The primary purpose of stalking (for warriors)

[Nu Lang]

And i just realized...my goal in all this discussion is not to promote stalking others, rather its to inform that stalking others is whats the case all the time, and there are better ways to approach this fact then would be in our conditioned understanding and usage of it. Ways that remove self from the equation, to see inward and outward what is occurring.

[Nu Lang]

My question to this is, then, how would stalking another person, achieve this purpose??Ok, I will say in your case, maybe you should not stalk another. Just stalk yourself, and be aware others are always stalking you (trying to) too.

[Nu Lang]

Hey En I just read your post #24 here. I hope by my saying this I can clarify once and for all where you are not connecting to what I've been saying..you said...


"I think I am being obstinate here in that I do not agree that when we watch someone's actions in order to help them 'see' the err of their ways, "I never said that. It has nothing to do with err of their ways. Many, including Dreamways will point out negatives (errs) whether they be true or not, in others. I'm not interested in regular stalking of people, not really. I will sometimes engage people who are doing it to others, but they will have initiated it usually, as Dreamways did. He was trying to show me the err of my ways, for example.
I am saying... stalking... can be used to help someone see.

[Nu Lang]

RaINbow DIAMOND UNICORN wrote:to imprint its principles at such a deep level that the human inventory is bypassed
--

What the bananas do yall think that means?Its what master stalkers do. It may involve the double. Our double is not 'rational' like our physical mind can be.

[Guest]

Nu Lang wrote:Hey En I just read your post #24 here. I hope by my saying this I can clarify once and for all where you are not connecting to what I've been saying..you said...


"I think I am being obstinate here in that I do not agree that when we watch someone's actions in order to help them 'see' the err of their ways, "I never said that. It has nothing to do with err of their ways. Many, including Dreamways will point out negatives (errs) whether they be true or not, in others. I'm not interested in regular stalking of people, not really. I will sometimes engage people who are doing it to others, but they will have initiated it usually, as Dreamways did. He was trying to show me the err of my ways, for example.
I am saying... stalking... can be used to help someone see.
It's not that I don't understand.  It is that I do not agree with this interpretation of stalking. 
If you are not stalking someone to help them out of a negative (error) then what are you helping them see?   Are you helping them see something about themself?  I assume it is a negative pattern, that they wish to be free from. 
What is 'regular' stalking of people, and what is the kind that you do (irregular)?  As I said before this is a new definition to me.  I wish I could agree with you here. 
If you are saying that staking like some do on internet forums is engaging the double to shift someone else, that sounds good one paper.  I can see how that would be considered a type of stalking.  But I don't think that disagreeing where you feel the person is incorrect and attempting to show them or help them see what you see, is using your double to shift them.  (Maybe in a small percentage of cases.)

[Guest]

[Gonzo]

@Enchantra -



Recall Forest Wolf...she was a master stalker. Consider her techniques. Granted, most folk were very angry at her, but that to me was just proof she had truly hit the mark. And, most folk did not "get the lesson" but rather railed at her as usual, saying it was all an ego trip on her part. IMO, there was a strong correlation between what she did the Julian's "Four Tulios" stunt.

[Guest]

trying to play catch-up here....



nu lang, i understand that you have your opinion about the ways and means of stalking. i was never trying to say that you are wrong and i am right.... i was trying to point out that there are obviously two major points of view on the subject, and so when you (or anyone) speaks about stalking, you cannot take for granted that the person on the receiving end of that discussion is in agreement and will relate to your terms. i still don't agree with your definition, but we don't have to agree, so it doesn't matter. i am being obstinate, but it was because you were missing my meanings.



what i said in RF was something pertinent to the conversation in RF and ought to have been left there, but since you bring it up, what i said was that we could fool ourselves into thinking we were helping people out of their boxes, but "isn't like that the saddest ego trip you could possibly take?" i never said you. i mean, "you" as in me, you, anyone. replace with "an individual". i still feel that way. but i also clearly said "it's just my opinion, and i would never expect anyone to agree or even care about it." if you want to dissect it, the reason i feel that way is pretty simple - if you look at someone and think to yourself that maybe just maybe you make them a better person with some thought out stalking, you are sitting in judgement of that person and what is judging them and calling the shots is the ego. the glasses you are viewing them through are colored by your ego. unless you have lost your ego, you are not in a position to see clearly or make those calls because you are just as much bogged down with your own **** as that person is with his. and, just so we're clear here, when i say "you" - i mean anyone.

