Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
OK
What if -
Consider that its possible our essential way of being is as an inorganic being, and that we chose to manifest in human form for the sake of experiencing being human...however, in our natural state we are without form.
If so, in that formless state, we are totally exposed, open, visible, perceiveable in our naked totality.
If so, then when we encounter one another, we would instantly be aware of the totality of the other.
So we are everything, and nothing, all possible because "form" isn't available for counter discription
And btw, being in that authentic state does not mean constant bliss, lack of joking around, lack of play, etc. I'm thinking of Monroe's pal in many of his trips, the being he called BB whose raison d'etre was playing games.
We get to experience anger and passion and tragedy and good and evil and love and hate, and beautiful music....is there any music in the afterlife? any cigars, steaks, wine, sex? THAT's what we're here for...is enlightenment the denial of all things sensual? if so, I want nothing of it. What if true enlightenment is merely realizing why we're here and accepting it?
We yearn for that which we can sense is sort of next, perhaps that which we left to come here...gensis of the notion of the apocalypse....why would we want to have that major shift in consciousness? That would **** this grand stage where we can do human....you change the rules, the definition of "human" changes....we'll experience that later...for now, we're here for the enjoyment, for the entertainment, for the same **** Michael was here for in the John Travolta movie by the same name.
My "ally" nailed it when she told me to have a good time and enjoy myself. That was echoed in a fantasy sci-fi book I just read about a swordsman, who was told by the gods, "Go and be a good swordsman, Shonsu! Be honorable and valorous. And enjoy yourself, for the World is yours to savor."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"We addressed this in chat, so no use for repetition here."
Hey its new to some reading these threads.
Gonzo wrote: Regardless of the possibilities, regardless of the forays into whatever attention level by whatever means, we still end up back here. Sorcery is nice, and so are mushrooms, but in the end, we fetch water and carry firewood, believe it or don't.
And what lead man to harness fire and water? Plus, today most turn on their tap for water and switch on their furnace for heat. There's some sorcery for ya.
And if I'm not getting you correctly, please explain what you mean by this. The "in the end, we" part.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"We get to experience anger and passion and tragedy and good and evil and love and hate, and beautiful music....is there any music in the afterlife? any cigars, steaks, wine, sex? THAT's what we're here for...is enlightenment the denial of all things sensual? if so, I want nothing of it. What if true enlightenment is merely realizing why we're here and accepting it?"
Its the *we* or the *I* that you seem to make concrete. That you perceive a choice or something potentially denied of *you*. That's what I keep coming back to from your posts. You seem as an advocate for sensual pleasure I'm just not clear who your opponent on this is of whom you are responding to. And beyond your focus, how, perhaps you can explain, are these things you speak of enlightened paths (perhaps) as opposed to enlightenment being something else? To me how would any act be any different than another? That is, how would the act of a monk who denies pleasures be different than one who indulges pleasure, as both are just acts experienced via the senses?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Wei Shan Yang wrote:"We addressed this in chat, so no use for repetition here."
Hey its new to some reading these threads.
Gonzo wrote: Regardless of the possibilities, regardless of the forays into whatever attention level by whatever means, we still end up back here. Sorcery is nice, and so are mushrooms, but in the end, we fetch water and carry firewood, believe it or don't.
And what lead man to harness fire and water? Plus, today most turn on their tap for water and switch on their furnace for heat. There's some sorcery for ya.
And if I'm not getting you correctly, please explain what you mean by this. The "in the end, we" part....a figure of speech, essentially...perhaps equivalent to "after all", or maybe "in other words", in this case, the bottom line...that is, regardless of the "trip" and the methodology, it comes round full circle to the starting point in the tonal.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
If you stand for something, you should be able to clearly state or explain why. Putting in a sentence or two is merely a brush off and hardly gives an idea of anything.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Heh....I'm working on a response.
Assuming you remember Jack Benny...the old joke comes to mind of a robber demanding of him his money or his life. He got no response from Benny, asked again, and Benny said, "I'm thinking...I'm thinking..."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Wei Shan Yang wrote:"We get to experience anger and passion and tragedy and good and evil and love and hate, and beautiful music....is there any music in the afterlife? any cigars, steaks, wine, sex? THAT's what we're here for...is enlightenment the denial of all things sensual? if so, I want nothing of it. What if true enlightenment is merely realizing why we're here and accepting it?"
