Beyond Stalking

[Guest]

I amawaiting a response from a friend in Mares' circle as well.


Windwalker wrote:Enchantra wrote:Also, can someone tell me where this idea of stalking others came from? 
I can find no reference to it in any of Castaneda's works, nothing from the Witches.   Ruiz says nothing of it, nor does Theun Mares.  I have also contacted Kris Raphael, founder of the Toltec Nagual Forum, but am awaiting his response. 
I always understood the stalking "others" twist on the original idea was borne in the Theun Mares community, but I have no links or literatire to offer regarding the understanding..

[Sedna]

Thanks.



But again there is no example of stalking given...just saying.



Regarding helping another see, or saying that what they are doing really means xyz...who decides it means xyz? You, the stalker? Self-importance...playing god assuming to know what is and what isn't?



Perception is always false and is always the fault of the perciever. What you saw as a child and thought meant one thing you later see as an adult and think it means something else. This is still true...what you see today and interpret in the way you interpret today seen twenty years from now you will surely interpret in another way. Does your perception/interpretation have any innate value to another? This is what is not clear and no one has offered any examples to back up the premise that it does.



Regarding where it came from...it did not come from any of the authors, but instead it came from a small group's skewed interpretation of Castaneda and has since become the agreement that it really is a true technique that all would use if they were real warriors. Imho, however, the issue of the absence of direct examples of it being of any practical use is telling enough to dismiss it as fantasy of ego perpetrated to elevate one's self over another.

[Guest]

Sedna wrote:Regarding where it came from...it did not come from any of the authors, but instead it came from a small group's skewed interpretation of Castaneda and has since become the agreement that it really is a true technique that all would use if they were real warriors. Imho, however, the issue of the absence of direct examples of it being of any practical use is telling enough to dismiss it as fantasy of ego perpetrated to elevate one's self over another.Exactly.

[Gonzo]

Sedna wrote:Thanks.



But again there is no example of stalking given...just saying.



Regarding helping another see, or saying that what they are doing really means xyz...who decides it means xyz? You, the stalker? Self-importance...playing god assuming to know what is and what isn't?



Perception is always false and is always the fault of the perciever. What you saw as a child and thought meant one thing you later see as an adult and think it means something else. This is still true...what you see today and interpret in the way you interpret today seen twenty years from now you will surely interpret in another way. Does your perception/interpretation have any innate value to another? This is what is not clear and no one has offered any examples to back up the premise that it does.



Regarding where it came from...it did not come from any of the authors, but instead it came from a small group's skewed interpretation of Castaneda and has since become the agreement that it really is a true technique that all would use if they were real warriors. Imho, however, the issue of the absence of direct examples of it being of any practical use is telling enough to dismiss it as fantasy of ego perpetrated to elevate one's self over another.
You do not see any of the techniques of the Naguals in Castaneda's books as stalking?  Perhaps we ought to re-write the dictionary.

[Nu Lang]

Sedna, you are stalking me right now. What you are doing is one form of stalking. YOu don;t like what I'm saying about stalking and so you are stalking that.... Now, if I just got paid for every time I said the word 'stalking' lately...



En, Gonzo's example of DJ turning into a feeble old man to enable Carlos to reach the place of no pity is a good one...(you asked for an example).

[Sedna]

Gonzo wrote:
You do not see any of the techniques of the Naguals in Castaneda's books as stalking?  Perhaps we ought to re-write the dictionary.
I would not have called them that, no.  Nor is what people are doing and calling stalking reproductions of anything the players in Castaneda's books did.  Never once did Genero or DJ engage in verbal battles and then tell CC he was wrong for reacting.  So, short point, if you want me to believe your premise then you will have to make your case by clearly setting out your examples and expain your reason for calling them stalking rather than what they are.  I am not sure how to say this politely, but if you are going to make something up you had better be prepared to lay it out...just saying.
What I did see in the techniques used to get CC to certain realizations was what I would call "propping."  However, the "propping" they did looked nothing like: "when you do that it really means this."  And, I don't believe that DJ or any of the others ever called CC "wrong." 
Although, I suppose if you wanted to climb a cliff face with your tenticles for people (assuming you were able to do that) then I suppose you could call it whatever you wanted to...or telling people how you cannot get back to Ixtlan.  Is that what you are doing???  I don't know, just guessing here, but maybe you are mixing up CC's books and internet lingo????  There is a term called "stalking" in internet lingo that more closely matches what it is your are doing and calling stalking...however, like stalking in real life, it usually involves a fair amount of obsession.

