Not Speaking

[Guest]

Hello Bob
I have read and understand your comments.
We may have an impasse with the hierarchy implied in the concept of worship.
In some circles, it is considered an insight that worship and hierarchy are not inextricable.
Worship may predate gods.
To worship a god may imply a hierarchy because a god is better than a man.
To worship a tree or a deer may not have that implication.
I have seen people wrestle with this concept in practice. I am reminded of the way Carlos castaneda had trouble talking to plants.
Worship is a more intense activity than talking.

[Bob May]

Hi Lightly,
"To worship a god may imply a hierarchy because a god is better than a man.
No hierarchy in my understanding of it. In the book of Enoch it implies that the fallen angels brought that idea with them. Creator as opposed to His creation/s is not hierarchy. And Angels as opposed to human beings is not either as I see it. We each have our place and purposes as also the deer and the squirrel etc.
Where I find the problem with hierarchy is in churchews and businesses etc.
"To worship a tree or a deer may not have that implication."
I really see no problem with giving thanks to the "Deer over-soul" or a plant or whatever for the meat gathered at the expense of a life. Just as I see nothing wrong with thanking a human being for a helping hand. But in the larger picture, what caused the deer and myself to cross paths or the person to be able to help.
"I have seen people wrestle with this concept in practice. I am reminded of the way Carlos castaneda had trouble talking to plants."
And I have had a problem with worshipping or praying out loud in a group situation which some religious groups ask or expect that it be that way. It is too much mental gymnastics involved when others are listening to something that is between myself and God. "Am I saying this in a way that is what they expect?" or "What will they think if I say this or that?"
Besides, I have had most (almost all) of my spiritual experiences while alone.
If I was Carlos, I may have had the same problem, but more because Don Juan was listening than feeling silly talking to a plant.
"Worship is a more intense activity than talking."
In my opinion that is true, but I think praying IS just talking. If we get over making this more mysterious than it is we are better off. We make more out of it than it is and there we go with the mental gymnastics again. It is nothing more than talking (internally or audibly) knowing that someone is listening. I remember the day that that simple truth hit me. I even asked the pastor in my church at the time if I could give a sermon on it. Which I did.
If God is who He is purported to be we are not at all suprising Him with how stupid we are by not wording things correctly or not following some man-made formula for approaching Him. Hell, He doesn't even need words to know what we want or whether or not we want whats ultimately good for us.
To me, prayer is just talking knowing someone is listening and worship is just feeling awe at the presence that is there. And maybe some gratitude mixed in.
Bob

[Guest]

"Creator as opposed to His creations is not hierarchy"
Hiya Bob
What I'm seeing is a justified hierarchy between the creator and his creation. It is not as though you are suggesting that the two ideas have equal prominence.
In some circles, the prominence of the abstract has been noted as a consistent theme in post agricultural societies.
For instance, in the Vedic paradigm, reality is seen as a contimuum of energies descending from the pure abstract down to the levels of sub matter.
In the Biblical way of thinking, God existed before creation, and God must be considered to be outside of, and detached from, his creation.
That may be a key phrase for understanding God, and gods in general. "detached from his creation".
Consider for a moment that God may be (but not "is")a creation of mankind. If that were the case, we could reasonably expect God to reflect the conditions of mankind.
For instance, God would be warlike, should he be created by a warlike society.
Here, you see an accusation that God (as we know him today) is a product of a post agricutural society.
A agricultural society is at least one step removed from "The intent of creation" as rows of irrigated wheat are not natural.
The society that produces that wheat would be expected to have gods which have power over agriculture.
In a post industrial society where manufactured items are produced from manufactured items that produce manufactured items, we would expect a god (in this case "God") to be detached from his creation, reflecting the condition of his follower/creators.
Our expectations are realized.
All this, to say that religious behavior in human beings can easily predate "God".
Prayer may be "just talking" if it is directed towards abstractions. It may be that the act of prayer has applications to solid objects that are not explored by post modern societies.
Perhaps there is a distinct part of the brain involved in prayer, as there is in music or mathematics.
Should prayer have evolved in humanity as a survival mechanism we would expect it to be hosted uniquely within the brain. We would see the MRI scanned brain light up its "prayer center" as prayer was made.
Bob, on this forum in another thread, I took another tack in talking about the religion I find myself practicing. I spoke about house cats, and their infantile dependence on their food source.
In this thread, I imply that societies may be classified acording to their food source, and that their gods reflect how they eat.
I talk about my association with a cult of hippies who have experimented with episodic living from the intent of creation.
My involvement with this sort of activity has rendered me incapable (for better or worse) of appreciating the philosophical integrity of any gods, to include the specific deity "God".
Perhaps my stubborness in this regard could be understood in that context. Have you scanned that thread?