[Nu Lang]

Moth, I was thinking about this last night...stalking, the art of is actually very objective (rather then subjective) in its understanding.

[Guest]

Gonzo wroteEnchantra -



Recall Forest Wolf...she was a master stalker.
Ahaha! Is that what we are calling her these days.. a master stalker?  ROFL

[Nagual LoneWolf]

I've said this before but will say it again here:



A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.



Seeing is stalking.



Stalking is seeing the omens and signs from the spirit. For example: In the morning you see a dead rabbit on the road. At lunch somebody talks about rabbit hunting. In the evening you see a rabbit stop right before you run it over on the way home. Three signs from the spirit. What does it mean? Maybe you didn't run over that rabbit because it had a the nagual intent, doesn't matter cause its an example of stalking. You see the rabbit, you hear the reference, you see the rabbit stop....putting it together is stalking. Seeing comes from understanding what the omens mean to your stalking in this case. Seeing and stalking are broad spectrums and are linked together. By stalking we see the design of the nagual spirit.

[Sedna]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:
I've said this before but will say it again here:
A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.
Seeing is stalking.
Stalking is seeing the omens and signs from the spirit. For example: In the morning you see a dead rabbit on the road. At lunch somebody talks about rabbit hunting. In the evening you see a rabbit stop right before you run it over on the way home. Three signs from the spirit. What does it mean? Maybe you didn't run over that rabbit because it had a the nagual intent, doesn't matter cause its an example of stalking. You see the rabbit, you hear the reference, you see the rabbit stop....putting it together is stalking. Seeing comes from understanding what the omens mean to your stalking in this case. Seeing and stalking are broad spectrums and are linked together. By stalking we see the design of the nagual spirit.
Ah, beautiful.  Stalking is seeing the design.  Magnificent!
My benefactor explained to me that stalking is the art of revealing the process.  Slightly different than what you are saying, but also very similar.  The explanation was that if I wanted to do something that I would first need to discern the process and for that must use stalking.  It made sense, but I had no idea what stalking was or how it was done.

[Guest]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:
I've said this before but will say it again here:
A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.
Seeing is stalking.
Stalking is seeing the omens and signs from the spirit. For example: In the morning you see a dead rabbit on the road. At lunch somebody talks about rabbit hunting. In the evening you see a rabbit stop right before you run it over on the way home. Three signs from the spirit. What does it mean? Maybe you didn't run over that rabbit because it had a the nagual intent, doesn't matter cause its an example of stalking. You see the rabbit, you hear the reference, you see the rabbit stop....putting it together is stalking. Seeing comes from understanding what the omens mean to your stalking in this case. Seeing and stalking are broad spectrums and are linked together. By stalking we see the design of the nagual spirit.I wonder if this is like my skunk situation. I dreamed of skunk, then came here and skunk was mentioned on another thread. ANd Nu Lang said 'we've all been skunks lately.' LOL I know Jung called what you are describing as synchronicity. I've always liked that term. But omens like these makes me think that spirit is definitely stalking us!

[Sedna]

datura8 wrote:
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:

I've said this before but will say it again here:
A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.
Seeing is stalking.
Stalking is seeing the omens and signs from the spirit. For example: In the morning you see a dead rabbit on the road. At lunch somebody talks about rabbit hunting. In the evening you see a rabbit stop right before you run it over on the way home. Three signs from the spirit. What does it mean? Maybe you didn't run over that rabbit because it had a the nagual intent, doesn't matter cause its an example of stalking. You see the rabbit, you hear the reference, you see the rabbit stop....putting it together is stalking. Seeing comes from understanding what the omens mean to your stalking in this case. Seeing and stalking are broad spectrums and are linked together. By stalking we see the design of the nagual spirit.I wonder if this is like my skunk situation. I dreamed of skunk, then came here and skunk was mentioned on another thread. ANd Nu Lang said 'we've all been skunks lately.' LOL I know Jung called what you are describing as synchronicity. I've always liked that term. But omens like these makes me think that spirit is definitely stalking us!
  
So why then not just call it synchronicity?

[Guest]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:

A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.