[Sedna]

Nu Lang wrote:
Sedna, you are stalking me right now. What you are doing is one form of stalking. YOu don;t like what I'm saying about stalking and so you are stalking that.... Now, if I just got paid for every time I said the word 'stalking' lately...
En, Gonzo's example of DJ turning into a feeble old man to enable Carlos to reach the place of no pity is a good one...(you asked for an example).Hahaha...so not liking something is stalking????  You are kidding right???  Why not just call it not liking something????  Or is that just too obvious???  Just saying. 
And how is not liking something have ANYTHING to do with turning into an old man???  Are you turning into an old man...and if so why???
Hahaha, are you really postulating that when people encounter things they don't like they turn into old men???  Maybe you are turning into a nut job...maybe that is your form of copying DJ...I don't know, but it seems silly to me. 
How I view what I am doing is I am clear that I am not clear about what you are saying and I am asking for you to make it more clear for the rest of us.  And in reading this conversation I am very clear on one thing, that I will continue to refer to it as asking for greater clarity and not, as you suggest, refer to it as stalking because when I expain it to someone, when I ask for greater clarity, I would like them to understand what I am saying.

[Guest]

Nu Lang wrote:

Sedna, you are stalking me right now. What you are doing is one form of stalking. YOu don;t like what I'm saying about stalking and so you are stalking that....
Nu lang,  if we see soemthing we don't like and stalk that, we should be stalking that within us which doesn't like the thing, we are stalking ourself, not the other to find out why we feel the way we do.
I had a convo this morning with a well respected Toltec Leader.  He had this to say:
The first causation is 'know thyself'. You do this by increasing
self-awareness. A powerful tool to facilitate this is stalking self. As
you increase self-awareness, your awareness in general increases and you
are able to 'see' others more clearly.
It is always easier to see other people's patterns than it is to see our own. But, it always begins and ends with self.
There
are Toltec stalking exercises where we stalk other people. For example,
if you are sitting in a restaurant and mimic as exactly as you can the
facial expressions and body posture of another person in the restaurant,
you will begin to 'read' their thoughts. But, these exercises are
secondary to stalking self.
You can't force or make another
person heal. They must choose to heal first. You can't make or force
another person to embark on a growth path. It must come from within them
first. In the same way, self awareness always begins and ends with
self.So there are specific exercises wherein we do stalk others, mimicry, in order to see other people better, to enhance our own seeing.  But as I understand it, stalking is not typically (in Toltec terms) done to help another person see.

[zombiewarrioroflight]

Are you guys like enemies of parralel perception? seems like you talk alot of **** about those guys.

[zombiewarrioroflight]

Also I see what people are thinking and what happened in their past and future to help them and for fun!! If thats what stalking is....

[Nu Lang]

En, I am not upset that Sedna is stalking, I'm just pointing out that thats what's happening.

[Gonzo]

Sedna wrote:Gonzo wrote:
You do not see any of the techniques of the Naguals in Castaneda's books as stalking?  Perhaps we ought to re-write the dictionary.
I would not have called them that, no.  Nor is what people are doing and calling stalking reproductions of anything the players in Castaneda's books did.  Never once did Genero or DJ engage in verbal battles and then tell CC he was wrong for reacting.  So, short point, if you want me to believe your premise then you will have to make your case by clearly setting out your examples and expain your reason for calling them stalking rather than what they are.  I am not sure how to say this politely, but if you are going to make something up you had better be prepared to lay it out...just saying.
What I did see in the techniques used to get CC to certain realizations was what I would call "propping."  However, the "propping" they did looked nothing like: "when you do that it really means this."  And, I don't believe that DJ or any of the others ever called CC "wrong." 
Although, I suppose if you wanted to climb a cliff face with your tenticles for people (assuming you were able to do that) then I suppose you could call it whatever you wanted to...or telling people how you cannot get back to Ixtlan.  Is that what you are doing???  I don't know, just guessing here, but maybe you are mixing up CC's books and internet lingo????  There is a term called "stalking" in internet lingo that more closely matches what it is your are doing and calling stalking...however, like stalking in real life, it usually involves a fair amount of obsession. 
  
