Clarity & Madness

[alien]

"The clarity of a sorcerer may be taken as madness in the ordinary world." (Orlando, 2010)

All states of being are essentially positions of the assemblage point. This would include clarity, madness, dreaming, stalking, love, grief, and so on. The sorcerer who is operating from a position of clarity will quickly see that the vast majority of humans are, by strict definition, far more "mad" than any sorcerer, for they are living in a world of beiefs, illusions and delusions to which they have agreed (the consensus), but no matter the number of followers to a belief system, it does not make the belief itself a reality. A hundred million people may truly believe the earth hangs in a void suspended on the backs of giant turtles, but that does not make it so. What it does, however, is to create a powerful consensus - even if the consensus itself is madness by strict definition.
Some of the most powerful agreements in your world are utterly insane, of course. The belief in a supreme being who hands out reward and punishment. The belief that war is justified when that supreme being is on one's side. The belief that one race is superior to another by virtue of skin color or physical stature. The belief that anyone who does not share your belief is a heretic and must be destroyed. The belief that the money you carry in your wallet has value or meaning.
There are so many "little" beliefs strung together to form a culture that one tends to lose sight of the underlying structure unless and until it begins to fall apart in some way - as it did when it was discovered that, despite the prevailing belief system of the day, the Earth wasn't really flat, just for one example. Another might be to consider the essential collapse of the economy in the US. For as long as the illusion of well-being could be maintained, the economy was strong. When the illusion began to unravel, so did the economy. Too simple? Not really. Your world is held together by little more than ideas strung together into consensuses and agreements. Pull one string too hard, the whole thing begins to unravel, and usually not slowly or tenderly.
So where is the madness? Put simply, it lies within the false belief systems which have been accepted for so long that they have become "reality" - even though that reality is largely false and, by definition, a delusional reality in itself.
The sorcerer *sees* this, but also sees that s/he is altogether powerless to change it. And, keep in mind that the goal is not to change it nor even attempt to understand it, except to the extent that may be required for a full and absolute comprehension of the statement, "The world is a nuthouse and the lunatics are running the asylum." You cannot tear down the asylum - and why would you want to? You cannot free the inmates - for freedom is already theirs if they are willing to take it.
The goal is simply to navigate the tonal - the goal is survival and, if you seek it, success in whatever you are attempting to accomplish. Though never forget that what a sorcerer might consider success, an ordinary man may label as madness, and vice versa.
Clarity is considered a enemy of a man of knowledge largely because even sorcerers may become fixated on WHAT they are seeing to such an extent that it becomes mesmerizing. The key is to *see* the world in all its madness without getting pulled back into the madness itself. This is simply how the human hive creates itself. Clarity gives one the ability to *see* that with unwavering certainty, and power gives one the ability to exist apart from the consensual hive even when surrounded by it.

[Nu Lang]

Nice post and I really like what you outlined about clarity and power and how they are harnessed, why they are 'enemies' due to their potential of leading one back into that world of madness which is the non-sorcery world. Power of course being an enemy because of the element of control that it seems to provide. But in truth, the only way to handle power is to surrender to it. Power, clarity, and knowledge must all be balanced. Knowledge is what informs us about clarity and power. Perhaps we can define knowledge as the price paid by sorcerers before us and the legacy they left us as guidance. And then we add to that knowledge base, revise it at times, for future generations and thus carry on the legacy and lineages.

[alien]

Thanks for the feedback.  For the sake of clarity and syntax, I would define Knowledge as the things we have learned through direct personal experienced and prcessed into Knowledge.  Awhile back in another thread, I saw that Dreamways had set up a site where people could post their personal glossaries.  Not a bad idea, since it seems that theToltec terminology tends to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who engages it.  When I was initially creating the Quantum Shaman website, I realized that such a glossary was a necessity, so I set it up as part of the site itself, if anyone is interested. 
http://www.quantumshaman.com/html/glossarytext.htm
KNOWLEDGE -- as used throughout these documents, Knowledge shall refer to the result of direct personal experience. Example: we are taught as children that fire will burn, but until we touch a candle flame to see for ourselves, we cannot know for sure. The Quantum Shaman seeks Knowledge, never settling for faith or belief systems. The greatest Knowledge comes through gnosis.This is just my personal definition, which hopefully sheds some light as to where I'm coming from when  talk about the differences between information, belief and knowledge.