   So are you saying you agree with the idea of 'stalking others' and view stalking as something you would have done to you rather than something you do of yourself?
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:

Seeing is stalking.
Now this is what I have been coming back to!
As a seer, one who can already see, people as for this example,  what need would I have to stalk another ??
Since I see them, I know what makes them tick, I can see what they don't often show,  I already know the answers to any question I could possibly have, so what else could I need?

[alien]

Enchantra wrote:
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:


A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.

   So are you saying you agree with the idea of 'stalking others' and view stalking as something you would have done to you rather than something you do of yourself?
Nagual LoneWolf wrote:

Seeing is stalking.
Now this is what I have been coming back to!
As a seer, one who can already see, people as for this example,  what need would I have to stalk another ??
Since I see them, I know what makes them tick, I can see what they don't often show,  I already know the answers to any question I could possibly have, so what else could I need? 


Bingo! Anyone who *sees* has no reason to "stalk" others.  It's redundant.  LOL.

[Sedna]

However, it is not clear that one is "seeing" the other person and not just seeing their own agreements, judgments, and perspectives. I believe that stalking was intended to get one outside of their own bs so that one could see another.



Before you jump to the answers that always seem to be given for this, consider what others are in their totality. Someone once said that all people are buddhas. If indeed all are buddhas and some one thinks they see tactics of trying to discredit them then what is it that they are really seeing...the other person or their fears?

[alien]

Sedna wrote:
However, it is not clear that one is "seeing" the other person and not just seeing their own agreements, judgments, and perspectives. I believe that stalking was intended to get one outside of their own bs so that one could see another.
When one is really a seer, there is a vast difference between seeing one's own agreements, judgments & perspectives, and actually *seeing* things as they are.  Normally, it's possible to validate one's seeing through external means.  For example, if I *see* someone as a tyrant or as a saint, I don't just blindly accept that as gospel, but will try to validate what I'm *seeing* by observing their actions, or asking others their experience of the person.  It's similar to the difference between the internal dialog and what I personally call "the voice of gnosis" (or silent knowing).  We talk to ourselves all the time, but very seldom do we LISTEN to what may be gleaned from the place of silent knowing.  Ditto with seeing.  We look at the world all the time, but how often do we really *see*?  When we DO, there is no doubt of it.
Before you jump to the answers that always seem to be given for this, consider what others are in their totality. Someone once said that all people are buddhas. If indeed all are buddhas and some one thinks they see tactics of trying to discredit them then what is it that they are really seeing...the other person or their fears?
I'm all too familiar with the old quip that "we are all buddhas."  Actually, that's most often just the voice of the foreign installation - telling us that we're perfect as we are and therefore no work is required.  Buddha didn't become buddha by living a life of debauchery, self-indulgence and mindlessness, but by doing the work required to embrace his higher/authentic self. The potential was there all along, but his intent determined the outcome. 
In reality, we are all POTENTIAL buddhas, and the task of ACHIEVING that "buddha-nature" is what some have called "The Great Work".  So... when discussing *seeing* from that angle, I would say that it's possible to see the POTENTIAL buddha-nature in every living thing, and at the same time a seer can also see what may be preventing that being from achieving their totality.  Does NOT mean the seer is under any obligation to DO anything about it - i.e., we can't change other people.  If someone wants to really BE a buddha, they will create that reality through their own intent.  If not... the potential remains, a spark waiting to be nurtured into a flame.

[Sedna]

alien wrote:
Sedna wrote:

However, it is not clear that one is "seeing" the other person and not just seeing their own agreements, judgments, and perspectives. I believe that stalking was intended to get one outside of their own bs so that one could see another.
When one is really a seer, there is a vast difference between seeing one's own agreements, judgments & perspectives, and actually *seeing* things as they are.  Normally, it's possible to validate one's seeing through external means.  For example, if I *see* someone as a tyrant or as a saint, I don't just blindly accept that as gospel, but will try to validate what I'm *seeing* by observing their actions, or asking others their experience of the person.  It's similar to the difference between the internal dialog and what I personally call "the voice of gnosis" (or silent knowing).  We talk to ourselves all the time, but very seldom do we LISTEN to what may be gleaned from the place of silent knowing.  Ditto with seeing.  We look at the world all the time, but how often do we really *see*?  When we DO, there is no doubt of it.
Before you jump to the answers that always seem to be given for this, consider what others are in their totality. Someone once said that all people are buddhas. If indeed all are buddhas and some one thinks they see tactics of trying to discredit them then what is it that they are really seeing...the other person or their fears?
I'm all too familiar with the old quip that "we are all buddhas."  Actually, that's most often just the voice of the foreign installation - telling us that we're perfect as we are and therefore no work is required.  Buddha didn't become buddha by living a life of debauchery, self-indulgence and mindlessness, but by doing the work required to embrace his higher/authentic self. The potential was there all along, but his intent determined the outcome. 
In reality, we are all POTENTIAL buddhas, and the task of ACHIEVING that "buddha-nature" is what some have called "The Great Work".  So... when discussing *seeing* from that angle, I would say that it's possible to see the POTENTIAL buddha-nature in every living thing, and at the same time a seer can also see what may be preventing that being from achieving their totality.  Does NOT mean the seer is under any obligation to DO anything about it - i.e., we can't change other people.  If someone wants to really BE a buddha, they will create that reality through their own intent.  If not... the potential remains, a spark waiting to be nurtured into a flame.

