05-28-2010, 12:00 AM
The first truth, he said, was that our familiarity with the world we perceive compels us to believe that we are surrounded by objects, existing by themselves and as themselves, just as we perceive them, whereas in fact, there is no world of objects, but a universe of the Eagle’s emanations.
“The first truth about awareness, as I have already told you,” he began, “is that the world out there is not really as we think it is. We think is is a world of objects and it’s not.”
He paused as if to measure the effect of his words. I told him that I agreed with his premise, because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy.
“The first truth is that the world is as it looks and yet it isn’t,” he went on. It’s not as solid and as real as our perception has been led to believe, but it isn’t a mirage either. The world is not an illusion, as it has been said to be; it’s real on the one hand and unreal on the other. Pay close attention to this, for it must be understood, not just accepted. We perceive. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive.”
Fire From Within.
The world of objects that seemingly surrounds us must be accounted for and it must be assessed correctly. Don Juan does well to point this out to Castaneda but he does not go far enough and so Castaneda has trouble penetrating the truth of this first truth about awareness, as does Shamanism in general and particularly the teachings of Carlos Castaneda.
Don Juan muddied the waters somewhat when he introduced the notion of an Eagle and an energetic universe. Although Don Juan was able to convince Carlos that the Eagle was merely an image and that in actuality there was no Eagle, Carlos was still left with the idea that there was an energetic reality that was the source of these mysterious emanations an entity even, because even when stripped of the image of an eagle this source still had attributes according to Don Juan.
Now Don Juan has introduced Carlos to an energetic universe and he has tied this in Carlos’ mind to the attainment of “seeing”. So we see the result of this type of introduction when Carlos says, “He paused as if to measure the effect of his words. I told him that I agreed with his premise, because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy.” This is unfortunate because the world of material objects has merely been exchanged for a world, a supposedly more real world, of energetic objects.
This leaves us with the notion that the first truth about awareness will remain obscure to us unless we too are able to see objects as they really are that is to say as energetic realities. This does little to help us understand the nature of reality and the world of objects any objects, material, mental, energetic or otherwise.
Coming to terms with emptiness is not easy. Yet if we can understand emptiness then we will understand objects. Many people when asked what is emptiness will respond with ideas of what they imagine to be the opposite of form. Just like Castaneda has done above. Emptiness is indeed difficult to speak of.
It has been said in the Ghost Dog clip that,
“Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.” Now this is very true....but why is it true? And why is form not the opposite of emptiness?
If we wish to understand this world of objects we need to understand the nature of their perceived existence. Don Juan says, objects are not solid? Don Juan seems to be suggesting it is because they are “really” energetic. But why does the fact that someone can see energy directly lend credence to the idea that the energetic perception of an object is any more “real” that the sensational perception of the eyes? And after all even matter when broken down into its compound parts is seen to be energy.
So again, what does it mean to say that form is emptiness? That objects are empty? To draw close to this question will entail looking into existence itself. Existence is another notion that Shamanism and Sorcery take for granted ie; that existence just is sort of thing and that is it very mysterious. But what has formed our sense of existence itself? In fact it is hardly noticed!
For the purpose of this inquiry let us first examine material objects any object will do. When an object is perceived a cup, a chair a table a car etc. We cannot deny that we see it. The object is available to our senses. We become familiar with the object’s form. Then we start to discriminate the object. We start to name the objects and give meaning based upon distinctions. Not only do the distinction separate the object from other perceived objects but the sense of a perceiver is implied.
Along with this appearance of objects comes the idea that the objects exist as independent realities. For something to exist it had to come be. Now we have attributed to the object...being! No one told us to do this we just do it! We attribute being and realness to objects. We establish in our own minds substantiality where none can be found! Once an object has “come to be” in our minds we expect it to either sustain until it ceases to be or we expect it to evolve and become and transform. So along with our idea that something inherently exists more than just an appearance, comes the notions of birth, life and death.
Now if we look at time, an entity without form. Can moments be isolated or is this illusion too? Is there any such thing as a ‘moment’? Take an hour. It is made up of 60 mins. A minute made up of 60 seconds. A second made up of even smaller units of measurement and so on and so on. The only thing we can take away from this view of time is that it is beginningless. It never actually began. If something never actually began how can it be said to exist?
