Sustained Reaction


Sustained Reaction Archive - Page 3

Archive Message Index

Scouts - From: J. Stender - Date: 10/28/99
Re: Scouts - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Big ego, big invention, but no credit ? - From: J. Stender - Date: 10/28/99
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ? - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ? - From: Anaid - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ? - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ? - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Learning and utilizing, not the same - From: J. Stender - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/30/99
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same - From: nobody - Date: 11/2/99
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 11/3/99
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same - From: Kevin Peterson - Date: 11/3/99
Remote viewing - From: nobody - Date: 11/3/99
Re: Remote viewing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 11/4/99
Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen - From: Anaid - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
More about Seeing - From: Anaid - Date: 10/29/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Logan - Date: 10/29/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/30/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Logan - Date: 10/30/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/31/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/30/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/31/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: joe - Date: 11/1/99
Re: More about Seeing - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 11/2/99
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen - From: Logan - Date: 11/3/99
Video - From: Kevin Peterson - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Video - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/29/99

-----
Scouts
From: J. Stender
Date: 10/28/99

Thanks a lot for you reply. The statement that Carlos made up Tensegrity causes me some difficulties. I am no fan and not an ardeous practitioner of that stuff. I even find Tensegrity a little bit static and thus unattractive. But looking through the movements and doing some gives me the distinct impression that it is larger and older than one man.

I started looking for scouts sponaneously. I swear that the darker sides of reality leaves me unimpressed. But the dreamer went hunting scouts like a wild. I recognize them on feeling. Confronted with what I consider a scout, I am often fixed by them (mostly in the shapes of people). A typical turn of events could be that I realize it is a dream, look at my hands, then at some objects and back at the hands. After having done so four or five times the dream is solid and the hand thing gets monotone so I start looking around for a scout. Mostly I just know its a scout on the feel of it. Sometimes they zoom in on me and gives me fright. Last time one wanted something with me in a very aggresive way and I had huge difficulties getting out of the dream. I even had the feeling that soon they would slip into real life (maybe thats just worth a laugh). After that event I havnīt chased any scouts but in all types of dreams something with its own will seems to occur. F.ex a few days ago in an ordinary dream, a cat curled its tail in the shape of the number eight around my leg. I thus got aware that it was a dream and tried to kick of the cat. No matter how much I kicked and shook my leg the cat stuck ?

I am sorry that I canīt contribute with anything reagrding the scouts. Itīs early for me to discuss it. They make me fixate. But I get caught in that. If I get more knowledge about scouts I will let you know.

Regards Jakob

-----
Re: Scouts
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

What you said about scouts mirrors my own excursions. That's interesting because it means we both take the same approach to dreaming, something of a rarety.

You didn't mention much about learning to change dreams, you said you get bored looking around at objects so you look at scouts. Be sure to change dreams deliberately at least once each time you do dreaming. It stabilizes the dream and gives you more time.

You description of scouts agrees largely with mine. They do give off a strange feeling, and they also get stuck to my lower body very easily.

I'm hoping there's something real there.

-----
Big ego, big invention, but no credit ?
From: J. Stender
Date: 10/28/99

The most puzzling statements made on these pages is by Mr Lawton. Appearantly Carlos confirmed that Mr Lawton was seeing energy free flowing in the Universe. Now, that is a bonanza. It is about the most fantastic sort of vison I can imagine. Still Mr Lawton maintains, and others strongly indicate, that Carlos suffered from an inflated ego.

Surely, if someone with an inflated ego invented something as fantastic as seeing, and was able to instruct others to repeat that experience, would at some point take the credit. No?

In other words. If Mr Lawton sees, the teachings cannot be fraud.

Regards Jakob

PS I am not saying that Carol Tiggs didnīt wear black contact lenses or shit didnt happen, but lets get to the core of these issues. This is a revison and regrouping process isnīt it ?

-----
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ?
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

>Appearantly Carlos confirmed that Mr Lawton was seeing energy free flowing in the Universe.

Toward's the end of sunday class Carlos began to ask for experiences, and after hearing each he'd say if it was seeing, like seeing, or not worth paying attention to. I don't mean to imply he grabbed me and said "Dan!!! You're seeing now!" But he did say in response to a couple of experiences I told him about that it was seeing. And I only mention it because we're all caught up in a vicious cult where experiences are up for grabs, meaning that no matter how hard you work and how much what happens to you matches what was predicted, the higher-ups in the cult will simply say it didn't count if you disagree with them. Thus there's no such thing as validating experiences, only validating officials.

>It is about the most fantastic sort of vison I can imagine.

No, it's not fantastic. When you're seeing you barely realize it. There's no way to get excited. Then, afterwards, you have to fight so hard not to forget than you still won't get excited. When you're seeing it's the most normal thing in the world. I remember being at one workshop and somehow managing to maintain my vision of seeing energy for a full 5 minutes. Finally, I had the thought that dinner would be nice, and I got up and left.

The idea that it's some kind of orgasmic life fixer is a result of cult worship. Everyone sees constantly, how is it going to change anything?

>Surely, if someone with an inflated ego invented something as fantastic as seeing, and was able to instruct others to repeat that experience, would at some point take the credit. No?

It turns out that seeing is extremely common, in fact it may be the most common feature between different esoteric systems. Over in SA we have someone reporting on a chinese teacher giving a class in the area who does both seeing and dreaming and gets real physical usefullness from them. And naturally we know that Howard Lee sees energy. I used to belong to a yogic cult who's goal was to produce "seers".

It's really quite common, it was don Juan's trick to make it in to a big carrot for Carlos, and maybe we're all still obsessed from that trick.

>In other words. If Mr Lawton sees, the teachings cannot be fraud.

I'll add that I know at least 6 other people that learned to see also, under Carlos' guidance. He did succeed in getting that to happen. But as I said in a previous post, my seeing only agrees with Carlos' descriptions in outer form. As to what to do with it, it contradicts him. But it agrees more with other people's descriptions of what seeing is capable of.

And don't forget that Carlos has in fact been embibing devil's weed at various times, who knows how many times. When I was a kid there was an indian on the Cauhilla reservation who took it a couple of times and ended up insane for 6 months, having constant visions. He was "seeing", there's no doubt about that. And the kind of things you see under those conditions are no different than what you see on your own, same kind of stuff.

So what kind of credit Carlos deserves is open to question. He was deffinately a literary genius.

-----
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ?
From: Anaid
Date: 10/29/99

Dan, if you could "see", did you "see" Castaneda? He was right there in the room...isn't seeing supposed to "cut thru all the crap"? If you could see, shouldn't you now KNOW thru your seeing, if it was true seeing, whether or not Castaneda is full of shit?? Did you ever see Castaneda and if so what did you see. If you didn't, why didn't you? Anaid.

