Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Stalking the requirement not to stalk
#1
went onto FB a few months ago....saw id been added to a 'stalkers' group...i went in and had this great flow..so thought id share here...hehehe

status of entry: moi... i dont know who added me...but im here

JS:the thingy bobber says you were added by ..........., 3 months ago.. took u a minute .. haha

ME:hmm. it only showed up as a group 
yesterday...maybe it got moved up as i 
deleted my involvement with some others...oh 
well, what are you guys about?

JSConfusedtalking of course! lol
according to the about "Some have a natural 
disposition to dreaming while for others theirs 
is stalking - The purpose of this group is to 
recall our waking experience with a view to 
discussion, dissemination, and recapitulation 
on the practical application of the Art of 
Stalking. Hopefully we can gain insights into 
its techniques, bring forth our dreaming 
experience into waking life, identify the 
attributes that create a good stalker, and bring 
understanding to how stalking links us with 
INTENT."

MEConfusedo really the intent is to not require to stalk 
anymore?

JS: lol no not at all. it's to help each other 
understand stalking.. so much emphasis has 
went into teaching people dreaming. but 
stalking is clouded in mystery.. although i'm 
not sure this group has helped much.. but 
who knows. perhaps it has.. it helped me 
stalk myself. but that's a whole nother story. 
.hahaha

ME: one asks any question..that is a stalk....to 
stalk to make the unknown...known, then 
because we aim to be fluid, 'to accept without 
accepting or believe without believing'..we 
drop that known back into the unknown 
again....therefore to continue stalking what we 
inevitably know is unknown anyway...why not 
accept its all unknown..and give up 
stalking?...

JS: lol. sounds much easier

ME: lolol actually its a process..one actually has to 
know, to drop it back into the unknown, to 
become the totality of self, if that is the aim 
here, with the knowing its actually a folly to 
begin with, then maybe my double belongs 
here.it could participate..however, as a stalker, 
aiming to come into the realm of 
conscientious elder, in the next 10 years, can 
i afford the indulgence of playing?. To be 
clear, i can play the folly of being a stalker 
here for the group, however my 
predispositions may not be to everyone's 
taste. to that i would remain 
unconcerned.therefore unless one wishes to 
include a stalker who is only interested in the 
folly of stalking, for others to gain that folly and 
then drop it into the unknown may not be 
welcome...so it seems its down to intent, and 
as a being with unbending intent, such 
stalking practices would be utilized to their 
fullest capacity, as is the nature of the stalker, 
with the indifference of one, that has actually 
dropped stalking,and would be indulging in 
that folly, for the hell of it....it could be fun...as 
long as i'm clear with my intent in this matter..i 
remain impeccable.

JS: i'm not sure i understand everything you're 
saying. but i understand a lot of it.. 
i personally (i don't know about the rest of the 
group) would be honored to learn from you

ME: hahaha i'm not that important...hehehe

JS: no. you're just as important or not important 
as anything else.. you're right about that. but 
you are wise and much more knowledgeable 
and experienced then i

ME i know nothing...but the folly of everything, 
therefore i can host anything, but the being of
something....

JS: i barely know you. but i love you. lol

ME:my deep affection emits, but i feel nothing, 
the detachment leads to unconditional 
connection to your nagual being and to its 
path of freedom....in service.....

JS: en lakech
Reply
#2
I agree, there is usefulness in knowing how to not stalk/detach/be unconcerned. Allow the flow of the universe to take over from a certain point, a point in the height of being involved and concerned.

However there is a difference between thinking one is one thing and actually being it.
Reply
#3
For example, I see myself as a

Am I really that? Maybe on some imaginary level, if I turn my seeing upside down and inside out, I might see something which resembles a unicorn. Yet, I am not that, yet I am. Is there a separation between the duality of concern and non-concern? Does it go back to the 'it's one, not two' approach?

I think I know the answer, but do I really?
Reply
#4
Reply
#5
Reply
#6
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)