Its the *we* or the *I* that you seem to make concrete. That you perceive a choice or something potentially denied of *you*. That's what I keep coming back to from your posts. You seem as an advocate for sensual pleasure I'm just not clear who your opponent on this is of whom you are responding to. And beyond your focus, how, perhaps you can explain, are these things you speak of enlightened paths (perhaps) as opposed to enlightenment being something else? To me how would any act be any different than another? That is, how would the act of a monk who denies pleasures be different than one who indulges pleasure, as both are just acts experienced via the senses?
Your last line is a beaut, and in a way really illustrates my own notions about the whole process of, let's say, spiritual evolution. That is, to quote the Dhammapada, "We are what we think." If we think, for ourselves, denying ourselves is the way to enlightenment, then that's our "way". On the other hand, if we think enjoying the sensual pleasures of being in human form lead to enlightenment, then that is our "way". The trick is, imo, if there is a trick involved in it, is to ignore critical comment and truly trust in our own perceptions, intuitions and beliefs.
If I have any opponent it is those who seem enamored of power, who see the goal as becoming a respected Nagual, or those who see the state of being enlightened as something above and beyond what is right here in front of our noses.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Heh....I'm working on a response.
Assuming you remember Jack Benny...the old joke comes to mind of a robber demanding of him his money or his life. He got no response from Benny, asked again, and Benny said, "I'm thinking...I'm thinking..."Hehe, that's great Gonzo! Ok, no prob.
Yes, I know exactly what you refer to. I listen to Jack Benny nearly every day. Speaking of his miserliness which really was just a big joke... he went on the 64,000 dollar question. He got the first question right and decided to call it quits so as to not risk the dollar he had won from it. And the category he was facing next was violins.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Wei Shan Yang wrote:"We get to experience anger and passion and tragedy and good and evil and love and hate, and beautiful music....is there any music in the afterlife? any cigars, steaks, wine, sex? THAT's what we're here for...is enlightenment the denial of all things sensual? if so, I want nothing of it. What if true enlightenment is merely realizing why we're here and accepting it?"
Its the *we* or the *I* that you seem to make concrete. That you perceive a choice or something potentially denied of *you*. That's what I keep coming back to from your posts. You seem as an advocate for sensual pleasure I'm just not clear who your opponent on this is of whom you are responding to. And beyond your focus, how, perhaps you can explain, are these things you speak of enlightened paths (perhaps) as opposed to enlightenment being something else? To me how would any act be any different than another? That is, how would the act of a monk who denies pleasures be different than one who indulges pleasure, as both are just acts experienced via the senses?
Your last line is a beaut, and in a way really illustrates my own notions about the whole process of, let's say, spiritual evolution. That is, to quote the Dhammapada, "We are what we think." If we think, for ourselves, denying ourselves is the way to enlightenment, then that's our "way". On the other hand, if we think enjoying the sensual pleasures of being in human form lead to enlightenment, then that is our "way". The trick is, imo, if there is a trick involved in it, is to ignore critical comment and truly trust in our own perceptions, intuitions and beliefs.
Ok, this gives me a better view of what you are saying. But I say the key is actually seeing beyond perceptions themselves...alluded to in that other thread where you trumped me with Debbie Reynolds, and I tired to bluff you with Jimmy Page.
If I have any opponent it is those who seem enamored of power, who see the goal as becoming a respected Nagual, or those who see the state of being enlightened as something above and beyond what is right here in front of our noses.
Yes, it can become difficult stage to identify with leaders so much so and hence doubt ones own ability to know or realize etc. One way to combat this is dependent arising that shows everything depends on everything, so the idea of leader is obsolete. I don't think I need to go into a long explanation on DA because I already have previously. But basically, if a leader needs followers, the leader is nothing without them and so is dependent upon them as equally. Just as Debbie Reynolds or Jimmy Page needs fans to be Debbie Reynolds or Jimmy Page in the way they are known. A leader is just an organizational vehicle. And such being the case, we've all been that at some time or other. So its best not to make these things concrete. Wisdom, or whatever one would call it flows through all channels. Some people use leader to help them access their higher self, ok that word is not the best but... hopefully one day they see it was their intent that did this rather then any outside force. But to contradict what I just said, paradoxically, it is the outside that is needed for this to occur. And yes for me...no leaders. And the only ones I really endorse that would be this dynamic of a true leader are those who have complete compassion. And I'm not even sure I am referring to organic beings in this case.