P.S.: Talk about "what is it good for"! Look at all the time it would have saved you! In fact, I remember that Don Juan said you could see people when they were not even around you as in the visions where people appeared in a form similar to a mushroom, during the "dust on the wings of the moth" episode. Perhaps if you didn't see Castaneda back then, you could simply try to "see" him now, and then you will KNOW once and for all if he or anyone else if full of shit...pretty damn useful, right?

-----
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ?
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

I never had any control over what I was seeing. I see whatever presents itself.

And I don't believe Carlos did either, however I have to allow for the possibility that someone who had been doing it for a long time could see like that.

But you're thinking of it as I did, as staring down an object until you conquer it and see it's inner essense.

I don't believe that's possible. You get silent, you're attention drifts, and a vision of energy presents itself. That vision of energy is usually related to what you were doing, but it's not a choosen thing.

If this were dreaming you could certainly choose what to dream, but it's not like that.

The fact that Carlos claimed he could choose what to see is interesting since it allowed him to use it as a reward or punishment.

P.S.: The only way I can think to answer that is to tell you everything I've ever seen, but unfortunately I can't remember all of it.

Seeing is never like that for me. I always see a deeper essense of something, but it's totally useless in this world. Just think of the insights you get on drugs. It's just like that. I remember one art class in college where the professor said it had always been his frustration to have great visions of art masterpieces while smoking marajuana, only to find there was no way to reproduce the image.

To me, the main use for seeing is to learn more about seeing. Or to learn more about what a different view of energy feels like. It leads to more easy views of that energy level. To try to apply it to this world is impossible for me.

Carlos often had the same. It's just that he used the "you're energy has risen from your toes" thing to his own advantage. Or better yet, his favorite pick-up line, "You're energy bar has a big chunk missing, let me repair it".

Even so, most of the visions he described in seeing were useless. For instance, when we gave him those stupid gold balls he had a sustained seeing venture (he claimed they usually didn't last even a minute, but that we were backing him up and he could see clearer). He told us he'd "seen" that women have a teapot like shape on the top of their energy bodies. He said that don Juan had never even seen that shape.

This was a typical thing. Every week we'd hear some new detail about the energy body or something else. It was like a pep-talk from the coach. And it worked! It always felt like something new and exciting was just around the corner, if we just did those movements harder.

That was Carlos' technique, pep talks.

Now assuming there really was a teapot shape on women's energy bodies, what use is that? Try to find something to do with that information. And I maintain that if he went back and looked again, he'd find something different.

And yet at the time it would feel like an absolute energetic fact.

-----
Re: Big ego, big invention, but no credit ?
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

Here's an example of the type of discussion over on SA. This stuff about seeing being a higher way of looking at things comes up often. Calixto is pretty good at pegging the issue down. Check this out:

<< The old bacon eater used the term "energetic fact", and his implication was always that "seeing energy as it flows" was akin to a rock bottom *objective* perception of the way things *are* in the universe. (prettty standard guru fare) >>

That's basically the issue. Is seeing a better, deeper way of looking at the world, or just another thing humans can do. And if it's a deeper way of looking at the world, what good is that if you use it to control and manipulate people?

That's what cleargreen does, under the guidance of Carol Tiggs.

-----
Learning and utilizing, not the same
From: J. Stender
Date: 10/29/99

Hey, your posts ring a bell, they invoke recognition.

Arenīt we really after finding out about the possible physicality of the "energy body" ?.

One night I was dreaming I was in my bedroom. I got out of bed and slipped out of the open window. Instead of walking and crawling I decided to float (I can usually fly in any dream). So I floated over the luminous grass in the garden and looked at my hands and looked at the extraordinarily clear plants and more hands. One particular growth in my (new) garden I noticed for the first time. It was a truely marvelously looking plant in terrific green, orange and yellow autumn colors, casting off a golden mesmerizing hue. So I wake up, and go look for the plant. Sure it is there but I could have seen it earlier without noticing. So I start thinking when I was at that place in the garden last time (laundry place). I think and think and find the pictures of me going out to get the laundry ten days before. And yes, I notice something like that plant there. But at that point it was completely green, thats the only difference.

And finding pictures of a plant reminds me of another truely amazing experience, although unrelated. I took an afternoon nap while living in an appartment some years ago. I was baking on the girl upstairs and was very aware of her comings and goings. So me napping she went up the stairs and I sort of woke up. A picture of a yuccapalm standing on a yellow tiled floor presented itself in my head. And I wondered: where have I seen that picture before. This question released a search on yucca plams in my mind. And it was litteraly a search. I looked at individual glimpses of yucca palms on tile floors in the thousands (no exaggeration). At some point I thought that this was too slow and I speeded up to look through individual glimpses in the 100.000īs. I used to have a real sweetheart girlfriend when I was a kid. That particular plant was in her house where I had been a visitor a thousand times. Eventually the right match was made. The right match was one particular second of time when I was nine years old. There was nothing unusual about it but the match was a particular moment in time and space (angle of perspective). Believe this or not, it doesnīt matter, it was what happened. When I went out of the "libary" in my semi-nap, I noticed that something was mis-placed so I took it and dived down in another department to put it correctly. Ten minutes later I was sitting in a chair, choked and fighting to get (maintain) the whole story.

That was a good for nothing (maybe) experience, just as Mr Lawton says seeing is good for nothing. But doesnīt a child who is learning to walk also regard walking as something close to good for nothing ?

Regards Jakob

-----
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/30/99

All right, I'll confess. I hope dreaming and seeing are good for something, I truly do.

But Carlos wasn't the example of that. All his seeing was full of crap. He was either trashing someone with it, and lying through his teeth, or he was "seeing" something sinister, that was a bunch of crap. Or else he was manipulating women into bed with it, or grading people in his group to keep them in line.

And it concerns me the way cleargreen is carrying on and building themselves up these days. They've taken over, and I know for a fact they aren't in any condition any different than their followers. Just maybe a bit more deluded due to having had more flattery heaped on them by Carlos. Yet you can see them turning themselves into Carlos, claiming they had to take a year to gather enough energy to respond to this web page, or claiming that they've learned the secret to anchoring their assemblage points somewhere else.

It's no wonder they're so deluded. Over on SA someone posted a wonderful post about a drug party Carlos threw where 2 women both attended who had been told they were the special warrior that he needed to finish his group. Both had been lured away from their lives, husbands, boyfriends. In those 2 cases, they compared notes and both got away. The cleargreen people are the ones that fell for the delusion and learned to copy the lingo and carry on. Probably some don't care and like to be in charge, some had miserable desperate lives and have no where else to go, and some are sincere puppy dogs waiting for the big treat reward and in the meantime playing it safe by claiming victory.

As far as dreaming goes, there does seem to be some indication that there is a usefullness to remote viewing. The CIA actually pays people to do it, although the results aren't anything to brag about.

-----
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same
From: nobody
Date: 11/2/99

Remote viewing, nothing to brag about? Are you kidding or what, Mr Lawton?

Take a look around and smell the coffee..