[alien]

This same subject came up on another forum I belong to, and in a private conversation with a good friend.  So it seems relevant to add what was gleaned this morning... 
________________________

When engaging the path, it is important to understand the difference between information, belief and knowledge. Put simply, it is simply this:
Information cosists of the data one encounters in the course of living - what you have read in books, on the internet, heard through the media, friends, family or any other source. Information is all around us... but not all information is truth. In fact, most of it isn't.
Belief might be defined as what occurs when the mind processes information and reaches certain conclusions. For example, you're told as a chid that fire will burn you, but until you stick your hand into the flame, you cannot really know for certain. What you believe may seem to be true, but if you are honest with yourself, if you live by the tenet of "Question everything!", you will be continuously asking yourself why you believe certain things, and again if you are honest, you will come to *see* that much of what you believe is only regurgitated information. You have not experienced it for yourself, so you can only believe it. Example: many people claim to believe in reincarnation, or an extant deity, but unless one has full-on memory of the alleged past life, or some type of quantifiable proof of the existence of their deity, it is only a belief - information which has been processed, bt which is not necessarily "true" in the bigger picture. There can be a useful application for belief - "fake it till you make it" - but most times, you will find that your beliefs hold you back from Knowledge, rather than moving you toward it. It is only when the seeker is fully aware of her beliefs that she 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).


Knowledge is really very simple. It is what you have experienced for yourself and therefore know to be true. In its pure state, Knowledge exists without conclusions. Example: if you have been told that fire is hot (information), and you then proceed to hold your hand in the flame, you then Know that fire is indeed hot. However, what is important to also know is that this is not necessarily the highest truth - for even Knowledge is always evolving. Consider the firewalkers who may walk through an actual furnace at 1300 degrees, and suffer no physical harm. Fire is still hot. But fire does not always burn. Therefore, the advanced seeker observes and experiences her Knowledge, but without limiting it through the assignation of conclusions. Example: if you were to conclude that fire ALWAYS consumes, you would never be able to be a firewalker yourself, and would most likely *believe* firewalking to be a hoax or some manner of anomaly. So, put simply, knowledge is what you experience and ONLY what you experience.

It is vitally important for any seeker to fully understand that what she believes is not necessarily truth. What she has been told is not knowledge. Only what she herself has experienced directly may be classified as Knowledge.

Knowledge may be shared, but not transferred. My knowledge can only be given to you as information.

Do with it as you Will.

(Orlando - 2011)

"The destruction of faith is the beginning of evolution."

[Nu Lang]

Thanks for sharing about information, beliefs, and knowledge. It was very useful to me Alien.



I see all three are factors, and why its the "price paid" that makes something knowledge. Information fills up the world, gives it such complexity and choice, which tests us by asking us to make choices, narrow decision and navigate the vastness of contradictions. Beliefs can guide us to knowledge by serving as a path for intent to actualize, and then again beliefs can just as easily steer us away from acquiring knowledge.. as you said, when beliefs remain unexamined or untested, thus hive mentality rules the mindset in such a case.
Arriving at knowledge is experiencing first hand this gnosis you talk about. Of course gnosis is just terminology to describe a very real experience in percpetion that literally needs no definition to the one experiencing it and its only in the explaining we are forced to use words, which then becomes information and beliefs to others until they have a first hand knowledge themselves.To utilize first hand knowledge is to be a man/woman of knowledge. It could be called also self-empowerment.

[Gonzo]

I have the usual problem with this proclamation - the proclamation being that information only becomes knowledge through experience. Apparently this has only to do with physical experience, as noted, such as experiencing what it's like to get burned by a candle flame.



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?



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?



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?



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?



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.
... 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?



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? 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.

[alien]

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.

[Nu Lang]

Gonzo wrote: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?



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?