I would agree Internet stalking is usually a war of egos, and perhaps the word is a bit too loaded to describe the teaching techniques of the Naguals.  However, it's somewhat like "sorcery", which don Juan admitted was inadquate to describe what many here like to call "nagualism", essentially a summation of the teachings of don Juan.
In my opinion, the term is relevant since what occurs matches the prime definition of stalking.  Perhaps the difference lies in the ultimate aim.  In Internet stalking it's perhaps a battle of wits, or a battle, as you stated, to see who is "right", which seldom occurs.  What seems primarily to occur in Internet stalking is entertainment since it's a jousting match.
The reason I believe the teaching technique may be called stalking is that the teacher is essentially in the role of the hunter.  His attentions are focused on the "prey" (aka student) and what is observed are the mannerisms and habits of the "prey", not for the sake of ridicule or proving the "prey" wrong, but for the sake of suggesting the "prey" examine his beliefs and usually unconscious reflex behaviors for the sake of discovering an alternate way.  Don Juan continually suggested to CC there were, as was said in Shakespeare, more things in heaven and earth than resided in his philosophy.  As I said elsewhere, in my opinion, just about every teaching instance in the books reflects this technique, however, more examples could be provided if you want.

[Gonzo]

Sedna wrote:Nu Lang wrote:
Sedna, you are stalking me right now. What you are doing is one form of stalking. YOu don;t like what I'm saying about stalking and so you are stalking that.... Now, if I just got paid for every time I said the word 'stalking' lately...
En, Gonzo's example of DJ turning into a feeble old man to enable Carlos to reach the place of no pity is a good one...(you asked for an example).Hahaha...so not liking something is stalking????  You are kidding right???  Why not just call it not liking something????  Or is that just too obvious???  Just saying. 
And how is not liking something have ANYTHING to do with turning into an old man???  Are you turning into an old man...and if so why???
Hahaha, are you really postulating that when people encounter things they don't like they turn into old men???  Maybe you are turning into a nut job...maybe that is your form of copying DJ...I don't know, but it seems silly to me. 
How I view what I am doing is I am clear that I am not clear about what you are saying and I am asking for you to make it more clear for the rest of us.  And in reading this conversation I am very clear on one thing, that I will continue to refer to it as asking for greater clarity and not, as you suggest, refer to it as stalking because when I expain it to someone, when I ask for greater clarity, I would like them to understand what I am saying.  
For the sake of clarity, the old man reference was merely to summarize the event.  If you read it in "The Power of Silence" what occurred was a public accusation of poor treatment by don Juan pretending to be a feeble old man against the younger, more vigorous Carlos Castaneda.

[Guest]

zombiewarrioroflight wrote:Also I see what people are thinking and what happened in their past and future to help them and for fun!! If thats what stalking is....
That sounds more like seeing...

[Sedna]

Nu Lang wrote:
En, I am not upset that Sedna is stalking, I'm just pointing out that thats what's happening....according to you. 
Just so long as you understand that you created a point of view that allowed you to see something that isn't there.

[Sedna]

Gonzo wrote:

I would agree Internet stalking is usually a war of egos, and perhaps the word is a bit too loaded to describe the teaching techniques of the Naguals.  However, it's somewhat like "sorcery", which don Juan admitted was inadquate to describe what many here like to call "nagualism", essentially a summation of the teachings of don Juan.
In my opinion, the term is relevant since what occurs matches the prime definition of stalking.  Perhaps the difference lies in the ultimate aim.  In Internet stalking it's perhaps a battle of wits, or a battle, as you stated, to see who is "right", which seldom occurs.  What seems primarily to occur in Internet stalking is entertainment since it's a jousting match.
The reason I believe the teaching technique may be called stalking is that the teacher is essentially in the role of the hunter.  His attentions are focused on the "prey" (aka student) and what is observed are the mannerisms and habits of the "prey", not for the sake of ridicule or proving the "prey" wrong, but for the sake of suggesting the "prey" examine his beliefs and usually unconscious reflex behaviors for the sake of discovering an alternate way.  Don Juan continually suggested to CC there were, as was said in Shakespeare, more things in heaven and earth than resided in his philosophy.  As I said elsewhere, in my opinion, just about every teaching instance in the books reflects this technique, however, more examples could be provided if you want.
  
Then why not just call it something else, something that draws the corresponding picture in the other person's mind of what you are trying to say??? 
What you are describing here sounds a lot like drowning someone in order to save them.  Could it be fueled by a savior complex...some latent unexpressed desire to be someone's knight in shining armor? 
It also sounds like teaching pigs to fly without asking them first if they would like to learn. 
If you were stalking people for their benefit, as has been said, then why are there no threads for people to post things that they would like help stalking???  If that were truly the motivation. 
Likewise, your whole premise sits on an agreement that people are broken and in need of fixing...however, maybe...just maybe, people are not broken...did you ever consider that?  Just because certain people may not conform to your rule about what they should be is not their fault...but the fault of your creating a rule about them. 
Lastly, if seems to me that a group of you have been stalking for a great many years...how come it hasn't worked?  If it was such a great technique it should have worked by now.  With a success rate like that why is it even considered a worthy technique?
Still you have not drawn out how this is suppose to work in a way that all could readily get what you are saying...imho it'd be interesting to determine whether it could be or if it is just smoke that you are blowing.