-----
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 11/3/99

Give me the names of some successful remote viewers and I'll check it out. So far all I've heard about isn't much to talk about. We even had someone over on SA who was in to it and took classes and said the teachers couldn't really do it.

So if you know where the coffee's brewing, please speak up.

-----
Re: Learning and utilizing, not the same
From: Kevin Peterson
Date: 11/3/99

Try Sifu Carl Totton at the Taoist Institue in Burbank.

-----
Remote viewing
From: nobody
Date: 11/3/99

www.hrvg.org

-----
Re: Remote viewing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 11/4/99

That site looks great! Thanks.

-----
Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

Carlos used to harp on the concept of syntaxical (syntactical?) commands. For instance, "My butts too big", or "Nobody loves me".

But look at Cleargreen's latest message. I don't have it here, but one line goes something like "It took us this long to get enough energy to respond."

See the implications there? The implication is that they live in a magical world governed by energy where ordinary events in the manner in which we are used to. It implies them seeing some kind of energy flux, a group of truly magical beings guided only by energy.

It isn't that way! Who believes that? The truth is that they learned the lingo from Carlos. He lived that way. Now in his case, everyone believed he really did live in that kind of a world, were an ordinary dinner event was life or death. But who believes cleargreen lives in that world?

They've just learned the true nature of sorcery, mainly, that it's all words. Just reclassify every ordinary thing you do using the new sorcerer's lingo and suddenly you're a master sorcerer, answerable to no one.

This is the same way in which Carlos abused seeing. He took a deffinate phenomena, something that people can learn to do, and turned it into a rating system, a way of elevating or lowering the people around you. You're energy has fallen, I can "see" that, or you have transformed yourself as a result of your trip to the Grand Canyon, I've seen the energy peek.

The true believers out there know exactly what I'm talking about. You've found yourself spouting the lingo too, I've seen you catch each other red handed. Fortunately, some of you have a little shame left.

Don't let the ordinary world be transformed by sorcerer's lingo. See through cleargreen.

-----
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen
From: Anaid
Date: 10/29/99

Why do you think no one who had direct experience with the sex or some of the other things you mention is posting directly? Have you spoken to the people you make reference to about this? Why don't they post themselves? It is pretty anonymous here after all. Did anyone mention, after telling you for example one of the sex storys you then told here, why THEY don't want to post themselves?

-----
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

Sure, I've talked with them. Some of them post directly on SA, but not over here.

Why they don't post? They still seem to admire the old goat somewhat. I have to refer back to the analogy of the abusive lover again, because it fits pretty well.

How come Monica still loves Bill?

-----
More about Seeing
From: Anaid
Date: 10/29/99

I don' know, it just doesn't seem to me that this "seeing" you are talking about is the same thing don Juan was. Do you feel that? I mean do you remember the way don Juan spoke about seeing? It was, it seemed to me, the whole basis for his life. Everything he did he did because of his seeing...he used his seeing to see the omens that pointed out the way to aquiesse (spelling?) to the spirit. If someone had in mind to harm him in any way, like when Castaneda asked him what if someone was waiting with a hi power rifle with a scope, don Juan said he would use his seeing to find out about it and then just not come around. He could "see" that Carlos had made a promise in his youth that was keeping him from moving forward in his life. And then in Taisha's book although it is not stated specifically that Emilito or CLara is using their seeing, I assumed that the way they seemed to practically know what Taisha was thinking was thru seeing it. For example when Taisha thought she sensed Emilito's lust when he grabbed her to show her the gates and though she does not voice the thought out loud Emilito simply says to her, what the hell do you mean you sensed my lust?? Seeing is not just some change in the light... or some visual image. Don Juan often said that it really didn't have that much to do with the eyes. What about the Voice of Seeing? Did a voice tell you "what's what" when you were seeing??...I know that there were times when Castaneda said that he...that all of them were ready to burn...but many many times Carlos also said that he certainly didn't KNOW if he was gonna make it, and many many times Carlos said that he actually thought he would probably blow it. Although I think Castaneda's writings are beautiful and I truly believe that don Juan exists, I think the real question is Why did the spirit point out Castaneda to Don Juan in the first place, and what is the meaning of the end of Don Juans lineage? What was going on with the fact that to those who could see, Carlos looked like he too could see when those seers were seeing Carlos, but there was some kind of blockage in him because while don Juan saw that "something was glowing" in Carlos that glows when one is seeing, Carlos in actuality had NOT seen! Totally baffling. So as much as I "admired" Castaneda and believed that everything he said was, if not the truth, then something being said because of the influence don Juan had had on his life, obviously some strange turn of events was at hand. Just think how many years and decades went by without don Juan finding a double man, and then he ends up finding a "three pronged nagual". Maybe three pronged naguals don't have what it takes to burn, I don't know. Could you tell me a bit more about what Castaneda told you about YOUR seeing? Did he just say yes that's seeing, or did he say that was a form of seeing or that you were on your way or what? Would you agree that if you could ever see the way don Juan saw that it would certainly be the most useful thing you ever did or could do in your life?? Anaid.

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Logan
Date: 10/29/99

Dan Writes: Thus there's no such thing as validating experiences, only validating officials.

According to the "Theory of Silent Knowledge or Seeing" you SHOULD definitely know if you were seeing or not. There shouldn't be a need to have someone else tell you what was what. (although it would be nice!)

Anaid wrote about Seeing: >It is about the most fantastic sort of vision I can imagine.

Dan Writes: No, it's not fantastic. When you're seeing you barely realize it. There's no way to get excited. Then, afterwards, you have to fight so hard not to forget than you still won't get excited. When you're seeing it's the most normal thing in the world. I remember being at one workshop and somehow managing to maintain my vision of seeing energy for a full 5 minutes.

Again, According to the "Theory of Seeing" on page 5 of Magical Passes -"They described SEEING as a state of heightened awareness in which the human body is capable of perceiving energy as a flow, a current, a windlike vibration. To SEE energy as it flows in the universe is the product of a momentary halt of the system of interpretation proper to human beings.

Now, According to the "Theory of Seeing" what is it that happened to me.