[Bob May]

Hi Lightly,
"My involvement with this sort of activity has rendered me incapable (for better or worse) of appreciating the philosophical integrity of any gods, to include the specific deity "God".
Perhaps my stubborness in this regard could be understood in that context. Have you scanned that thread?"
Yes, I read it. Very interesting and the reason I refered to praying to the "oversoul" of deer.
"In this thread, I imply that societies may be classified acording to their food source, and that their gods reflect how they eat."
Or any other need for that matter. There are other ways to classify such invisible entities. That is religion. And it is man's need, in my opinion, to find an invisible cause for what happens in the visible world. And to try and influence that cause to their benefit.
Religion is man reaching up to God, (or gods)
Christianity is God reaching down to mankind. It was a turning point in history in which the creator was made approachable to mankind. Believe that or not. It is the basic elements of that belief system. But it has to do with the availability of the One.
Before this change mankind's contact with the creator was limited to prophets and angels. Little "pieces" of the big picture. Messengers. And also spirits of a different "sort or sorts" having to do with hunter/gatherers and farming and types of plants and forces of nature etc.
Those entities are still available to those who are interested in dealing with them, I have no doubt.
"For instance, in the Vedic paradigm, reality is seen as a contimuum of energies descending from the pure abstract down to the levels of sub matter."
That view of reality is in agreement with the Qabala and Bible. In fact that is the story of creation.
Man is actually created at least twice in the story line and there is light before there is a sun, moon or star to carry them. Four worlds Emanation, Creation, Formation and Making. Not too different from Plato's doctrine of "Forms".
"In the Biblical way of thinking, God existed before creation, and God must be considered to be outside of, and detached from, his creation.
That may be a key phrase for understanding God, and gods in general. "detached from his creation".
God is unmanifest. Spirit. To be contained within manifestation is of course impossible. If it can be contained it could not be God.
"Consider for a moment that God may be (but not "is")a creation of mankind. If that were the case, we could reasonably expect God to reflect the conditions of mankind.
For instance, God would be warlike, should he be created by a warlike society."
That is the Old Testament. The Old Covenant. Written in a way that could be understood by those reading it.
A "flawed" or one-sided idea of God. To be corrected when the time was right.
"Here, you see an accusation that God (as we know him today) is a product of a post agricutural society.
A agricultural society is at least one step removed from "The intent of creation" as rows of irrigated wheat are not natural.
The society that produces that wheat would be expected to have gods which have power over agriculture."
Again a partial idea of God. But take any single individual within that agricultural society and they would also have an individual idea of what God is.
And some would actually contact Him and some would recieve further revelation of Him. We take the idea of a creator as far as we like and that applies to hunter/gatherers and Christianity and so called modern religions. Which is why we have Shamen and mystics and such. Some people are not satisfied with the status quo. They need to know more.
Bob

[Guest]

I'm uncertain about equating religion with man reaching out for gods or God.
Specifically, I do not know that animistic spirits are properly classified as gods.
Should anything we think we know about tribal and/or prehistoric religions be true, animistic spirits predate gods by hundreds of thousands of years.
The idea of the oversoul of a deer (in example) is an interesting idea to come out of post industrial western society.
In point, the Candidates do not pray to an abstraction of a deer. Prayers are directed to the deer itself.
That these prayers can be heard by an "uber deer" is a foreign idea.
Which is not to address its value as an idea, but simply to say that I do not know of any advantage to addressing prayers to abstract beings such as post agricultural religions do.
Perhaps there is an advantage in the personal psychology of the supplicant. I would not want to try to live directly from nature, even episodically, with only an abstract being as my ally.