[Nu Lang]

Gonzo wrote:The reason I believe the teaching technique may be called stalking is that the teacher is essentially in the role of the hunter.  His attentions are focused on the "prey" (aka student) and what is observed are the mannerisms and habits of the "prey", not for the sake of ridicule or proving the "prey" wrong, but for the sake of suggesting the "prey" examine his beliefs and usually unconscious reflex behaviors for the sake of discovering an alternate way.  Don Juan continually suggested to CC there were, as was said in Shakespeare, more things in heaven and earth than resided in his philosophy.  As I said elsewhere, in my opinion, just about every teaching instance in the books reflects this technique, however, more examples could be provided if you want.
Gonzo, here is a good quote on that.
"Some sorcerers object to the term stalking," he went on, "but the name came about because it entails surreptitious behavior.  
"It's
also called the art of stealth, but that term is equally unfortunate.
We ourselves, because of our nonmilitant temperament, call it the art of
controlled folly. You can call it anything you wish. We, however, will
continue with the term stalking since it's so easy to say stalker and,
as my benefactor used to say, so awkward to say controlled folly maker." -DJ
So surreptitious (secretive) behavior, just like hunting yes.

[Nu Lang]

"Other warriors can learn stalking in their normal awareness, although it is advisable that they do it in heightened awareness - not so much because of the value of heightened awareness, but because it imbues stalking with a mystery that it doesn't really have; stalking is merely behavior with people."


He explained that stalking practices are not something one can rejoice in; in fact, they are downright objectionable. Knowing this, the new seers realize that it would be against everybody's interest to discuss or practice the principles of stalking in normal awareness.
The art of stalking is the riddle of the heart; the puzzlement sorcerers feel upon becoming aware of two things: first that the world appears to us to be unalterably objective and factual, because of peculiarities of our awareness and perception; second, that if different peculiarities of perception come into play, the very things about the world that seem so unalterably objective and factual change.
He stressed repeatedly that teaching stalking was one of the most difficult things sorcerers did. And he insisted that no matter what they themselves did to teach me stalking, and no matter what I believed to the contrary, it was impeccability which dictated their acts.
He asserted that stalking was the beginning, and that before anything could be attempted on the warrior's path, warriors must learn to stalk; next they must learn to intend, and only then could they move their assemblage point at will.

"The very first principle of stalking is that a warrior stalks himself," he said. "He stalks himself ruthlessly, cunningly, patiently, and sweetly."
I wanted to laugh, but he did not give me time. Very succinctly he defined stalking as the art of using behavior in novel ways for specific purposes. He said that normal human behavior in the world of everyday life was routine. Any behavior that broke from routine caused an unusual effect on our total being. That unusual effect was what sorcerers sought, because it was cumulative.



"The real challenge for those sorcerer seers," don Juan went on, "was finding a system of behavior that was neither petty nor capricious, but that combined the morality and the sense of beauty which differentiates sorcerer seers from plain witches."

He said that for sorcerers stalking was the foundation on which everything else they did was built.
He smiled, his eyes shining like two spots of light. He said that sorcerers, in an effort to protect themselves from the overwhelming effect of silent knowledge, developed the art of stalking. Stalking moves the assemblage point minutely but steadily, thus giving sorcerers time and therefore the possibility of buttressing themselves.

"Within the art of stalking," don Juan continued, "there is a technique which sorcerers use a great deal: controlled folly. Sorcerers claim that controlled folly is the only way they have of dealing with themselves - in their state of expanded awareness and perception - and with everybody and everything in the world of daily affairs."

Don Juan had explained controlled folly as the art of controlled deception or the art of pretending to be thoroughly immersed in the action at hand - pretending so well no one could tell it from the real thing. Controlled folly is not an outright deception, he had told me, but a sophisticated, artistic way of being separated from everything while remaining an integral part of everything.



"Controlled folly is an art," don Juan continued. "A very bothersome art, and a difficult one to learn. Many sorcerers don't have the stomach for it, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the art, but because it takes a lot of energy to exercise it."

"The art of stalking," he continued, "as I have already said, deals with the fixation of the assemblage point. The old sorcerers discovered, through practice, that important as it is to displace the assemblage point, it is even more important to make it stay fixed on its new position, wherever that new position might be."





He explained that if the assemblage point does not become stationary, there is no way that we can perceive coherently. We would experience then a kaleidoscope of disassociated images. This is the reason the old sorcerers put as much emphasis on dreaming as they did on stalking.