Basing my actions on the "Theory of the Perceiver and a Paragon of Reasoning" I set forth to focus on sounds. Cars drive by my house all the time and was becoming keenly aware of their presence as I would fall asleep. Acting on the knowledge that I am first a perceiver before anything else I don't have enough sensory information to classify the sound of a "car" as a "Car." Only my hearing was able to pick up the sound of the "car." Sight, taste, smell and touch could not be used to actually verify that what I was hearing was the sound of a Car. I "intended" to do away with any associations I had with the sound as Car and just hear it as it truly and factually is: A sound. Falling asleep one night I heard a car coming and I knew it was a car but as I intended the common sense associations away from the sound it transformed and became a helicopter.(or rather the sound of a helicopter.) The next night I did the same thing and this time I managed to rid the perception of sound of any modern day associations. This time I heard the approaching car as a horse and carriage. I played with contexts; If I was a cave man what would that approaching sound be? A herd of wild boar! I managed to hold up these contexts for about half the length of the sound but it always became common and was the sound of a car. The next night I was getting very quiet and Heard the sound of a car approaching and intellectually I "knew" it was a car but I held by quiet ground. The sound became a vibration about an arms lengths away from my left side. This vibration, which was like, "haystack dominoes" penetrated what felt to be like a barrier at an arms length. The vibration got wider and bigger and began to penetrate my body. It entered into my inner organs and filled my chest cavity. The physical sensation that I felt as I was half awake was like none I had every experienced before. Over a couple of hit and miss nights I was able to experience it again. It entered in the same way and originated from the 'sound perception of a car.' This time it went through my inner organs stayed there and slowly built its domino action up my neck and into my head. I was wide awake. On another occasion I had a fan in my room on and I managed "a momentary halt of the system of interpretation" and again the same domino haystack vibration entered into my body only this time it was much more vigorous to the point that I thought I was in danger. I lay on my bed with this vibration seemingly poking holes through my inner organs. I tried to stay with it as long as I could but the pain was too great. I sat up and realized it (the sound/vibration) was coming from the fan. I turned it off. In retrospect, I don't think there was any real danger, it was mostly due to a bit of fright and the unfamiliarity of the sensation.

Was this SEEING? It sure seems to fit the description but not in its full sense. Quite rightly I should have to cancel out vision, taste, touch and smell, before I get to SEE Energy as it flows. But I am pretty much under the impression that I know what it is like to SEE with the interruption of 'hearing'. It is a very physical experience and it is NOT something you can dismiss as easily as Dan says:

"When you're seeing you barely realize it. "

Although this may be the case with halting the sense of vision. I don't know I haven't experienced it yet. But in anycase "SEEING energy as it flows in the Universe" is a bodily affair involving the halting of ALL the SENSES>

So Dan, maybe you could share some of the Techniques or methods you used to stop vision. Almost all my notes on stopping hearing are above.

Logan

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/30/99

>According to the "Theory of Silent Knowledge or Seeing" you SHOULD definitely know if you were seeing or not. There shouldn't be a need to have someone else tell you what was what. (although it would be nice!)

I haven't had any doubts for years. I only have to argue about it because everyone thinks it's such a big deal because cleargreen is building themselves and the nagual up using seeing. But in the beginning, there will certainly be doubts. Go read Carlos and his doubts. But once you reach a totally abstract level with energy only, you won't doubt, and neither do I. Again, it's not a big deal, it won't change anything. You'll be an asshole afterwards the same as you were before, you just stop for a minute.

>SEE energy as it flows in the universe is the product of a momentary halt of the system of interpretation proper to human beings.

Which is exactly how I get there. I get silent, my awareness wanders through blankness, and I pop up watching a scene, but without being aware of it. It's only slowly that I notice, usually because a voice is having a conversation with me and I feel obliged to respond. But it's exacly as described there. It's no big deal, learn to do it!

>I "intended" to do away with any associations I had with the sound as Car and just hear it as it truly and factually is: A sound.

In my experience that will get you in to dreaming, but not seeing. Seeing happens after a lull in perception. You aren't noticing anything. For that you have to let your awareness wander. Messing around with car sounds wouldn't let you wander to that blank. But it might let you wander in to dreaming.

>The next night I was getting very quiet and Heard the sound of a car approaching and intellectually I "knew" it was a car but I held by quiet ground. The sound became a vibration about an arms lengths away from my left side. This vibration, which was like, "haystack dominoes" penetrated what felt to be like a barrier at an arms length. The vibration got wider and bigger and began to penetrate my body. It entered into my inner organs and filled my chest cavity. The physical sensation that I felt as I was half awake was like none I had every experienced before.

That's dreaming. Once you're in, get up and look around. How you got in isn't really important. You couldn't get up and look around in seeing, you haven't got anything even remotely resembling a body, or even a centralized self to which anything can happen.

>Over a couple of hit and miss nights I was able to experience it again.

This sounds like a lot more fun than seeing. By the way, for anyone that thinks seeing is the endall of excitement, I quote Carlos from sunday class, "Seeing should be perfectly normal, no big deal. One minute you're seeing, the next you're eating your dinner. If it's a big fuss, it's not seeing."

>Was this SEEING? It sure seems to fit the description but not in its full sense.

It sounds like a blast, but I don't see any resemblance you either your deffinition of seeing, or my experiences. That was dreaming. It can take many forms. Last night I had a stray cat show up in my room, he jumped on top of me, and I found myself in dreaming, just after he dug his claws into my arm and made me scream. But there's wasn't any cat. Your story sounds a lot like that. It's just how you entered dreaming that particular night.

>Quite rightly I should have to cancel out vision, taste, touch and smell, before I get to SEE Energy as it flows.

I don't think it would be profitable to try to cancel those out. Why not cancel out your thoughts, and let your mind drift where it wants. Otherwise you might be trying to force seeing, with a false idea of what it should be like. But you can certainly force silence, because it's just the absense of internal dialogue. You won't make a mistake there, except possible not letting your mind wander, as it will eventually need to do to get to seeing.

>It is a very physical experience and it is NOT something you can dismiss as easily as Dan says: "When you're seeing you barely realize it. "

You barely realize it not because vision is dim, or your senses are in any particular state. It's because you drifted into a lull, you haven't come out of it except just barely enough to have the abstract event take place. You haven't got a "you", so recognizing that "you're" seeing is unlikely. It's only the input of information that triggers some kind of realization, otherwise you might just sit there in the lull and not have anything happen to you.

>But in anycase "SEEING energy as it flows in the Universe" is a bodily affair involving the halting of ALL the SENSES>

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. But for me the senses are irrelevant. There's no difference between hearing, seeing, or feeling in that state. You can see sound, hear sight, feel everything. The mind is so fluid that everything is only abstract. It's only that little voice that causes any interpretation at all, because without it you'd probably never notice anything.

Now on the way out, usually for me when I get too pleased with myself for having seen, interpretation starts up. The seen image turns into an interpreted image. But that isn't so bad, because what it turns into gives you the only real way of remembering it at all. Usually all you can report on is what it turned in to, not what it was when you were seeing it. That's one reason I say it's useless. Because the actual thing can't be described, only the interpretation it decayed in to on the way out.

And again, I want to say it's no big deal. Anyone can learn to do this in a few months if they try hard enough. Forget the cleargreen distractions, stop putting all your attention on the party line. Break off and learn to get silent, that was also part of Carlos' techniques. But it's largely ignored, despite having been described by don Juan as "the only thing that matters".

>So Dan, maybe you could share some of the Techniques or methods you used to stop vision.

Replica Watches  Replica Watches

I think I just did. But if either of you wants to learn to see, please start out by forcing silence, then look for the really fast dreams that happen and we can talk about that. Then you'll see what I'm talking about. Until then it only sounds like I'm bragging.

