Carlos Castaneda

[scout1]

i am disappointed

[quantumshaman]

Do you get off on watching yourself post ad nauseam?

[scout1]

You have said it before QS.. believe no one, just do your own research.. and here i am doing
anti-guru, anti-lama, anti-zenmaster, anti-nagual... stance.. thats very good to learn it quickly, and believe no one

[Guest]

scout1 wrote:I think that Jinn sorcery.. the fact of meeting IBs in dreaming is pretty documented in pre-Castaneda literature, and Castaneda could simply pull it out (aka no Don Juan, not needed)... i dont need to bash him, just stating that this is not really spiritual teaching.. its sorcery. In the better sense, nagualism means to take care of your soul in this (dark) world of matter... but in Castanedas case it has brought up only more darkness.. its tragic, dark legacy of Castaneda, it is something like Crowley such a horseshit..
Good points.  I think a good balance between sorcery (ie inorganic dreaming) and other spirit elevating means is a smart move.  Balance-ing.

[Guest]

scout1 wrote:You have said it before QS.. believe no one, just do your own research.. and here i am doing
That was Buddha.. believe no one from the position of authority but test it yourself.. that was Timothy Leary.. think for yourself and question authority or, Start your own religion.. thats it... to drop out...
so thats pretty clear... anti-guru, anti-lama, anti-zenmaster, anti-nagual... stance.. thats very good to learn it quickly, and believe no one, iconoclasm. But analysis is analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...3OI&feature=youtu.be


Question EVERYthing

[scout1]

A Sorcerer's Corner: Carlos Castaneda's Doomed Romance with Knowledge

http://www.realitysandwic...orner_castanedas_romance

I: The Pen is Mightier (A Sorcerer-Academic in Exile)



Over the years, Carlos Castaneda (who
died of liver cancer in 1999) sold millions of books and stirred up a mountain of
speculation and controversy. He was called "the godfather of the New Age" by Time magazine, an ironic designation (his
works are hardly populist) but an indication of his influence on "alternative"
Western thought. Over the years, Castaneda has been denounced
as a trickster, hoaxer, opportunist, and just plain liar (for example, by
Richard de Mille in Castaneda's Journey
and The Don Juan Papers, and Jay
Courtney Fikes in Carlos Castaneda:
Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties). Without going into
detail, there are a considerable number of inconsistencies, if not glaring
contradictions, to be found in his books, and these have led skeptics to conclude
that the accounts were cut from whole cloth. I may as well say, right off the
bat, that I consider this idea untenable. There is simply too much in the books
of obvious merit -- too much insight, depth, and sheer novelty -- for me to believe that
the answer is as straightforward or convenient as that he made it all up. Ironically,
since Castaneda claimed to be recounting his initiation into a "separate
reality" in which the laws of physics were closer to quantum mechanics than
those of Newton (i.e., more microcosmic than macro-, more subjective dream
reality than objective consensus reality), the shaky, amorphous quality of his
accounts could even be said to confirm
their authenticity, rather than to undermine it

[scout1]

"GL: what a melodrama!"
i hope now its clear that you are literary dancing with the Devil...

[quantumshaman]

scout1 wrote:
You have said it before QS.. believe no one, just do your own research.. and here i am doing
That was Buddha.. believe no one from the position of authority but test it yourself.. that was Timothy Leary.. think for yourself and question authority or, Start your own religion.. thats it... to drop out...
so thats pretty clear... anti-guru, anti-lama, anti-zenmaster, anti-nagual... stance.. thats very good to learn it quickly, and believe no one, iconoclasm. But analysis is analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...3OI&feature=youtu.be




Nothing wrong with questioning - I strongly encourage it.  It's the persistent battering of Castaneda that gets tedious with me.  Am I defending the man?  Far from it.  I'm sure he was an ****.  However, he brought some important knowledge to light, and it's how a lot of folks first find their way onto the path.  They don't have to believe him or disbelieve him.  They have to try/do it for themselves.

[Nagual LoneWolf]

Couldn't have said it better QS!

[quantumshaman]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:
Couldn't have said it better QS!

[glance left]

"not explicitly present". Are you completely blind? Have you even read the books, for crying out loud? All those attributes regarding "mindfulness" you mention are absolutely everywhere in his work....like non-stop, front to back. It's the essence of unbending intent...of warriorism...and the only way to defeat the flyer. I've seen the effects of the flyer first hand mon ami....it's energetic signature, not just a symbolic representation. And I'm not the only one here who has seen it. I've personally confirmed phenomena after phenomena in my direct experience....exactly the things CC has described in his books: various gates of dreaming as he describes them...all the way to following a scout IB to its world. " Energy as it flows in the universe " as DJ describes it. Just a couple examples if many, believe me. Boatloads of confirming experiences. I'm not saying all this to blow my own horn. What I am saying is that the techniques and principles/tenants put forth in his works are potent and effective. And if I can see results by putting them into practice, then believe me...anyone can. They absolutely will dramatically shift one's state of perception in a very specific way. And not necessarily in a dark way. The darkness inherent in whatever one perceives amidst these shifts are just that...inherent. I.e. if one has dark tendencies, then darkness one will get.



. Have a great 1 Scout-sky!