[Bob May]

"Perhaps there is an advantage in the personal psychology of the supplicant. I would not want to try to live directly from nature, even episodically, with only an abstract being as my ally."
I might have tried it when I was younger.
I do not think that the abstractness of the being would cease to be an issue after a period of time alone in the wilderness.
My idea of a deer over-spirit comes from a certain theory I heard from my teacher. That animals, when they die, are not as humans. They do not have "spirit" as do humans and their soul as an individual is absorbed like a drop in the sea. so whatever individuality they had ceases to be at death.
I just took it a step further with my example.
Bob

[Bob Carr]

I have trouble with that concept these days. In fact, worship was always vague as a feeling. Makes me think of the morbidity of 'fear the Lord'.
I had a revelation that Recognition is more appropriate; that Creation is what it is, no way to understand it completely.
There are principles of 'operation' that we must live in harmony with, which could be called 'the Law of God'.
It's simplicity, really. We plant a seed of corn, we get corn, not beans. Process is rational.
Another way I have been fond of expressing it is that if I were to jump off a tall building and break my neck, I can't blame God, but must blame my own refusal to recognize how things work here, where I am.
The exception I have learned lately is that there are other realities with different principles. I don't know how to use them, and until I do, if ever, I act within what I do know. Impeccability is to not take anything fo granted, eh?Hawkeye and Crow

[Shaboy]

I think the words "worship" and "prayer" may have been selected for their connotation and poetic effect.
In practice, what I have come to know as worship and prayer is a psychic outpouring of veneration, with "worship" being undefined and generalized, and "prayer" being a carrier wave, of sorts, for one's intentions.
The sense of holiness about it is considered an amplifier.
It's also suggested that a sense of worship confines the act to the objective world.
For an example, consider someone who could, for the sake of argument, read minds. (a horrid ambition that hopefully is impossible)
But the act of reading someone's mind would be thoughts coming into your head that originated with another person.
Simultaneous with this process then, would be one's own thoughts also ringing within one's mind.
Worship and prayer then, would be suggested as a filtering mechanism by which you could tell your own thoughts from the thoughts of others.
When a man points his intent at some element in the world with hopes to affect that element, he may inadvertantly apply his intent to the IDEA of the element, rather than the element itself.
Worship, as a psychic outpouring of veneration which establishes a sense of holiness, is suggested as a way to cut through this confusion.
It can be said to "aim" one's intent through the myriad of confusing thoughts and mental symbols that may typically diffuse one's connection to impersonal power.

[Bob May]

"Consider for a moment that God may be (but not "is")a creation of mankind. If that were the case, we could reasonably expect God to reflect the conditions of mankind."
But if mankind is a creation of God mankind would be expected to reflect at least some of the attributes of the Artist. In the Occult there is a saying; "as above, so below." Not visa versa.
We expect that of human artists don't we? The artist's works reflect the personality and style an beliefs of that artist. This is an example, in my opinion, of using that principle without maybe knowing consciously we are doing it.
If I say I am waiting for the next James Taylor album to come out, for example, I am saying in essence that I like what he creates and his way of looking at the world as reflected in his poetry and music. I am expecting something that I will recognise based upon my past experience with his music.
I do believe in one way we do create God and His creation. It/He is to us as we allow ourselves to imagine It/He to be and no more. In normal consciousness, "tonal" terms.
But, there are spiritual experiences also. These are not limited by our imaginations or past experience. In fact they are so far beyond what we could imagine as to be of another realm. This I have found to be true in practice and also promised in Scripture. "It has not entered into the hearts or minds that which God has in store for his children." So, I find that experience and written knowledge agree one with another. Each confirming the other. I use both and pay attention to both. But not just the Bible.
"I have trouble with that concept these days. In fact, worship was always vague as a feeling. Makes me think of the morbidity of 'fear the Lord'."
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." This verse used to be quoted a lot in my former church. What wasn't said was that it was only the Beginning of it. That Power that we call variously God, Nagual, Spirit etc., is dangerous to approach and contact. It comes with warning signs as it should.
"I had a revelation that Recognition is more appropriate; that Creation is what it is, no way to understand it completely.
There are principles of 'operation' that we must live in harmony with, which could be called 'the Law of God'"
A very good way to look at it. The earth was put on "auto-pilot" in a way. Seeds germinate "after their own kind" as evidenced by relatively recent discoveries in and mapping of DNA.
Another way I have been fond of expressing it is that if I were to jump off a tall building and break my neck, I can't blame God, but must blame my own refusal to recognize how things work here, where I am.
"The exception I have learned lately is that there are other realities with different principles. I don't know how to use them, and until I do, if ever, I act within what I do know. Impeccability is to not take anything fo granted, eh?"
My teacher used to say "a little knowledge is dangerous."
I didn't take his advise one time and did an invokation out of the book "The Greater Keys of Solomon." It was a "good invokation" calling on the various Powers on the Tree of Life. Angels, Archangels, God Names etc.
I had a fearful thought during this operation and immediately found myself in a plane of darkness. Frightening does not come close to descibing what I experienced.
I was not ready for this invocation. My idea of God and the Universe was a bit too "Old Testament." A bit too dependent upon my "worthiness." Fear was the mistake that I made and fear was inevitable because of my idea of what God was. My view of God and my "worthiness" has changed over the years because of study and practice and experience in spiritual things.
So, in a sense, God has changed for me.
The Fear of God must be replace by the Love of God to approach some of the higher realms safely.
"Impeccability is to not take anything fo granted, eh?"
So, gratitude for what we have, even if it is not much, would go a long way towards turning the fear of God/Spirit into the love of God/Spirit.
Worship and thankfulness go hand in hand, I think.Bob

