
Well well well! Howdy! Heh. You make some valid points, so I'll address them individually, but will preface everything I'm going to say with the caveat that my original post in this thread, along with everything I have said or will say subsequently, is intended for warriors and sorcerers moreso than what don Juan referred to as "ordinary" folks. You yourself have said many times that you don't consider yourself a warrior, and that you think sorcery is "a crock", so it's with that history between us that I make my responses.
I have the usual problem with this proclamation - the proclamation being that information only becomes knowledge through experience.
What about vicarious experience? What about spiritual experience? What about dream experience? What about fantasy experience? What about the experience of a shamanic journey, or of guided visualization, or of being hypnotized?
All of those things might be considered experience, depending on the circumstances. Vicarious experience is generally hearsay or observation - neither of which is actualized. Spiritual experience is subjective - which is perfectly fine by me. I've had plenty of spiritual experiences, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept my word as their knowledge. It's only information unless they themselves have experienced it. For "ordinary" folks (I don't like that term, but use it only to distinguish "warriors" and "sorcerers" from "ordinary" folk), vicarious experience is fine & good. Even for warriors in the tonal, there are times when vacarious experience is acceptable - such as accepting that the world is round without having had the benefit of flying the space shuttle to observe it for oneself, but "believing" the men & women who have actually been there. But that's tonal stuff. In the nagual, it's a whole different bag o' kittens. A warrior doesn't accept someone else's word that third attention is four degrees to the left of Neverland, or that what Joe-Bob dreamed last night was a true and actual experience. It may have been for Joe-Bob, but only for Joe-Bob. In matters of the nagual, the warrior must have her own experiences, or s/he is only an armchair warrior.
I believe in the efficacy of hypnosis because I've experienced it, both by being hypnotized by a therapist and via self-hypnosis. I suspect there are those who have no belief in hypnosis. Has my information about hypnosis then become knowledge via my experience?
Sure. For yourself, hypnosis is a viable tool because you're experienced it. I have no problem with that.
Things begin to get tricky, in my opinion, when belief systems cannot be experienced. How does one experience being a Christian? How does one experience Zen, or Toltecism? If they truly cannot be experienced, does that invalidate them?
Christianity relies on a set of rules laid down by old men long ago - someone else's rules, someone else's game. To experience being a Christian, one has only to believe those rules and live by them. I can't speak to Zen directly because I know very little about it. Toltec advocates the rejection of all belief systems, including its own. It is not a lifestyle, but a life-alteration. Once the assemblage point is altered, it is no longer a belief system but an actuality. I don't call myself a Toltec per se, having rejected all labels except as they may be required for communication within the tonal. To be a Christian, I would have to 1) believe in Christ; and 2) attempt to pattern my life in a Christ-like manner. In other words... blind faith is required. Why should I believe in Christ? And even if I believe the man existed, why would I believe he was the son f God and the rest of us are just "wretches" waiting to be saved by Amazing Grace? Saw a good sign the other day, actually on a church marquee: "Reason is the biggest enemy of faith." Thank god! LOL In Toltec, the warrior is not only encouraged but required to create her own experience. If that doesn't occur, s/he is only a "true believer", eagle-snack.
In regard Toltecism (assuming that's the valid term for the teachings of don Juan), I presume in order to have true knowledge, one must experience the nagual, second and third attention, pass through the seven gates of dreaming, engage in recapitulation, and apprentice to an acknowledged Nagual and obtain the guidance of a Benefactor. Without doing all these things, the information provided by Castaneda remains just that - information...there is no knowledge since few, if any, have experienced all the teachings, yet many believe in the teachings. Are they invalid, then?
It's possible to experience most if not all of the teachings through the course of living with impeccability. The Castaneda legacy is simply that he left us a blueprint. With that said, I wouldn't advocate following the books blindly - 'cuz that's just another religion. What Castaneda did was Castaneda's journey - but I think the map itself is valid based on my own experiences. Or, let me clarify. I think a LOT of it is valid, while some remains mired in obfuscation - either deliberately or accidentally.