Yes, enlightenment in front of our noses, right here, always so. In this mundane. All are. To see it is all.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
reading over my last answer here...just so its clear, I was not addressing you, but rather responding to your statements with my own take on "leaders". And in the back of my thoughts was this idea of respected Nagual as you stated, and how thats a pride issue and to seek that is only some false idea of what a leader is. To me, a leader serves a function...organization. We cannot do away with it in the sense that...hey some are naturals at it. So let them. But just don't make them idols.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Wei Shan Yang wrote:reading over my last answer here...just so its clear, I was not addressing you, but rather responding to your statements with my own take on "leaders". And in the back of my thoughts was this idea of respected Nagual as you stated, and how thats a pride issue and to seek that is only some false idea of what a leader is. To me, a leader serves a function...organization. We cannot do away with it in the sense that...hey some are naturals at it. So let them. But just don't make them idols.
Well said.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
@Wei Shan
In regard leaders, somewhere there's a great comment about leaders, a Native American comment that I ought to dig up. Thanks, to SelfHealedMadman, here's the quote, from Kent Nerburns fine book, "Neither Wolf nor Dog":
"There are leaders and there are rulers. We Indians are used to leaders. When our leaders don't lead, we walk away from them. When they lead well, we stay with them.
A leader is a leader as long as the people believe in him and as long as he is the best person to lead us. You can only lead as long as the people will follow.
In the past when we needed a warrior we made a warrior our leader. But when the war was over and we needed a healer to lead us, he became our leader. Or maybe we needed a great speaker or a deep thinker.
The warrior knew his time had passed and he didn't pretend to be our leader beyond the time he was needed. He was proud to serve his people and he knew when it was time to step aside. If he won't step aside, people will just walk away from him. He cannot make himself a leader except by leading people in the way they want to be lead.
A person wasn't a leader because they got votes. They were a leader because the people would follow them. The same with teachers. A person wasn't a teacher because they had been elected or got a certificate. They were a teacher because they knew something and were respected. If they didn't know enough, they weren't teachers. Or if we didn't need to know what they knew, we didn't go to them.
Telling us they have a paper that lets them teach is like putting a fancy wrapping on a box. We want to know what's in that box. An empty box with a fancy wrapper is still an empty box.
That is not the way it should be. Good leaders wait to be called and they give up their power when they are no longer needed. Selfish men and fools put themselves first and keep their power until someone throws them out. It is no good to have a way where selfish men and fools fight with each other to be leaders, while the good ones watch.
That is why Sitting Bull was great. He did not rule. He led."
Kent Nerburn
Neither Wolf Nor Dog - On Forgotten Roads with an Indian Elder
There's another point, however, and that concerns Gurus, which I consider a necessity in the process of spiritual evolution. A true Nagual, imo, may serve this function, however, it occurs one to one in private and is not a matter of creating a follower, nor a following.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
That quote you presented gets at that organizational, functionality as well.
I was thinking of a conductor, or band leader. If the members didn't respect him the music could turn pretty sour due to everyone doing their own thing. So if the goal is the play or jam together, it helps to have one or some designated as leaders, so a form of trust is bonded in this way. But the persons who do this do not lose their autonomy nor even their sense of being able to stand alone and be good musicians in their own right. Its just they realize there has to be a pivot or focus for everything to harmonize. Might as well let the one who is best at this do it.
Its often seen that a leader knows best. But truly its those who follow who decide that and in that decision they are really in charge. Its just many people seem to not know this. Just taking a survey of America for example, with elections coming etc. People can be easily mislead by false idolatry and seeking someone that represents an ideal. Its this sphere that people should reclaim and let leaders just be functional.
In the case of spiritualism, its too bad many don't know its right here and available at all times. A teacher in this regard represents an opportunity for in depth exposure to such via a portal. One could make their teacher anything then. An animal, a tree, a lake or stream...
Gurus? Yes, I would look for certain characteristics in a Guru, such as he not talk about (promote) himself and also he not exhibit the inability to contain pride or anger etc. Another is he not be indirect and thus try to appear more knowing than he is that way. You know, one full of riddles or things that any simpleton would know. Such as if you ask him, "how can I resolve this relationship conflict?" and he would say "look within yourself, you have all the answers if you just calm your mind and listen to your heart." I don't need a leader to tell me that! : ) He should have refused to even answer such a question, or else refer to the teachings that would best apply. By answering the way he did he's just trying to sound profound by saying what oh so commonplace and known by all. Some want to hear that sort of goo though.
What I'd want from a Guru is someone very knowledgeable of the lineage, and specifically the teachings therein. I would admire and respect him for his years of dedication and practice in this regard. And if his experience and knowledge exceeded mine, then between the two of us, he would be the better leader so I'd let him. But always maintain autonomy and ability to question, not so much him, but the validity of whats taught.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
Modern sorcerers, by contrast, don Juan portrayed as men renowned for their sound minds and their capacity to rectify the course of sorcery if they deemed it necessary.