Back to our objects for a moment. As I said when we perceive an object if we do not look closely we will in an endeavor to substantiate it invest in it the value of having begun based on the discriminations of our minds. But if we look at any object closely we see that it is compounded just like the units by which we measure time. As we try to establish the absolute physical existence of an object we find we are unable to do so. Each material object is made up of many molecular units compounded to give an appearance. So can we point to any object and say that it has an inherent existence of its own? If we cannot find the beginning of a molecule either in time or space then how can we establish a cup or a car other than as a mere concept.
Now this line of inquiry has deep implications. I will just throw one out there. Movement. How can anyone deny movement? Yet think about it. What would be moving and where would it be moving from and where would it be moving to and how long is it taking? You see what I mean? We all know the fundamentals of how a projector works, images being passed quickly before light and projected onto a screen through a lens. We all know there is not actually anybody on the screen that has being and is moving etc yet it has that appearance. Same with a mirror. We all know that what we see reflected in a mirror is not actually “real” and yet we have trouble see that the same is true when we look outwardly upon a world of objects. Because we do not look closely we actually believe something is happening.
Long-short. Big-small. Far-near. Inside-outside. Up-down. This-that. Here-there. Finite-infinite. Eternal-temporal. Fast-slow. Beginning-end. Straight-crooked. Round-square. Being-non being. Birth-death. These are the ‘building blocks’ of our sense of an existence. You cannot have one without the other. They arise together. This is the essence of dependent origination. We cannot establish a single object as having an inherent reality of its own. Objects cannot be said to possess an essence of individuality particular to themselves in such a way that actual independence can be established.
It is the mind that attributes substance to that which has none. It is the mind that grasps after existence attributing substantial inherent reality where none can be found. When objects are incorrectly assessed they disturb the mind, confusing and obscuring in their accumulation.
When we look at the world of objects, we see that it is empty. This is emptiness. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form but in saying this we should not grasp after emptiness as if it too were a thing to be substantiated. Emptiness too does not exist as an independent reality.
There are many trying to escape the world of form but it is this world of form that gives us the opportunity to know emptiness.
“The first truth about awareness, as I have already told you,” he began, “is that the world out there is not really as we think it is. We think is is a world of objects and it’s not.”
He paused as if to measure the effect of his words. I told him that I agreed with his premise, because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy.
“The first truth is that the world is as it looks and yet it isn’t,” he went on. It’s not as solid and as real as our perception has been led to believe, but it isn’t a mirage either. The world is not an illusion, as it has been said to be; it’s real on the one hand and unreal on the other. Pay close attention to this, for it must be understood, not just accepted. We perceive. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive.”
Fire From Within.
The world of objects that seemingly surrounds us must be accounted for and it must be assessed correctly. Don Juan does well to point this out to Castaneda but he does not go far enough and so Castaneda has trouble penetrating the truth of this first truth about awareness, as does Shamanism in general and particularly the teachings of Carlos Castaneda.
Don Juan muddied the waters somewhat when he introduced the notion of an Eagle and an energetic universe. Although Don Juan was able to convince Carlos that the Eagle was merely an image and that in actuality there was no Eagle, Carlos was still left with the idea that there was an energetic reality that was the source of these mysterious emanations an entity even, because even when stripped of the image of an eagle this source still had attributes according to Don Juan.
Now Don Juan has introduced Carlos to an energetic universe and he has tied this in Carlos’ mind to the attainment of “seeing”. So we see the result of this type of introduction when Carlos says, “He paused as if to measure the effect of his words. I told him that I agreed with his premise, because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy.” This is unfortunate because the world of material objects has merely been exchanged for a world, a supposedly more real world, of energetic objects.
This leaves us with the notion that the first truth about awareness will remain obscure to us unless we too are able to see objects as they really are that is to say as energetic realities. This does little to help us understand the nature of reality and the world of objects any objects, material, mental, energetic or otherwise.
Coming to terms with emptiness is not easy. Yet if we can understand emptiness then we will understand objects. Many people when asked what is emptiness will respond with ideas of what they imagine to be the opposite of form. Just like Castaneda has done above. Emptiness is indeed difficult to speak of.