One art cannot exist without the other, especially for the kinds of activities in which the old sorcerers were involved.
"Let your energy body intend to reach the optimum dreaming position," he explained. "Then, let your energy body intend to stay at that position and you will be stalking."

"We can't have dealings with them [IB’s]," he answered, "and yet we can't stay away from them. My solution has been to take their energy but not give in to their influence. This is known as the ultimate stalking.



"I'm going to propose a line of action for you," he said in a curt tone when we had finished our lunch. "It's the last task of the third gate of dreaming, and it consists of stalking the stalkers, a most mysterious maneuver. To stalk the stalkers means to deliberately draw energy from the inorganic beings' realm in order to perform a sorcery feat."

[Nu Lang]

Its said women are the best stalkers...because they know naturally how to be ruthless, patient, cunning and sweet. Women are also good at being deceptive (secretive) of their true intentions...another good stalking skill. Men who are good stalkers then therefore employ a feminine finesse.

[Nu Lang]

"He explained that stalking practices are not something one can rejoice in; in fact, they are downright objectionable. Knowing this, the new seers realize that it would be against everybody's interest to discuss or practice the principles of stalking in normal awareness."



This is so true and this sub-forum, which was at one time simply "stalking" and then became combined with dreaming, was very and has been very volatile. Stalking is a heated subject of discussion. I think its because everyone knows innately they are being stalked in one form or another so stalking seems like a violation of freedom. People really get upset when they find out they have been deceived. All this is understandable, because in the world at large, people will deceive you to 'take' something from you. The concept of deception to 'give' you something is rarely entertained. But the art of stalking is not the same as stalking to con someone. The art of stalking applies to warriors and they use it to empower themselves and fellow warriors who also eventually come to understand the art. First one has to understand how the rest of the world stalks, for this one must stalk themselves.

[Sedna]

Yes, I read the books...and apparently interpreted them differently than you have. And, I get what it is that you are calling stalking...and again will say that it has yet to bear any resembalance to CC's quotes. What you have failed to do, for whatever reason (although I suspect I may know why), is make the case for actions you have taken (and called stalking) with others and demonstrated that they created the kinds of shifts CC mentioned...indeed, not even one story of this...not to mention the absense of threads where people could ask for certain things to be stalked. I am sorry, but I just don't see it. So, failing to make your case and your overwhelming show of egoism in your responses suggests the conclusion that all it amounts to is justification for poor behavior. As I came searching the net for information on this, finding none, I go back from where I came...



...until next time, fair thee well.

[zombiewarrioroflight]

He asserted that stalking was the beginning, and that before anything could be attempted on the warrior's path, warriors must learn to stalk; next they must learn to intend, and only then could they move their assemblage point at will.



this^

[Guest]

Lunoor wrote:
I don't deliberately set out to stalk people but I notice what they do and say.  I know enough of my own tricks from stalking myself to see the ruses of others pretty ably, I am sure I have my blind spots though. If someone comes into my territory with ill intent or disrespect these days I sometimes give this if the moment begs it:



Yes lunoor!  Great points!

[Nu Lang]

Self defense stalking.

[Sedna]

Ok, I lied...I am back...but just for a moment and just because I am after an answer.



To respond to what has been said:



Someone posted numerous quotes from Castaneda’s books on stalking…for every one of those quotes, describe an interaction out of your real life that you call stalking that illustrates each of these points.



Someone stated, ‘who said it wasn’t working.’ Well, obviously I said it wasn’t, duh. But to acknowledge your point…your seeing the err of someone’s ways and feeling some compulsion or obsession to point it out to them is an indulgence in egoic self-importance...and so, ok, I get that you are, or have become, a nagual in your own mind. Ok, so describe a real life event in which you did something that you would call stalking where the other person, seeing what you did, would consider you a nagual.



Describe a real life event where you engaged in stalking another that you propped a shift in them.



You need to flesh out what it is that you are calling stalking. Someone said that when you disagree that is stalking. Another said that when you post that is stalking. Another said it is when you point out the err of someone’s ways and that is stalking. Another said it is when you magically become an old man and that transformation is stalking.



Do you have any idea just how many threads on how many forums I have come across on stalking and not once does anyone lay out clearly what it is? Someone said that they have said it as clearly as they can. I disagree. Lay it out so clearly that a person new to Castaneda could begin using it in their real life. Describe the action one should take. Describe the result one is after. Describe how that gets you power or makes you a nagual. Spend the time to make your case that point out the err of peoples’ ways is stalking. Stalking should be much easier to define than dreaming and should be made more easy by the nature of stalkers to notice details…so why is it that stalking gets numerous threads that never get to the heart of what stalking is?



It is about time to flesh this out.