Don Juan explained to me that the sorcery premises pertinent to dreaming were naturally envisioned and developed by sorcerers of antiquity. Out of necessity, for those premises are key in explaining and understanding dreaming.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
During one of our conversations, don Juan stated that in order to appreciate the position of dreamers and dreaming, one has to understand the struggle of modern-day sorcerers to steer sorcery away from concreteness toward the abstract.
"What do you call concreteness, don Juan?" I asked.
"The practical part of sorcery," he said. "The obsessive fixation of the mind on practices and techniques, and the unwarranted influence over people. All of these were in the realm of the sorcerers of the past."
"And what do you call the abstract?"
"The search for freedom; freedom to perceive, without obsessions, all that's humanly possible. I say that present-day sorcerers seek the abstract because they seek freedom. They have no interest in concrete gains. There are no social functions for them as there were for the sorcerers of the past. So you'll never catch them being the official seers, or the sorcerers in residence."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
Don Juan explained that sorcerers of antiquity's most important attainment was to perceive the energetic essence of things. This insight was of such importance that it was turned into the basic premise of sorcery. Nowadays, after lifelong discipline and training, sorcerers do acquire the capacity to perceive the essence of things; a capacity they call seeing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
"I can't conceive the world in any other way, don Juan," I complained. "It is unquestionably a world of objects. To prove it, all we have to do is bump into them."
"Of course it's a world of objects. We are not arguing that."
"What are you saying then?"
"I am saying that this is first a world of energy; then it's a world of objects. If we don't start with the premise that it is a world of energy, we'll never be able to perceive energy directly. We'll always be stopped by the physical certainty of what you've just pointed out: the hardness of objects."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Perceiving energy is key SHM. This is used to make the shift into unopened consciousness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:
Perceiving energy is key SHM. This is used to make the shift into unopened consciousness.Thank you Nagual, it is so.
As The Old Nagual explained to me, "Seeing is using the eyes as windows to see with actively and not through passively. It is here speech itself is superfluous, a knowing beyond the clouds of all unknowing, an answer beyond all questioning."
In regards to making the shift into unopened consciousness I'm reminded of Walt Whitman when he asked, looking up at the vast universe of stars: "When we have encompassed all those orbs, and know the joys and pleasures in them, will we be satisfied then?" No, he realized, "we but level that lift to rise and go beyond."
In brother Jed speak, this means Further.
SHM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
"Sorcery makes us aware of different realities; different possibilities, not only about the world but also about ourselves, to the extent that we no longer are able to believe in even the most solid assumptions about ourselves and our surroundings."
I was surprised that I could absorb his words so easily, when I didn't really understand them.
"A sorcerer is not only aware of different realities," he went on, "but he uses that knowledge in practicalities.
"Sorcerers know- not only intellectually but also practically- that reality, or the world as we know it, consists only of an agreement extracted out of every one of us.
"That agreement could be made to collapse, since it's only a social phenomenon. And when it collapses, the whole world collapses with it."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Such agreements are good and wise to remember.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
there are also some different of matter!
If you move your assemblage to The world of the beast for instance..
There is no logical order to matter..
particularly man made!..
NOt because the matter doesnt exist.. but simply because the roots of your awarness have to REACH BACK AEONS
before you can find the SPLIT within the beast that made the logical mind"..
hence nature is a living mystery to the beast!
But the modern world.. Thats a mindfuck!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
~
"It is just a matter of having energy, believe me. The hard part is convincing yourself that it can be done. For this, you need to trust the nagual. The marvel of sorcery is that every sorcerer has to prove everything with his own experience. I am telling you about the principles of sorcery, not with the hope that you will memorize them, but with the hope that you will practice them."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
So you dont think..
that a man who has dealt with his fear sees more of the matter core than another..
and what about the second enemy..
that makes you see more than is usefull for your evolution..
what about oldage..
what about death?
matter changes with awareness..
even that model of an atom with protons and nuetrons orbiting
SHOULD be different for people who ahve learned ability!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
rosygyro wrote:
So you dont think..
I do, from time to time.
that a man who has dealt with his fear sees more of the matter core than another..
What man? Me? You? What's matter core?
and what about the second enemy..
that makes you see more than is usefull for your evolution..
I'm unconcerned with evolution, I'm concerned with Truth at the moment. No, they are not the same.
what about oldage..
what about death?
What about it?
matter changes with awareness..
Is that so? If so, then.....................?
even that model of an atom with protons and nuetrons orbiting
SHOULD be different for people who ahve learned ability!
That's pretty vague, Rosy. Define 'learned ability.'
|