And to me, the very best thing that could happen is that everyone associated with this stupid movement should learn to see. Then it would colapse because they'd also see how they were manipulated by socialization.

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Logan
Date: 10/30/99

Comments Logan: >According to the "Theory of Silent Knowledge or Seeing" you SHOULD definitely know if you were seeing or not. There shouldn't be a need to have someone else tell you what was what. (although it would be nice!)

Dan: I haven't had any doubts for years. I only have to argue about it because everyone thinks it's such a big deal because Cleargreen is building themselves and the nagual up using seeing. But in the beginning, there will certainly be doubts. Go read Carlos and his doubts. But once you reach a totally abstract level with energy only, you won't doubt, and neither do I. Again, it's not a big deal, it won't change anything. You'll be an asshole afterwards the same as you were before, you just stop for a minute.

Logan- I disagree. Seeing energy changes everything because it takes advantage of that fact that we are perceivers. But in accordance to the warriors way, Seeing energy must be treated equally with anything else such as "eating dinner" or "checking the mail."

Dan writes: By the way, for anyone that thinks seeing is the endall of excitement, I quote Carlos from Sunday class, "Seeing should be perfectly normal, no big deal. One minute you're seeing, the next you're eating your dinner. If it's a big fuss, it's not seeing."

Logan- I interpret the quote to mean that one shouldn't be lording "seeing" as a big thing because to do so is to only attribute importance to it. It shouldn't be an emotional work up to achieve "seeing" and after "seeing" it should be treated as commonplace an event as eating dinner. Everything must be treated equally even though the experience is outside of anything 'Known.' In my experience acting in this manner promotes sobriety!

Quote from Magical Passes: >SEE energy as it flows in the universe is the product of a momentary halt of the system of interpretation proper to human beings.

Dan: Which is exactly how I get there. I get silent, my awareness wanders through blankness, and I pop up watching a scene, but without being aware of it. It's only slowly that I notice, usually because a voice is having a conversation with me and I feel obliged to respond. But it's exactly as described there. It's no big deal, learn to do it!

Logan- To me and to reference the system of knowledge outlined by Castaneda and crew it doesn't seem like you have "interrupted" the system of interpretation. It doesn't sound as if you have stopped your regular interpretation of sensory data. I say this because of the lack of 'bodily sensations' in your description. It sounds like it is a 'visual experience' for you along with a strange auditory voice.

Logan: >I "intended" to do away with any associations I had with the sound as Car and just hear it as it truly and factually is: A sound.

Dan: In my experience that will get you in to dreaming, but not seeing. Seeing happens after a lull in perception. You aren't noticing anything. For that you have to let your awareness wander. Messing around with car sounds wouldn't let you wander to that blank. But it might let you wander in to dreaming.

Logan- Working directly with sounds or any other perception is working with the idea that we are Perceivers and that everything sorcerers do involves perception and the halting of that perception. So I disagree. Whatever your experiencing is not "seeing" and the rest of this post aims to round out the 'concept of seeing.'

Logan: >The next night I was getting very quiet and Heard the sound of a car approaching and intellectually I "knew" it was a car but I held by quiet ground. The sound became a vibration about an arms lengths away from my left side. This vibration, which was like, "haystack dominoes" penetrated what felt to be like a barrier at an arms length. The vibration got wider and bigger and began to penetrate my body. It entered into my inner organs and filled my chest cavity. The physical sensation that I felt as I was half awake was like none I had every experienced before.

Dan: That's dreaming. Once you're in, get up and look around. How you got in isn't really important. You couldn't get up and look around in seeing, you haven't got anything even remotely resembling a body, or even a centralized self to which anything can happen.

Logan- This is where we definitely part ways. You say there "isn't anything even remotely resembling a body, or even a centralized self to which anything can happen" and although I believe that you are accurately describing what is happening to you it is not 'seeing' as I have experienced nor it is 'seeing' as it has been described in the system of knowledge reiterated by Carlos.

Readers of Infinity vol. 4 pg. (also in Magical Passes somewhere) By 'seeing', sorcerers mean the capacity that, in their belief, human beings have to perceive energy as it flows in the universe. The claim that sorcerers make, which is substantiated by their practices, is that energy can be perceived directly as it flows in the universe, using our entire organism as a vehicle for perception.

Logan- The key word in my interpretation of this quote is "entire organism." Within the context of the Warriors Way as a system of knowledge, I take it to mean that the entire body is used to perceive this 'flow of energy.' Not in the sense that one is sitting there and they receive visions but in the sense that every part of the body must be employed to 'see.' It stands to reason that if the entire body is engaged in this then a different physical sensation should arise from such an engagement.

Readers of Infinity No., pg. "Sorcerers make the distinction between the body as part of the cognition of our everyday life, and the entire organism as an energetic unit which is not part of our cognitive system. This energetic unit includes unseen parts of the body, such as the internal organs, and the energy that flows through them. They assert that it is with this part that energy can be directly perceived."

Logan- The first part of this quote denotes a change cognition that allows the body to be felt as an energetic unit that in no way should be familiar because it is not a part of our "cognitive system."

In your case you have reached an area that makes the body so unfamiliar that there isn't even a body to reference which is a definite sign that you are in another cognitive state or disruption. Accordingly without a body you don't feel you have internal organs nor would you feel anything flowing through them. But they say that it is only with the inner organs that 'the flow of energy in the universe' can be "seen" or directly perceived.

It is here where we stumble upon yet another misconception in the warriors way; that 'seeing' is a visual experience. It is not. It is an actual physical awareness of energy moving through you. Meaning that if your not getting anything physical to happen in your body then you are not 'seeing.'

What you say here is definitely a physical sensation and perhaps the beginning of 'seeing.' I find it interesting that you say that cat was a 'stray.' How would you know this? Why couldn't it have been a neighbors cat? What color was the cat?

Dan: It sounds like a blast, but I don't see any resemblance you either your definition of seeing, or my experiences. That was dreaming. It can take many forms. Last night I had a stray cat show up in my room, he jumped on top of me, and I found myself in dreaming, just after he dug his claws into my arm and made me scream. But there's wasn't any cat. Your story sounds a lot like that. It's just how you entered dreaming that particular night.

Logan: >Quite rightly I should have to cancel out vision, taste, touch and smell, before I get to SEE Energy as it flows.

Dan: I don't think it would be profitable to try to cancel those out. Why not cancel out your thoughts, and let your mind drift where it wants. Otherwise you might be trying to force seeing, with a false idea of what it should be like. But you can certainly force silence, because it's just the absence of internal dialogue. You won't make a mistake there, except possible not letting your mind wander, as it will eventually need to do to get to seeing.