To me, yes any experience qualifies. All that you described, so not only say waking material experience. So yes the lines do become blurred in that regard. To me what is most important is to examine what you believe and only keep those beliefs that 'feel' right to you. Then I feel its important to share that, becasue to me, seeing energy is just that, its a feeling and it can be transferred. Some may say that experience is only personal and cannot be shared but I say the one thing that is true is seeing is shared and seers exchange knowledge this way, and thats how Toltec lineages came into being and why they are effective.
Trust is a big factor. If you trust the one who is guiding you, whether they be a long term guide or just someone you respect and thus their words carry more weight then the words of others you know less about, then you consider their knowledge as a belief it is 'possible' even if you have no evidence of it in your own experience. So in this way you charge such beliefs with potential to actualize. Once you consider it as a possibility they you can intend yourself towards it's discovery in your life which you can corroborate and then it becomes your knowledge and no one can dissuade you from what you know is true by your own witnessing.
For example, if you trust and respect a person who is a hypnotist, and you yourself are not sure if hypnosis is real, your trust in the person will lead you to consider it is real, thus you open your mind to the idea and thus are open to the experience directly. Truth is, many of the magical things we can experience come only if one is open to it. So a skeptic may not believe in energy bodies and thus never get to experience astral travel firsthand because they are closed to it. If we proceed with the idea that anything, anything at all is possible, and then ask what it is our own hearts seek, then we can see the path best for us, and naturally we gravitate to the people who have the experiences we ourselves seek to have. I feel there is so much information out there and so one must at some point in their life narrow their choices so they can evolve to the next level.
To me the path of freedom surpasses all becasue it will allow you to have experiences and beliefs, but the core of it is to remain free and detached from conclusions. To me this best reflects what eternity is, so its aligning with eternity. The only pitfall I see is that the path of freedom can appeal to a warrior as a means to be a drifter. They can actually fear getting specific. They consider that nothing really matters so they will not get 'caught' or 'stuck' in any false belief. But truth is, our beliefs guide us and helps us focus onto a very specific course and this causes us to condense our energy and combine our resources in such a way that we have a direction and destination rather then just drifting about, which does get old after a while. So, its one thing to understand all is folly, but its another to be able to say "well if so, lets see what I can do with this folly and where it will take me." and for this we only need to ask ourselves what it is our hearts seek to manifest and it can be done, because anything is possible and the heart will not steer us wrong, I've witnessed.
The ones who follow the paths of freedom get to experience more and more refined perceptions of realms only open to those who have exhibited they have attained such a worthiness through sacrifice of lower realms of which the latter are held together by concreteness, heavy emotions and rigid beliefs and comprise the non-magical world of reason.

[Gonzo]

Gonzo wrote: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?
Alien wrote: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.
My point is obscure, however it has to do with the difference between a belief in the continuance of the laws of the universe versus a belief in a philosophical point of view. That is, primarily an opinion of the purpose of human existence. In my opinion, in regard the latter, it is all a matter of faith since the ultimate proof of any philosophical point of view must come after death. The "proofs" offered ("...leeches don't really cure epilepsy...", etc) have only to do with the physical world (i.e. the laws of the universe) - they do not deal with philosophical proofs, if any such are available.

In this regard:Nu Lang wrote:To me what is most important is to examine what you believe and only keep those beliefs that 'feel' right to you. That's as good as can be hoped for.


In regard reincarnation, if it cannot be experienced, and therefore remains information rather than knowledge, how can any conclusions concerning it be challenged? It seems to me any opinion has potential validity and disagreements are bound to occur. We all can agree concerning the laws of the universe - philosophy (including spirituality) is another matter.

[alien]

GONZO WROTE:
Nu Lang wrote:

To me what is most important is to examine what you believe and only keep those beliefs that 'feel' right to you.
That's as good as can be hoped for. In regard reincarnation, if it cannot be experienced, and therefore remains information rather than knowledge, how can any conclusions concerning it be challenged? It seems to me any opinion has potential validity and disagreements are bound to occur. We all can agree concerning the laws of the universe - philosophy (including spirituality) is another matter.
With regard to keeping what "feels" right to someone... some people think it "feels right" to believe that all gays should be killed or that other races are inferior due to skin color or region of birth  or that anyone who doesn't believe in their religion is a heretic who should be stoned., .  Read an article just recently where some women in India were killed by their husbands because they produced female children, and their husbands "felt" it was the fault of the women.  So my point is that what we "feel" isn't always necessarily true.  And faith is just another word for unfounded belief - and in the name of "faith" entire civilizations have been wiped out because someone "felt" God was on their side.
Dangerous turf.  But feel free to feel your way along, placing your "trust" in the god of the region or the guru du jour.  Heh.  I'll stick with clarity and experience.

[ninth octave]

And if the Pope at the Vatican proclainmed in headline news sometime soon GOD NEVER EXISTED ,what Christian would then begin to believe in this proclamation?

[Gonzo]

Alien wrote:With regard to keeping what "feels" right to someone... some people think it "feels right" to believe that all gays should be killed or that other races are inferior due to skin color or region of birth or that anyone who doesn't believe in their religion is a heretic who should be stoned., . Read an article just recently where some women in India were killed by their husbands because they produced female children, and their husbands "felt" it was the fault of the women. So my point is that what we "feel" isn't always necessarily true. And faith is just another word for unfounded belief - and in the name of "faith" entire civilizations have been wiped out because someone "felt" God was on their side.With this you are now getting off into morality, which differs by culture, which as we all know, in some cases allows for things our culture regards as wrong, but that is merely our morality versus theirs, in both cases, products of respective cultures. What has this to do with faith?