[scout1]

Well then i must have taken the "warrior" completely on a hard-line military basis ))  i should know that it is warrior of a soul =)) instead i took a fundamentalist hardcore-halucinogen vs. predator fanatic =)))
But lets have a look on a comparison... the wild shamanic warrior compared to fold yoga or "buddhism" (buddhism means teachings and discipline - dhamma-vinaya) path that i mean by the "explicitity" although if you take the "toltec path" systematically...the path is about awareness.. rather i would like to adress the "darkness" or limits of the toltec path... i will do a special thread "Limits of Toltec path".. to avoid the melodrama =)
so its Sorcerers strategy - in Tales of Power..
vs
The eight limbs of Ashtanga Yoga are:
Yama – code of conduct, self-restraintNiyama – religious observances, commitments to practice, such as study and devotionĀsana – integration of mind and body through physical activityPranayama – regulation of breath leading to integration of mind and bodyPratyahara – abstraction of the senses, withdrawal of the senses of perception from their objectsDharana – concentration, one-pointedness of mindDhyana – meditation (quiet activity that leads to samadhi)Samādhi – the quiet state of blissful awareness, superconscious(?) state. Attained when yogi constantly sees Paramatma in his (jivaatma) heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Yoga

and/or
The Noble Eightfold Path is sometimes divided into three basic divisions, as follows:


Division
Eightfold Path factors
Acquired factors


Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā)
1. Right view
9. Superior right knowledge


2. Right intention
10. Superior right liberation


Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla)
3. Right speech




4. Right action




5. Right livelihood




Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)
6. Right effort




7. Right mindfulness




8. Right concentration


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

[glance left]

"we know this is teacher based as the voluntary disciple is not functional in an effective, for volunteers there is only one avenue via dreaming"
Who told you that?  Are you sure?  And if you say you are...then you shouldn't be.  The structure of your certainty is arbitrary....it simply doesn't reflect what I've seen and what's been described of infinity.  I'm not interested in your systematic comparisons, because...see previous statement.
In associated with all this, what utterly amazes me is the vast volumes of "scripture" and divisions of sects absolutely replete with debate and discourse over the most inane peripheral details found in...say...Buddhism.  I mean, what is Buddhism?  If asked, a scholarly monk might take one to the Hall of Archives in some remote Buddhist monastery and point to hundreds of thousands of books labored over for thousands of years.  But the truth of it is that all of those words sprung forth from one simple act:  a man sitting silently underneath a Bo tree.  That's it.  So you go through your systematic comparison point by point.  Make a party out of it, I don't care.  I know the truth and I know how I arrived at it...and I know there is lots of juicy goodness buried in CC's works...among many....but also that its only as good as what is explored via the medium of silence.  Silent awareness...silent knowledge.  You can chuck it all, but don't chuck that part.  Dreaming?  Just another venue to cultivate that awareness.  An interesting one, yes...and perhaps dangerous in all those wonderful mysterious entrapments inherent within (darkness as you say)...but no more or less dangerous than the entrapment inherent in daily awareness.
"May you laugh yourself silly...and then dissolve into pure light"  -Some wise guy

[scout1]

Psimis 24-1 is the core of the nebula NGC 6357.

[scout1]

And now, you are dancing with devil...

[quantumshaman]

If you're looking only for theoretical or theological comments, here's a thought:
The dissolution into "pure light" occurs when one achieves the totality of himself.  Most of the major "religions" actually do not prepare their followers for that kind of transition, so most religious fruitcakes probably won't make it out of their body, let alone inhabit their totality.  As far as I've been able to discern, Castaneda comes the closest to describing the actual process of transformation/transition/transcendence/transmogrification.  My own conclusion is as follows:
The mortal self is the source, who creates/projects the double.  The double is (or becomes) the energetic vessel capable of housing consciosness when the mortal body "dies" (whatever that ultimately means).  To inhabit the totality of oneself is to merge awareness with mortal self and immortal double, thereby creating the "singularity of consciousness" or the super-position of the assemblage point.
The rest is just window dressing and religious mumbo jumbo.  Yes, it is a scientific process, but most humans need to be brought to it through meta-physics rather than quantum physics.  Why?  Because they are human and humans have feelings which must be considered as part of the equation.  So we talk about falling in love with the double or the realm of the inorganics, but ultimately... it is what it is, and yes, it is science.  But presenting it AS science really doesn't seem to get one very far.  I should know.

[scout1]

QS You have PM.. ;-))

[scout1]

Satcitananda

Satcitananda, Saccidānanda, Satchidananda, or Sat-cit-ānanda (Sanskrit: सच्चिदानन्द, "eternal bliss consciousness"[1]) is a description of the subjective experience of Brahman (the infinite, supreme soul), or of the universal mind. This sublimely blissful experience of the boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

[scout1]

Eternal Bliss Consciousness

[quantumshaman]

scout1 wrote:
Eternal Bliss Consciousness aka satt citt ananda

It is: Buddha, Nirvana, Parabrahman, Moksha, The Light of the One, God.. Love
I'm not interested in your "informational" awareness of heirarcies and pecking orders.  Talk about your own personal experience for a change. In the grand scheme of things, that's all that really matters.  What you read in a book or studied in a classroom... is a gnat fart on the wind.

[scout1]

[glance left]

[quantumshaman]

glance left wrote:



Oh.  That's just wrong.
And absolutely hysterical!  I'm still LOL!

[glance left]

[scout1]