Logan- Taste, touch, smell, vision, and hearing all arise from our cognition. Our cognition takes sensory data and turns it into taste, touch, smell, vision and hearing. Logically then, our cognition gives rise to the 'sense' of having a body. Our cognition is upheld by our internal dialogue. If the internal dialogue is canceled out and held for a certain duration of time your cognition should cancel out. Without a cognition to turn sensory data into taste, touch, smell, vision, and hearing you won't have taste, touch, smell, vision, or hearing.

Readers Of Infinity No. 3, pg 3.

"When don Juan voiced, for the first time, the possibility of interpreting sensory data without the aid of the mind, I found it impossible to conceive. Don Juan was aware of my train of thought. "You are trying to understand all this in terms of your reason," he said, "and that is an impossible task. Accept the simple premise that perception is perception, void of complexities and contradictions. The book of navigation I am telling you about consists of what sorcerers perceive when they are in a state of total internal silence." "What sorcerers perceive in a state of total inner silence is "seeing," isn't it? I asked. "No," he said firmly, looking me right in the eyes. "Seeing" is perceiving energy as it flows in the universe, and it certainly is the beginning of sorcery, but what sorcerers are concerned with to the point of exhaustion is perceiving. As I have already told you, perceiving for a sorcerer, is interpreting the direct flow of energy without the influence of the mind. -"When one is free from the mind, - the interpretation of sensory data is no longer an affair taken for granted. One's total body contributes to it; the body as a conglomerate of energy fields.

Logan- My take on this and what I have acted on is that sorcerers are concerned with the interpretation of sensory data and how it is perceived in a state of inner silence. In my case the "car' was sensory data which when wrapped with innersilence becomes a physical sensation that is felt in the interior of the body as an energetic unit. Logan: >It is a very physical experience and it is NOT something you can dismiss as easily as Dan says: "When you're seeing you barely realize it. "

Dan: You barely realize it not because vision is dim, or your senses are in any particular state. It's because you drifted into a lull, you haven't come out of it except just barely enough to have the abstract event take place. You haven't got a "you", so recognizing that "you're" seeing is unlikely. It's only the input of information that triggers some kind of realization, otherwise you might just sit there in the lull and not have anything happen to you.

Logan: >But in anycase "SEEING energy as it flows in the Universe" is a bodily affair involving the halting of ALL the SENSES>

Dan: I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. But for me the senses are irrelevant. There's no difference between hearing, seeing, or feeling in that state. You can see sound, hear sight, feel everything. The mind is so fluid that everything is only abstract. It's only that little voice that causes any interpretation at all, because without it you'd probably never notice anything.

Logan-

Tell that little voice to shut up! It sounds like your getting a partial cancellation of your cognition in that your not totally silent. You don't need a voice to cause interpretation. What is needed is physical sensation.

The Warriors Way No2, pg 4. Don Juan explained my queries and sensations as a natural consequence of an inner silence I had gradually learned to attain. "What you are feeling is the flow of energy," don Juan told me. "It is like a very mild electric charge, or a weird itching on your solar plexus, or above your kidneys. It is not a visual effect, yet every sorcerer I know speaks of it as "seeing' energy. I will tell you a secret. I have never "seen" energy. I only feel it."

The key concept here is that 'seeing' energy is a sensation and not something that is visual. It is not an image. This impression is given in the first couple of books of Castaneda's; that 'seeing' is visual; but in (I think) Separate Reality don Juan clobbers Castaneda and says that "seeing" is not a visual experience only a way of talking about it.

Dan: Now on the way out, usually for me when I get too pleased with myself for having seen, interpretation starts up. The seen image turns into an interpreted image. But that isn't so bad, because what it turns into gives you the only real way of remembering it at all. Usually all you can report on is what it turned in to, not what it was when you were seeing it. That's one reason I say it's useless. Because the actual thing can't be described, only the interpretation it decayed in to on the way out.

Logan- Here again you refer to a "seen image." "Seeing" is not visual. A careful rereading of the books would alert you to this which is why I like to read passages separate from the narrative between Carlos and Don Juan.

"He {don Juan} pointed out that because of the predominance of sight in our habitual way of perceiving the world, the shamans of ancient Mexico described the act of directly apprehending energy as "seeing" Magical Passes pg 38-39.

To me this means that the sorcerers of old called direct perception "seeing" because of visions overriding totality. We mainly SEE the world. Our orientation towards the world is mainly through vision and only something that has an equally overriding totality (direct perception) can compete with the completeness of vision.

Dan: And again, I want to say it's no big deal. Anyone can learn to do this in a few months if they try hard enough. Forget the clear green distractions, stop putting all your attention on the party line. Break off and learn to get silent, that was also part of Carlos' techniques. But it's largely ignored, despite having been described by don Juan as "the only thing that matters".

Logan - Silence is the key and there are greater and greater depths to silence. The visual 'fast dreaming' is a beginning stage in the change of a cognitive stance. That is it marks the change from the cognition of the average man to the cognition of a sorcerer. By internalizing more of the warriors way and aiming at making inventories that rival our personal inventories (personal histories) one can move past the 'fast images' to a more in-depth more physical experience of inner silence.

Logan: >So Dan, maybe you could share some of the Techniques or methods you used to stop vision.

Dan: I think I just did. But if either of you wants to learn to see, please start out by forcing silence, then look for the really fast dreams that happen and we can talk about that. Then you'll see what I'm talking about. Until then it only sounds like I'm bragging.

Logan - Well, you certainly have nothing to brag about. It appears that in your eagerness to please yourself and Castaneda you came your conclusions to soon and you have some greatly misinformed conceptions of the warriors way. This is probably due to being under the influence of a Castaneda. It has been rumored and it may be true that the Castaneda at seminars was just an actor a stand in who had no real working knowledge of the "real" Castaneda who wrote the books.

I would encourage you to read the books again and try to gain an understanding of the concepts of sorcery within the context of sorcery and not the context of seminar and Sunday school attendee. Or a personal interpretation of the passage on A Paragon Of Reasoning would aim one in the right direction. And it would be great to see an analysis done on different quotes and passages from the books. Everyone will easily tear a hole of their own understanding into a Post from Cleargreen but few will do the same for Paragon of Reasoning.

Dan: And to me, the very best thing that could happen is that everyone associated with this stupid movement should learn to see. Then it would collapse because they'd also see how they were manipulated by socialization.

Logan- Yes!, Everyone should learn to see (including you!) but first they must understand some of the basic concepts in sorcery. If anything sorcery is about the exploration and the bodily realization of the basic concepts of the Warriors Way.

Logan

PS - From the standpoint of a person who is actively involved in attempting to directly perceive energy I could give you an interpretation of "Response from Tensegrity Instructors." Although not farfetched, it would definitely "fry your mind"

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/31/99

Strike that last post. I invited this expert debate with my first reply, you were just replying to that. It's easy to get drawn in to it. But what we really should be doing is encouraging each other to pursue whatever is happening, as opposed to the follow the group mentality that is perpectuated at workshops.