In regard "feel", in my own seeking for understanding I've moved through a variety of teachings/philosophies/religions, and each felt "right" for a while, and certain aspects of several continue to feel "right", which is to say, somehow the teaching makes sense to me, and it presents to me a plausible explanation for the human experience. None can be proven to be correct, so the best I can do is respond to the feel, to the resonance. That can easily be called faith, however, I don't see how else one can approach philosophical and spiritual matters.

[Nu Lang]

I trust what I feel. Because I understand things beyond average human understanding. Some people in the world are still very much in the tonal mindset. These people have not read books like Castaneda wrote or likely not delved into any type of metaphysical practice or experience. My friend who lives in the south tells me about people like this. People who rarely travel out of their state, they watch the same TV programs, attend the same church, have the same friends their whole life and in this they acquire the same beliefs systems...which often take the forms of prejudices. These people are not warriors.



Warriors have a link with the nagual, and that link is felt as feeling the link. It guides and directs warriors on their path, the unseen to the physical eye connection, the transforming link that reveals us as magical beings. It allows us to operate outside the box, regardless of how things appear to the mindsets of everyone else. It is seeing beyond what is taken as concrete and absolute.

[alien]

ninth octave wrote:
And if the Pope at the Vatican proclainmed in headline news sometime soon GOD NEVER EXISTED ,what Christian would then begin to believe in this proclamation?

What does "The destruction of faith is the beginning of evolution actually mean?"
Very simple:  as long as we have "faith" (blind belief or even unfounded acceptance) in something, we are failing to evolve.  It is only when we can eliminate faith that we are forced to stand face to face with the universe and begin to live by our wits and our will rather than hoping/believing/praying/wishing for something outside ourselves to save us from death or anything else.
As for your other question about the pope... That's my point.  People DO believe in outlandish proclamations because they have been told for so long that they "should" believe and for no other reason.  True believers will just go right on truly believing.  Nothing to be done about it. So if the pope announced that god never existed, he'd probably be stoned by his own bishops for being a heretic.  That would be rather amusing, when you really stop to think about it.  LOL.  God is on their side, after all.

[alien]

Gonzo wrote:
Alien wrote:
With regard to keeping what "feels" right to someone... some people think it "feels right" to believe that all gays should be killed or that other races are inferior due to skin color or region of birth or that anyone who doesn't believe in their religion is a heretic who should be stoned., . Read an article just recently where some women in India were killed by their husbands because they produced female children, and their husbands "felt" it was the fault of the women. So my point is that what we "feel" isn't always necessarily true. And faith is just another word for unfounded belief - and in the name of "faith" entire civilizations have been wiped out because someone "felt" God was on their side.

With this you are now getting off into morality, which differs by culture, which as we all know, in some cases allows for things our culture regards as wrong, but that is merely our morality versus theirs, in both cases, products of respective cultures. What has this to do with faith?
The men who stoned their wives to death believed they were "right".  They had faith in whatever cockamamie religion tells them that they "should" have sons and not daughters, or they "should" blame their wives for the sex of the child, even though any competent 4th grader knows a child's sex is determined by the male.  Belief = faith = abject stupidity.  Somewhere in the equation of the women who were stoned, religion is at the core.  True believers acting out their beliefs.  It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with false beliefs (i.e., faith).