[avadhut1008]

To know the nature of worship I suggest the indian Bhakti Sutras of Narada Muni.
According to Narada devotion is a growing love for God and surrendering (our little personality) to him.
Those unfamiliar with this may easily grow in devotion by doing some devotional mantras.
In this yogic path (bhakti) there is a point when the mind becomes one-pointed and focused on loving God and the sadhaka (practitioner) becomes one with his object of worship (in this case God).
According to the yogic seers the samadhi out-of-bhakti is of similar nature of the samadhi out of gnostic inquiry (jnana yoga) or mind control (raja yoga).
But these are root paths... a modern yogi should know them and practice them all at once.

PS: Loving God is the easiest of paths (and also, the least dangerous of all). When you really love God, you only want him. Power can't seduce you, because you only want to love him more and more.
The only posible danger is thinking at some point that you are an unique devotee, better than everyone.
But that only happens if our sadhana is not deep enough.
An example of this (not good, but valid) is the Hare Krishna Movement. The devotees repeat hundreds of times the maha mantra and enter in a shallow state of inner bliss.
It's shallow because most of them don't deeply surrender their personalities. As they grow in love, they begin to "give in". Those who do will enter in samadhi and after extensive practice (I'am talking of years of sadhana with purity, right devotion and discrimination) achieve liberation.
A nice modern example of devotion was the late Swami Yogananda, the famous and great kriya yoga acharya (master).
He loved God with all his heart and did only his will.

[Shaboy]

Hello Avadhut
Do you believe that the act of worship may be directed towards something besides "God" and still be called worship?
The definition of worship that you offer seems dependent on God.
Could it be that a man might (perhaps improperly)truly worship something besides God?

[avadhut1008]

Hi Shaboy:
Worship in the "Godly" sense is basically love. Loving.
So my answer is a total yes.
Life, ideally, should be a long and endless act of worship to all things. (I'am soo sweet!)
Besides, God is the unmanifested, ultimate reality AND the manifested reality. You can't really love God and shun everything else. God is everything... even those little fuckers that work for your destruction and ruin night and day. They are God, so love them, but from far away.
The question is: Is the act of worship an act of pure love or you want something out of worshiping of a deity, ghost, guru, ally, animal or person?
If you want to get something out of it you may want to call it ritual, just to mark the difference.
In the line of my previous example, you can't think "Well Krishna, I'll repeat your darn long mantra a million times but after that you will free me from rebirth for all eternity."
That's not the idea. Loving worship may atract blessings, gifts and all... but they are not the point.
It we think that way we are no different from the average street ****: we have a merchant mentality.
You may pull things of deities, ghosts, gurus, allies, animals and persons... but it's rather difficult to be a merchant with God.Excuse my english, it's not my mother tongue.

[Bob May]

"Loving worship may atract blessings, gifts and all... but they are not the point."
I think it is more that worship and other practices meditation, etc. sharpen our awareness to the point that we realize that it is all a gift.
"It we think that way we are no different from the average street ****: we have a merchant mentality."
There is that mentality. We had a guy on this forum a while back that had the theory that if he gave thanks for everything God would bless him. He went on and on about how far he would go in life both spiritually and monetarily because of his gratitude in all things. Like God would not figure out what he was up to.
Good points. That is the love of mammon ( the money system, not money as is commonly believed) being the root of all evil. Also there are the merchants who mourn in "Revelations" when the Whore of Babylon is fallen.
"You may pull things of deities, ghosts, gurus, allies, animals and persons..."
And even angels and demons. But that is a form of magic that will eventually backfire on you.
".. but it's rather difficult to be a merchant with God."
What can you trade with Him? It's all His.
Good post. Bob

[avadhut1008]