Carlos emphasized in class over and over that we were looking for ANYTHING different. Once he told us to lay down and let ants crawl over our naked bodies, just to get a different feeling.

I guess I revealed that I don't think Carlos was entirely a fake. I think he created and discovered what he knew, but he did know how to think abstractly and how to see (whether from Datura or otherwise).

So whatever you're doing is great. The shame is when people subdivide what's happening and rule some of it out, because it doesn't fit in the verbal or social heirachy of the establishment.

I consoled myself for a year or two that whatever was happening was "different" so I was on the right track. I'd just sit and be silent and look for anything truly different. I used to raise up my finger whenever anything different happened, just so I'd remember.

Maybe you see like Howard Lee sees. He even has full conversations with other people's energy bodies, they tell him things. Carlos used to claim that too. But he also had a huge visual taxonomy about lids, bars, beaks, scars, vertical energy conduits, vortexes, sideways motions, energy up .1mm, energy up 1", energy up to knees, etc. (Now I'm back to defending my expert opinion again!)

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/30/99

I don' know, it just doesn't seem to me that this "seeing" you are talking about is the same thing don Juan was. Do you feel that?

I believe don Juan was fictional, so this isn't a good line of thought for me. Even so, don't forget that don Juan used "seeing" as a carrot, completely misrepresenting it. Later he said you couldn't learn, but it was the unavoidable result of the teachings. And he said the only thing in the teachings that mattered or could really change you was silence. So silence is the only thing that can produce seeing. Mine comes from silence. It's the same thing.

>What about the Voice of Seeing? Did a voice tell you "what's what" when you were seeing??...

Yes. I always have that or else I consider it really weird dreaming. But this isn't unique to Carlos, many groups describe seeing this way.

>Could you tell me a bit more about what Castaneda told you about YOUR seeing?

Carlos was an impatient man when it came to questions. So it was hard to ever have a straight conversation with him.

One time I was sitting in class and we were doing a silence technique. I saw a glowing energy ball fly around in front of me, I heard a buzzing, and the ball of energy stopped in front of my eyes. A voice said, "Hi! I'm a mosquito named Paul."

I told Carlos, who thought it was really funny, because one of the prominent students was named Paul. But he indicated that that was seeing.

Another time I asked Carlos if the fast dreams you had when you got silent were related to seeing. He answered yes. From those dreams I continued to develop abstract perception.

I'm sure there was another time or two, but I forget.

Are you proposing that it's possible to do something besides seeing, which is an abstract vision with an accompanying voice, that you have to work extremely hard at getting silent to get it to happen, but it isn't seeing? That sounds like a cleargreen argument to keep detractors from seeming like they know anything. Carlos always said we were after anything different at all.

>Did he just say yes that's seeing, or did he say that was a form of seeing or that you were on your way or what?

Look, it's seeing. Just learn to get silent and have it happen to you. Force yourself silent, then notice the quick visions that start to come in. Those are the start. When you get a full blown one that is totally abstract, and everything in it is made out of fibers of energy, and there's an accompanying voice, that's seeing. Along the way there's lots of dreaming. it's kind of hard to say there's a difference between the 2, so I made up my own criteria. Seeing must be totally abstract, there must be an accompanying voice, and you must still be awake. But those are just the rules I made up for myself to insure sobriety. Lots of people call any old daydream seeing, or they squint their sweaty eyes at workshops and claim they're seeing an aura around one of the teachers.

>Would you agree that if you could ever see the way don Juan saw that it would certainly be the most useful thing you ever did or could do in your life?? Anaid.

Not necessarily. That's where wisdom comes in. As bored human beings we look for anything different, especially something we can use to lord it over our fellow men. Seeing appeals to some in that fashion, I'm one of them. But if you think about it, unless it extends your life span, it's just a personal choice. Would you rather see, or paint like Rembrandt? Which would bring you more pleasure?

Carlos didn't extend his life.

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/31/99

I'd rather see like don Juan too. I just wonder if that's a true view of it. There's so much trickery afoot. The question is, is it outright fraud, or just trickery for "our" benefit?

I figure the only way I'll find out is to learn to see on demand. For me (maybe not for someone else) that means learning to deliberately go in to that gap. I can get silent enough, but usually I go into dreaming. I don't know how to wander into that lull on purpose.

But don't forget that other disciplines that talk about seeing don't make it in to something as concrete as don Juan's seeing, so I won't be surprised if it's always just a strange vision which doesn't relate well to this world.

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: joe
Date: 11/1/99

>> I believe don Juan was fictional >> >> Look, it's seeing. Just learn to get silent and have it happen to you. Force yourself silent, then notice the quick visions that start to come in. Those are the start. When you get a full blown one that is totally abstract, and everything in it is made out of fibers of energy, and there's an accompanying voice, that's seeing. >>

Ok, now I'm confused. Your 'seeing' is a lot like cc's and dj's and yet you think dj was fictional. So then, cc must be the source of his 'knowledge' or perhaps it's general 'knowledge'. Or perhaps cc just plagiarized other sources (and yet still, somehow, directed your progress). Very confusing, a sham from a fraud that actually worked. You must be grateful.

I'm still interested in your personal reactions to cc. You've known him much more than many who would have liked to. Beyond your opinions of his group and behavior, what was he like on a personal level, if you can make such a judgement?

Well, call me dense, I don't recognize the seeing you describe as general knowledge. Show me the references you must have already searched out.

-----
Re: More about Seeing
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 11/2/99

On a personal level Carlos was wonderful! If he were still alive I'd hang out with him anytime. With the right explanation, I might even jump back in. I don't think anyone that spent time with Carlos found him anything but interesting. I can't speak for what it would be like if sexual demands were included, or if someone spent as much times as one of his ex-girlfriends like Gloria. Maybe anything could get old eventually.

Seeing? Try just about any patanjalic yogic school. Try almost any daoist internal martial arts school. Some accupuncturists too. I think you'll even find seeing in the kaballah. Also, try books by actual indian shaman, or even indian auyervedic people. Seeing is common, although it doesn't get so concrete except in Carlos' world. Think about the huge taxonomy he created. Lids, Bars, beams, channels, sideways motions, cracks, gaps, vortexes, points, shells, puddles, points.

On the other hand, the accupuncturists who claim to see the points are making claims just as elaborate.

I don't have any answers. But I doubt don Juan because I have no doubt I've learned to see and it just doesn't conform to such permanent descriptions. Maybe if I learned to see any time I wanted I'd find out something different. As it is I'm lucky to get to see once a month for a minute or two.

-----
Re: Abuse of syntaxical commands by Cleargreen
From: Logan
Date: 11/3/99

Dan writes: >Carlos used to harp on the concept of syntaxical (syntactical?) commands. For instance, "My butts too big", or "Nobody loves me".

>But look at Cleargreen's latest message. I don't have it here, but one line goes something like "It took us this long to get enough energy to respond."