But the ultimate 'what is a person really' question.  What is it that constitutes a person (their true self in their totality) and what is it you think you are seeing?  Are you seeing them in their totality and if you are could one ever in their totality as their true self be a tyrant as you said in your example? Seeing a person wearing a red shirt is one thing, but seeing that a person is a saint because saints often wear red shirts is another thing.  You say you watch their actions...so just saying...and asking because I want to get this clear. 
When DJ saw, he saw only luminous eggs...and not saints and sinners.  So again, before giving the answer you always give, consider what is it that you are seeing...their true self or your projection of meanings and judgments on a set of actions? 
You stated previously in another thread the difference between ordinary men and warriors, I think you are onto something with that and think that it applies to this admirably.  If a warrior knows nothing matters then it would seem that a warrior wouldn't concern themselves with actions or making those actions matter.  If a warrior knew it was all folly, you would think that they would look past the folly to the heart of the true authentic person inside.  If you saw past the folly to the authentic person...what is it you see when you see?

[Sedna]

PS...I think that is another one of those things where there are no actual descriptions of people's real life experiences.

[Guest]

Sedna wrote:
You stated previously in another thread the difference between ordinary men and warriors, I think you are onto something with that and think that it applies to this admirably.  If a warrior knows nothing matters then it would seem that a warrior wouldn't concern themselves with actions or making those actions matter.  If a warrior knew it was all folly, you would think that they would look past the folly to the heart of the true authentic person inside.  If you saw past the folly to the authentic person...what is it you see when you see?

[alien]

Sedna wrote:


Sedna wrote:

But the ultimate 'what is a person really' question.  What is it that constitutes a person (their true self in their totality) and what is it you think you are seeing? 
A seer sees both - the totality AND the persona (or the "character-identity"). In most cases, the seer isn't judging anything about the person - simply observing, for whatever reason, or just because it's how *seeing* works. For example, I can see the buddha NATURE in people, but I can also see that most people make little effort to manifest that nature.  Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, just observations in the same way I would observe a tree bending in the wind or a wave breaking on the shore. 
Are you seeing them in their totality and if you are could one ever in their totality as their true self be a tyrant as you said in your example?
The true self is never a tyrant, but the character/identity in the tonal certainly can be.  Hitler may have had a heart of gold.  But that is not what manifested in his actions and intent.  His character/identity persona was a tyrant in the tonal, regardless of whatever else he may have been in his nagual.
Seeing a person wearing a red shirt is one thing, but seeing that a person is a saint because saints often wear red shirts is another thing.  You say you watch their actions...so just saying...and asking because I want to get this clear. 
When DJ saw, he saw only luminous eggs...and not saints and sinners.  So again, before giving the answer you always give, consider what is it that you are seeing...their true self or your projection of meanings and judgments on a set of actions? 
I always consider what I am seeing and like I said... if I say someone is a tyrant, I'm not referring to their true nature, but to their character/identity within the tonal, since that is the level where we mainly connect with others.  Seeing is just another ability humans have if they choose to use it.  Choosing NOT to use it is just foolhardy and may result in an early demise.  Heh.  Ever been in a situation where something inside you says, "Better turn left instead of right"?  That's seeing - and you may later discover that had you turned right, it would have been into the path of an oncoming bus.  Most times, *seeing* works in the background, as intrinsic as breathing to a warrior.  But it can be validated if one takes the time/effort to do so.
I should also make it clear that seeing a person's true self is easy.  At the core, the energetic matrix that holds us together is what humans have labeled "love" - though not in any gushy romantic sense, but in the sense of a quantifiable force which we ATTEMPT to define and label, but which, at its root-core, is simply an animus driven & motivated & comprised of the "energy" of "love".  Words are only descriptions and descriptions are inadequate, but hopefully you will *see* what is intended here.  So... seeing a person's true self is easy.  Seeing their character/identity and its motivations is not aways as easy, but every bit as crucial.