Quote:We had a guy on this forum a while back that had the theory that if he gave thanks for everything God would bless him. He went on and on about how far he would go in life both spiritually and monetarily because of his gratitude in all things. Like God would not figure out what he was up. to.
Those are the worst would-be occultist! Those are the bastard sons of the shallow study of the matters of the spirit. I really dislike those fuckers. A drug dealer isn't grateful but he does make a lot of money and enjoys physical gratification... Is that the law of attraction at work?
They want an easy way out of the troubles of everyday life. They are naive in extreme. Maybe a truly realised being could get anything he wants, but it's beyond the grasp of the average greedy bastard.
Talking of merchant mentality... those teachings of "get whatever you want" are sooooOOOoooo full of ****!
At least some true teachings survive, like the nagual teachings.Excuse my english, it's not my mother tongue.

[Mornings Son]

avadhut
Good to have you here and your english is fine!
MS

[Bob May]

" hallel is the job one is created to do, like dancing for me, like inventing for Edison, which doing it is his best fulfilment."
I wish I could make a living doing Hallel.
"Shurul, on the other hand, is other jobs that has to be done. both concepts cover our "work"."
I would even settle for that at this point. Bob

[Bob Carr]

Well!!
I see that I caused a lot of interest with this post on worship.
As soon as I wrote it, I remembered don Juan.
Rather than the Law of God, he called it the Eagle's Commands.
I am finding that all nature-based , native societies seem to respond to life in the same manner, with differences according to region: desert, forest, etc.
The Eagle' Command is a system that creates a particular effect, even as a garden grows according to natural law.
My opinion is that the world is in a big mess today due to ignorance of these 'Commands'.
Mabe ignorance is the wrong word. For, if we hear don Juan, we learn that AI's, Flyers, are blocking the true mind of human beings; Have been doing so for mellenia.
AS I learn to pay attention, I become humble to Power/ Spirit.
As an example:
Just last week, the Australian Govt issued a formal apology to it's Native People. This weekend, as I looked thru my home for a new or old book to read, I found "Message From Forever" , by Marlo Morgan, an historical novel about that very subject. I don't even know how it got here; yard sale maybe.
Sure enough, in the first chapters, I find the same behaviors as were common to Native Americans-Life, Tribe, Survival, Hunting, Stalking and more.
AND, the Self-Importance of the so-called civilized Christian Westerner, taking children from Mothers, destroying communities, engaging in TORTURE for violation of subjective Taboos, by Nuns and Preachers.
Where did the FI begin? Pandora's Box?
Don Jaun said that human beings are in a sad state everywhere.
Can that be denied on this very day?
I once read a magazine article in a Krishna magazine that I remember to this day.
The argument was that India society was fairly harmonious, little starvation, until--
The British arrived, began Industrialization, drove the People into the cities, and sure enough created chaos out of THEIR self-importance.
We human beings cannot conceive what we have lost. (like health, strength, joy , warriorhood, harmony, equality)
I am thankful that Castaneda recorded what he could of don Juan's teachings, so that we have some record of how things should have been: the Eagle's Commands.
Before I forget, as I am quoting don Juan, I do realize that Controlled Folly is the path for people here in real time. ie: stalking the Tyrant without and the Tyrant within.
Hopefully, rather than complaining, I am , well, bringing hidden things to the light, even if my own biases are reflected.
ONCE, ALL THE WATERS WERE PUREHawkeye and Crow

[avadhut1008]

Quote:Where did the FI begin? Pandora's Box?
Don Jaun said that human beings are in a sad state everywhere.
Can that be denied on this very day?

Acording to Don Juan Matus:
"We are back again," he went on, "harping on the most important topic of the sorcerers' world; the position of the assemblage point. The old sorcerers' curse, as well as mankind's thorn in the side."
"Why do you say that, Don Juan?"
"Because both the old sorcerers fell prey and mankind in general falls prey to the position of the assemblage point: the old sorcerers because, although they knew all about the assemblage point, they fell for its facility to be manipulated; mankind in general, because by not knowing that the assemblage point exists, we are obliged to take the by-product of its habitual position as something final and indisputable.
"You must avoid falling into those traps," he continued. "It'd be really disgusting if you sided with mankind as if you didn't know about the existence of the assemblage point. But it'd be even more insidious if you sided with the old sorcerers and cynically manipulate the assemblage point for gain."