The point is there are many beliefs (reincarnation noted in the post, for one), that cannot be experienced. Does that make them invalid? It's of interest that within physics, for example, there are theories which work to explain the workings of the universe but which cannot be experienced, yet remain valid because they DO work...for example, the theory of atoms - rather like the wind, which cannot be seen - only its effects.
What is implied in the post is that holding onto beliefs somehow is a hindrance to spiritual evolution, assuming the acquisition of knowledge equates to spiritual evolution.
The acquisition of knowlege might equate to spiritual evolution if one becomes a wo/man of knowledge. Then again, people acquire knowledge and still sit on the couch - so it depends on the intent of the seeker. Like I said - I'm referring to warriors, sorcerers, and those on the path to freedom. What ordinary folks do really doesn't concern me. So it's no harm, no foul if "ordinary folks" want to hold onto their belief systems regarding reincarnation, Christianity, Buddhism, the flat earth or anything else. Belief systems serve a purpose - but they are also a liability if one is really seeking freedom. Intent determines which is which and who is who.
... your beliefs hold you back from Knowledge, rather than moving you toward it. It is only when the seeker is fully aware of her [sic] beliefs that she [sic] might be able to access the power required to process those beliefs into actual Knowledge - a trait of only the most diligent seekers, because ultimately most human beings do not want to release their existing comfort zones (beliefs, faith, information).
I can say I have a belief in Zen, for example. My belief is not in traditional or formal Zen (that which is promoted and practiced in monasteries under the guidance of an acknowledged enlightened master), but rather in what I like to call "Essential Zen", that Zen which denies its own existence and which points whole-heartedly to full experience of the moment. Essential Zen may be experienced in the same manner aspects of Toltecism may be experienced - by reading about other's experiences, then trying them for oneself. Lucid dreaming comes to mind. Is it valid to cherry pick?
Not sure I understand your point here. If you have "experienced" essential Zen, then your experience is your own, and obviously valid to you. No problem. Yes, we can read about stuff and then try it. Again, the experience itself is valid to those who have the experience. No problem. As for reincarnation... I think some of the so-called "experiences" may be valid, but I challenge the conclusions people have formed around the experience, just as I challenge the conclusions many have reached regarding the so-called "near death experience". The thing itself exists and is valid, but leeches really don't cure epilepsy and flies don't cause garbage. The conclusions may be erroneous even if the experience isn't.
I think the point of the post needs to be more explicit. What is being criticized really is faith, which can be considered to be belief in something without any critical thinking about it. If so, what then of beliefs which have been examined critically, yet are still held to?
My only point is to challenge warrior and sorcerers to question why they might hold to certain belief systems. I've known "religious" warriors who claim to practice Toltec teachings, yet I don't see how that's possible anymore than it's possible to be a "good gay Christian." The Bible rails against homosexuality, yet there's no shortage of gay Christians - which essentially means that the followers really can't have examined the belief system very carefully. They have "cherry-picked" as you put it - which is okay by me if they are "ordinary folk", but not okay if they are warriors. When a warrior really examines her belief systems, she usually discovers that she believes something because she's been told to believe it - often since early childhood, so it's just accepted as a given, but may have NO basis in reality whatsoever. I assume you have reasons for believing in Zen that go beyond "it sounds good to me." Belief can serve a purpose, but it can also become a dangerous comfort zone if not constantly challenged. The warrior challenges. The non-warrior stays in the comfort zone with a bag of cheetos.
Are they invalid because they cannot be experienced? And if so, so what? Perhaps the author of the post is attempting to say if your beliefs do not correspond with mine, they are invalid.
Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Believe what I believe or else. Heh. You will be absorbed. I have that kind of power, you realize. Bwahaha. You know better... and if you don't, it's because you are choosing to believe within your comfort zones rather than really examining what's right in front of you. But I know you very well... and I know how much you enjoy argument & debate. So... I chose with awareness to engage your indulgence.