In regard "feel", in my own seeking for understanding I've moved through a variety of teachings/philosophies/religions, and each felt "right" for a while,
"For awhile."  In other words, until you evolved beyond THAT feeling and into something else... or until you came to your senses.  Heh.  Point being - feelings are part of our biological matrix, and while they may be useful as guidelines, they are hardly reliable as the basis for determining universal truth.  Why?  Because our minds have been so conditioned by what CC referred to as "the foreign installation" that most non-warriors (and apparently even several folks who say they are warriors!) believe what they have been conditioned to believe, whether it makes any kind of sense or not.  I hear all sorts of new age feel goodisms all the time.  "Good will always triumph over evil."  "God is love."  "The universe is looking out for me."  Er... just because someone believes it doesn't make it so.  It's a comfort zone... until something better comes along, or until one has a negative experience that changes their mantra into "Evil always wins."  "God hates me."  "The universe is out to get me."  None of these are universal truths, obviously, but are subject to change according to whether your car has a flat tire that day or not.
and certain aspects of several continue to feel "right", which is to say, somehow the teaching makes sense to me, and it presents to me a plausible explanation for the human experience. None can be proven to be correct, so the best I can do is respond to the feel, to the resonance. That can easily be called faith, however, I don't see how else one can approach philosophical and spiritual matters.
In general, I don't entirely disagree.  Surprise!  Obviously at some point, we have to choose a direction and head toward it, and sometimes the ONLY thing we have to go on is a "hunch" or a feeling.  My comments - don't forget - are mainly directed toward warriors and sorcerers, where something more than a "feeling" stands behind the feeling itself.  Meaning:  if a warrior/sorcerer proceeds on the basis of a "hunch", it's because s/he has done the work leading up to that moment. 
It wasn't just blind faith that allowed Carlos to jump off the precipice.  If an ordinary human tried that, he'd be dead.  Carlos had done the work leading up to that moment.  Lots of idiots jump off of buildings "believing" they can fly.  Truly.  Believing.  (Splat).  Carlos jumped off the cliff knowing he could NOT fly, and simultaneously knowing he knew nothing.  His assemblage point was not rooted in any "belief", because he had done the work of eliminating all beliefs.  He didn't survive because don Juan told him he would, nor because god was on his side.  He survived because no faith or belief were required for a sorcerer who could assemble other worlds.

[Nu Lang]

alien wrote:Carlos jumped off the cliff knowing he could NOT fly, and simultaneously knowing he knew nothing.  ...He survived because no faith or belief were required for a sorcerer who could assemble other worlds.


Well said. I would add that he must have had faith in this being the case in order to jump...and then succeed in assembling the other worlds.

[alien]

Nu Lang wrote:

alien wrote:

Carlos jumped off the cliff knowing he could NOT fly, and simultaneously knowing he knew nothing.  ...He survived because no faith or belief were required for a sorcerer who could assemble other worlds.


Well said. I would add that he must have had faith in this being the case in order to jump...and then succeed in assembling the other worlds.

Because he had done the work, no "faith" was required - which is the point.  He had expanded his reality to include assembling other worlds, so it was no different than stepping off a curb... just a bit more scary.  Heh.

[Nu Lang]

Yeah it takes a tremendous amount of work. Good point on doing the work. All those things must be cleared, false beliefs and hurt feelings etc...I fully agree.
I feel that in the assembling another world it first involves an intent to do so and within that intent is not reality yet but possibility. But perhaps a possibility held with such sureness that it is like a reality. Its like a visual, it's not manifested but the intent to manifest it is there.

[rosygyro]

Nu Lang wrote:Yeah it takes a tremendous amount of work. Good point on doing the work. All those things must be cleared, false beliefs and hurt feelings etc...I fully agree.
I feel that in the assembling another world it first involves an intent to do so and within that intent is not reality yet but possibility. But perhaps a possibility held with such sureness that it is like a reality. Its like a visual, it's not manifested but the intent to manifest it is there.

REGARDING madness and clarity..
Potential energy is that not yet made.. or released.. it is the future..
To intend reality not yet manifest by method of its possibility..
Is to ask that the most living future be the place you intend to travel.. INTENT.
The pathway to potential energy is from one angle FACT.
But it can be irrational  to tread even though the sorcerer has METHOD to achieve such a position.
Method in Madness.
clarity in Method.
sometimes with regard to summoning madness of change..
It is not the journey it is the goal we aquiesce to..
And the obstacles of madness..become the tools to achieve the direction.
A bit like asking to be tied to the back of a car and dragged accross a field!

[Nu Lang]

Obstacles of madness, hey I like that.



Yes rosy its a balance of reason and madness...must be mad enough to abandon reason but be reasonable enough to make the madness 'fly'

[rosygyro]

When i met a NAGAL who had power i could legitimatly align..

I explained that i had ten years to waste..

I said i wanted to reach a goal of KNOWLEDGE and that i was prepared to gO THRoUGH TRIAL to achieve it..

The words i used were..

To be dragged to the future point i sought like a cork dragged by a string over rocky terrain..

He thought i would be destroyed..

But seeing as no-one else was making suicidal declarations of intent..

He GRANTED my wish..

For me the madness is like a drug...

I set my PRAYER ARROW on a future point...FIRE.. and then the string tied around my waist just drags me through the abyss and rocks of human wastage until i rather wearily reach my destination..

as long as you can see the other side.. it s like an irrational work-out..

And if method has already been learned..

There is a purpose within the madness of the dream

[Guest]