One is not born with a flyer eating you. The flyer starts eating you after you get your AP fixated in a morbid position and he get a gap to make you his meal.
Quote:I once read a magazine article in a Krishna magazine that I remember to this day.
The argument was that India society was fairly harmonious, little starvation, until--
The British arrived, began Industrialization, drove the People into the cities, and sure enough created chaos out of THEIR self-importance.
I hear this theory to, but it wasn't the first time for India. Greeks, muslims, and many more took a bite of them. In recent history some people are marveled that China didn't overrun them.
The universe is predatory in nature. Playing the blaming game on a national scale is not going to solve anything.
India isn't, nor wasn't ever in history, a perfect enlightened society. India (and Tibet) is, incidentally, a land where the most of the greatest souls of the world made (and make) their mark.
And I'am not talking in this case of anyone known of any tradition.
Other than that India's population is as materialistic as any.
But we should not worry of the karmic issues of everyone. Our own are more than enough.Excuse my english, it's not my mother tongue.

[Bob May]

Hi Bob,
Some interesting discussion goin on today.
"Where did the FI begin? Pandora's Box?
Don Jaun said that human beings are in a sad state everywhere. Can that be denied on this very day?"
Maybe the fall of the angels when the sons of God came into the daughters of men,..when there were giants in the earth...
Or maybe it's the same story.
"It'd be really disgusting if you sided with mankind as if you didn't know about the existence of the assemblage point. But it'd be even more insidious if you sided with the old sorcerers and cynically manipulate the assemblage point for gain."
Don Juan's goal for Carlos was, from the beginning of his teaching, to point him to becoming a "man of knowledge."
I think he and many others settled into the idea of remaining sorcerers. Others settled for remaining average men.
I don't see the draw of becoming an average man. What's the point. There has to be something to strive for or we are just going through motions until we don't anymore.
I think it is in mankind's nature to be explorers.
There is nothing left undiscovered on earth except maybe the bottom of the ocean and I don't like cold water.Bob

[avadhut1008]

Quote:I think it is in mankind's nature to be explorers.
Forgive my pessimism, but mankind's nature for now and for a long time will be flyer-food.
Excuse my english, it's not my mother tongue.

[avadhut1008]

HAHA!

Well Bob... the internet has make a difference in that matter.
But there is one problem:
For every good site there are 200 hundred websites full of ****!
It is blessed indeed the one who finds a good site and actually tell the difference!
Excuse my english, it's not my mother tongue.

[Bob May]

Yeah,
It's really the same way with books. You have to weed out the good stuff from the bad. But that is the way of things.
It's good exercise for the brain.Bob

[Bob Carr]

I guess I can put forth a Blaming sensation. I am far from the Dispassionate idea put forth by don Juan.
However, even don Juan had passions for some things. I have been thinking about this.
I think that perhaps Leadership requires putting aside personal gripes, and that is what he was teaching.
As I am limited today, I hope to return and post some Ideas from the Australian Abos that I have found in the book I mentioned. These, as well as as Native Americans, seem to have similiar beliefs to don Juan.
One of the Central ideas is that Western society considers itself superior to Indigenous societies. (Westerners are called 'Mutants' by the native Aussies- I like that, real Sci-Fi. Speaking of mutants, I recommend John Carpenter's film, "They Live")
If you've read Castaneda, you know that he admitted his superioristic attitudes toward a backward Indian.
It has also occurred to me how Castaneda, a citizen of Peru, lived within 500 miles of many Native peoples, yet never recognized their existence, or their intelligence.
Even in this modern era, Eurocentrics are still murdering Indians in Latin America; with help from the USA of course.
Even the Castaneda books refer to the racial prejudices between White and darker peoples in Mexico.
We got a big piece of work ahead, if we are to survive.Hawkeye and Crow

[Bob Carr]

the Australian natives say that they communicate by mind, not language.
it's possible, within open minds and no fear.
Monty Python-'No one expects the Spanish Inquisition !!'Hawkeye and Crow

[Bob Carr]

"We should not worry about the Karmic issues of everyone."
This is never my purpose.
My purpose is knowledge. Every situation is an opportunity to study and advance one's own understanding of how things work (or fail).
They are tales of power looking to become Sorcerers Stories.
This from my read on Australia:
The Native people belive all is made of Energy, just as don Juan described.
They also have a life analogy taken from the search for food. That is , Poison likely Tastes or Smells bad. If it is poison, one should wish it well and leave.
This is applied to people and their ways as well.
Not judgement, but observation; also very close to Toltec teachingsHawkeye and Crow