You stated previously in another thread the difference between ordinary men and warriors, I think you are onto something with that and think that it applies to this admirably.  If a warrior knows nothing matters then it would seem that a warrior wouldn't concern themselves with actions or making those actions matter. 
It isn't that someone's actions matter or don't matter where *seeing* is concerned.  As with all things, it's about awareness and perception.  For example, in the tonal world (where we mostly live, work & play), if I *see* that a business competitor is attempting to damage my business, the awareness of that gives me the opportunity to take action to prevent it.  Does it MATTER?  Of course not.  But in the tonal world, it can mean the difference between survival or extinction, so *seeing* is not some sacred task reserved for prayer circles and meditations.  It is a survival mechanism which can be honed, like any other "muscle".  WHAT we *see* matters only to the extent that it may determine our own actions. 
If a warrior knew it was all folly, you would think that they would look past the folly to the heart of the true authentic person inside.  If you saw past the folly to the authentic person...what is it you see when you see? 
As stated above, what I *see* at the core of all living beings is the animus of "love" - not an emotional feeling or state of being, but an actual energetic field/force which IS the luminous egg and the totality of the double.
BTW - thanks for some challenging questions.  Very refreshing!

[Nu Lang]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:I've said this before but will say it again here:



A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.



Seeing is stalking.



Stalking is seeing the omens and signs from the spirit. For example: In the morning you see a dead rabbit on the road. At lunch somebody talks about rabbit hunting. In the evening you see a rabbit stop right before you run it over on the way home. Three signs from the spirit. What does it mean? Maybe you didn't run over that rabbit because it had a the nagual intent, doesn't matter cause its an example of stalking. You see the rabbit, you hear the reference, you see the rabbit stop....putting it together is stalking. Seeing comes from understanding what the omens mean to your stalking in this case. Seeing and stalking are broad spectrums and are linked together. By stalking we see the design of the nagual spirit.A separate reality..
"Seeing is stalking." ... As one stalking the ordinary fixation of the assemblage point (the purpose is to move it from such position, and the rest of mankinds intent is to keep it fixed there), arriving at seeing means the warrior has succeeded in assembling a new world, the sorcery world, the intent of the nagual, the knock of the spirit via signs and omens. Why is it important one do this, stalk ones environment until one can see? Well obviously becasue to not do this is to reside only in the tonal.
So is it just we only stalk ourselves when doing this? No way, that alone does not encompass and take into account what others are doign and what others are doing is upholding tonal reality in their attention which like a magnet seeks to draw others into such perceiving. Try to carry on a conversation abotu sorcery with a person you know at work, and they will likely tell you an array of things abotu it, but mainly the responses will be a. it doesn't exist, or b it exists but its not good. Yes, you will encounter those who are respective to it, but such people are rare. So we stalk others to see their behavior and know how to not get trapped by their attention. We stalk fellow warriors to help them see, within this is also 'help them learn how to stalk effectively.'  Why? Because warriors are traveler-companions (gypsies of freedom if you will) and we help each other because we are all able to speak the same language the rest of the world would not be able to do. All of you here in this thread are 'stalking others' the warriors way, the good way...to impart seeing. Its funny that you don't *see* that, lol.

[Nagual LoneWolf]

A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.



Enchantra: the above statement does not apply to stalking 'other people'. "By what" is not ultimately an organic being. I leave it for you to figure out. Alien nicely put and Sedna well thought out posts! I love this thread. Nu Lang summarizes beautifully as well in the human/warrior aspect.



Datura: This skunk does have meaning to you as you have stalked.

[Guest]

Nagual LoneWolf wrote:A stalker knows when their a stalker when they realize their being stalked and by what.



Enchantra: the above statement does not apply to stalking 'other people'. "By what" is not ultimately an organic being.

Thank you.