>See the implications there? The implication is that they live in a magical world governed by energy where ordinary events in the manner in which we are used to. It implies them seeing some kind of energy flux, a group of truly magical beings guided only by energy.

>It isn't that way! Who believes that? The truth is that they learned the lingo from Carlos. He lived that way. Now in his case, everyone believed he really did live in that kind of a world, were an ordinary dinner event was life or death. But who believes cleargreen lives in that world?

But IT IS that way! Speaking from begginers experience, when I was in the Vibratory world, I knew that the room i was in was my own. And I also got the distinct "knowing" that it could be entirely possible to go about my daily routines (job, shopping, etc) within that realm. Except that everything in that realm was entirely different. My place of employment could be miles and miles away and in order to get to it in that realm I would have to follow that "knowing." I 'know' that I must take a left here. I "know" that I must fly, jump or sail to get there. It is a silent 'knowing' that would guide me.

Although I haven't yet been able to verify that I get the silent "knowing" that it is possible.

Danwrites: >They've just learned the true nature of sorcery, mainly, that it's all words. Just reclassify every ordinary thing you do using the new sorcerer's lingo and suddenly you're a master sorcerer, answerable to no one.

Nope. You have that impression because you mix your old inventory with your warriors inventory. That is what makes it seem like Christianity, or Buddhism; just another way.

Dan Writes: >This is the same way in which Carlos abused seeing. He took a deffinate phenomena, something that people can learn to do, and turned it into a rating system, a way of elevating or lowering the people around you. You're energy has fallen, I can "see" that, or you have transformed yourself as a result of your trip to the Grand Canyon, I've seen the energy peek.

He hurt you feelings didn't he?

Dan: The true believers out there know exactly what I'm talking about. You've found yourself spouting the lingo too, I've seen you catch each other red handed. Fortunately, some of you have a little shame left.

I think that true believers are just that lookin for something to believe in that will reinforce thier personal history.

>Don't let the ordinary world be transformed by sorcerer's lingo. See through cleargreen.

See through your inventories! Build em up and let em cancel!

Logan

-----
Video
From: Kevin Peterson
Date: 10/29/99

Some time ago I heard rumblings about a video that was taken of (allegedly) Castaneda's "final days".

I saw in your chronology section references to such a video.

I wonder if it could be made available (if not entirely, at least excerpts) thru this site.

It would be enlightening to see the deterioration of a mortally ill "nagual", if nothing else to put to rest any claims of transcendence of the master made by Cleargreen. I always found it suspicious that Angelica Duenas is the MD who signed the death certificate.

Are you aware of her "story"? How she came in contact with Castaneda?

Also, when was the last time the Sunday Group met and what was the reason given for the dissolution?

And finally, when was the last time you all saw him alive (did you know he was dead before the anouncement)?

Kevin Peterson

P.S. Those people at the Spalding Mortuary seem rather "cagey" about answering questions regarding the matter.

-----
Re: Video
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/29/99

Kevin asked:>>>>Some time ago I heard rumblings about a video that was taken of (allegedly) Castaneda's "final days". I saw in your chronology section references to such a video. I wonder if it could be made available (if not entirely, at least excerpts) thru this site.<<<<

I have seen the video twice now, and found it quite difficult the first time (nearly a year ago) to watch the brief scenes of Castaneda and how dark, emaciated and feeble he was in his last couple of months. The people who took and own the video report that they are working on their own website where they hope to make some kinds of images available. When there is such a site available, we will certainly link to it.

Kevin continued:>>>>It would be enlightening to see the deterioration of a mortally ill "nagual", if nothing else to put to rest any claims of transcendence of the master made by Cleargreen. I always found it suspicious that Angelica Duenas is the MD who signed the death certificate. Are you aware of her "story"? How she came in contact with Castaneda?<<<<

Angelica Duenas was a "follower" who attended workshops and Sunday sessions. I don't know for sure what her "story" is, but Castaneda claimed during Sunday sessions that Angelica's grandmother had been someone known to don Juan that don Juan would supposedly threaten to send him to when Castaneda started exhibiting anxiety or hypochondria. (She supposedly looked so scary that the mere thought of being sent to her caused Castaneda to snap out of his condition.) Castaneda further told us that Florinda had brought Angelica to him when Castaneda was "deathly ill" after the first Oakland workshop in 1996. He attributed his cure at that time to Angelica and considered himself in her debt. Later on, he had a major falling out with Angelica over money he'd given her and lies she had supposedly told him. (She had eventually relocated here from the East Coast after flying back and forth for a long time.) For a time she was banished from the Sunday and night sessions. When Castaneda's condition worsened in the last year, Florinda apparently sent for her again. Among other things, she was supposedly told that she was "the Electric Warrior." Last I heard from one of her former patients, she was going to be abandoning her practice in L.A. and moving out of town in the near future.

Kevin, who is strangely not abusive at all this time, apparently because he wants some particular answers, asks further:>>>>Also, when was the last time the Sunday Group met and what was the reason given for the dissolution?<<<<

The last time the Sunday group, as such, met with Castaneda was on June 15, 1997. There were a couple very small sessions on Sundays in late June and early July (when most of the Cleargreen people were out of town for the European workshops) to which only the female members of the Sunday group were invited. There was no "reason" given at the time for our not meeting, nor was there any message that the group had been "dissolved." (I was one of two people charged with calling the rest of the group regarding meetings, so I guess I should know.) Some of us heard that Castaneda had lost his balance and fallen at a night session, and there was some talk that his health wasn't good. The Sunday group was still hoping to be brought together again, and Castaneda, at the dinner I had with him on July 19, 1997 (which I reported on in the Florinda chronology), told me he was trying to make a "link" through me to the Sunday group, and hoped we would all get together again. The first word we had that the Sunday group was "dissolved" was in Florinda's first lecture at the August 1997 intensive workshop (see the Florinda chronology for more details).

Kevin>>>>And finally, when was the last time you all saw him alive (did you know he was dead before the anouncement)? P.S. Those people at the Spalding Mortuary seem rather "cagey" about answering questions regarding the matter.<<<<

I knew he was dead about a week after he died. (I had telephone numbers for four of the ones who left at the same time, which were all disconnected on the same day. This, and the strange mood of the May 2 one-day workshop, led me to make certain inquiries that resulted in me learning that he was gone. Others have had the same experience with Spalding, which I guess is not used to having so many people question the disposition of a body. I can't speak for when others last saw Castaneda alive, but I got reports from people who saw him at Versailles, or out shopping for shoes toward the end of 1997, that he looked frail and had trouble speaking with much volume. I had meetings at Castaneda's house in November and December of 1997, which included tea with the "Witches" on a few occasions, but Castaneda did not show himself at any of those meetings.

Care to share with us what prompts these particular questions? You've already told us you are a P.I., after all.

--Corey

Sustained Reaction Archive - Page 4