It has been said in the Ghost Dog clip that,
“Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.” Now this is very true....but why is it true? And why is form not the opposite of emptiness?
If we wish to understand this world of objects we need to understand the nature of their perceived existence. Don Juan says, objects are not solid? Don Juan seems to be suggesting it is because they are “really” energetic. But why does the fact that someone can see energy directly lend credence to the idea that the energetic perception of an object is any more “real” that the sensational perception of the eyes? And after all even matter when broken down into its compound parts is seen to be energy.
So again, what does it mean to say that form is emptiness? That objects are empty? To draw close to this question will entail looking into existence itself. Existence is another notion that Shamanism and Sorcery take for granted ie; that existence just is sort of thing and that is it very mysterious. But what has formed our sense of existence itself? In fact it is hardly noticed!
For the purpose of this inquiry let us first examine material objects any object will do. When an object is perceived a cup, a chair a table a car etc. We cannot deny that we see it. The object is available to our senses. We become familiar with the object’s form. Then we start to discriminate the object. We start to name the objects and give meaning based upon distinctions. Not only do the distinction separate the object from other perceived objects but the sense of a perceiver is implied.
Along with this appearance of objects comes the idea that the objects exist as independent realities. For something to exist it had to come be. Now we have attributed to the object...being! No one told us to do this we just do it! We attribute being and realness to objects. We establish in our own minds substantiality where none can be found! Once an object has “come to be” in our minds we expect it to either sustain until it ceases to be or we expect it to evolve and become and transform. So along with our idea that something inherently exists more than just an appearance, comes the notions of birth, life and death.
Now if we look at time, an entity without form. Can moments be isolated or is this illusion too? Is there any such thing as a ‘moment’? Take an hour. It is made up of 60 mins. A minute made up of 60 seconds. A second made up of even smaller units of measurement and so on and so on. The only thing we can take away from this view of time is that it is beginningless. It never actually began. If something never actually began how can it be said to exist?
Back to our objects for a moment. As I said when we perceive an object if we do not look closely we will in an endeavor to substantiate it invest in it the value of having begun based on the discriminations of our minds. But if we look at any object closely we see that it is compounded just like the units by which we measure time. As we try to establish the absolute physical existence of an object we find we are unable to do so. Each material object is made up of many molecular units compounded to give an appearance. So can we point to any object and say that it has an inherent existence of its own? If we cannot find the beginning of a molecule either in time or space then how can we establish a cup or a car other than as a mere concept.
Now this line of inquiry has deep implications. I will just throw one out there. Movement. How can anyone deny movement? Yet think about it. What would be moving and where would it be moving from and where would it be moving to and how long is it taking? You see what I mean? We all know the fundamentals of how a projector works, images being passed quickly before light and projected onto a screen through a lens. We all know there is not actually anybody on the screen that has being and is moving etc yet it has that appearance. Same with a mirror. We all know that what we see reflected in a mirror is not actually “real” and yet we have trouble see that the same is true when we look outwardly upon a world of objects. Because we do not look closely we actually believe something is happening.
Long-short. Big-small. Far-near. Inside-outside. Up-down. This-that. Here-there. Finite-infinite. Eternal-temporal. Fast-slow. Beginning-end. Straight-crooked. Round-square. Being-non being. Birth-death. These are the ‘building blocks’ of our sense of an existence. You cannot have one without the other. They arise together. This is the essence of dependent origination. We cannot establish a single object as having an inherent reality of its own. Objects cannot be said to possess an essence of individuality particular to themselves in such a way that actual independence can be established.
It is the mind that attributes substance to that which has none. It is the mind that grasps after existence attributing substantial inherent reality where none can be found. When objects are incorrectly assessed they disturb the mind, confusing and obscuring in their accumulation.
When we look at the world of objects, we see that it is empty. This is emptiness. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form but in saying this we should not grasp after emptiness as if it too were a thing to be substantiated. Emptiness too does not exist as an independent reality.
There are many trying to escape the world of form but it is this world of form that gives us the opportunity to know emptiness.
