Soma
Tools of the Path => Toltec [Public] => Topic started by: Nick on February 12, 2013, 01:45:05 AM
-
I enjoy reading the stories about what it was like for the people who met CC, esp. the ones who want to debunk him. It is one thing to feel the power in the stories he wrote...true or not, the stories are a genuine gateway to power, and other worlds... What gets me though, is how when I read things the debunkers say I am only more fascinated, more entranced. Is it just that I am so entranced, so indoctrinated? Perhaps...but what is really at the h eart is that I took something from his works that spoke to me on a deep level, and nothing, NOTHING can shake that. What gets me excited is how the debunking stories actually make the flame of devotion to my path brighter. I leave those stories feeling energized almost as much as when I read CC's books, and sometimes more...
Perhaps these people have been permenantly imprinted by CC, by the legacy he left behind, and I can feel that connectiong. Which is not his legacy, and I almost wish he had actually kept himself out of the lime light, but perhaps the legacy would not have spread as well with out the intermixing of ego. Perhaps it is that these debunking stories actually keep his stories alive, does matter if they are for or against it is all the same.
Then it is amazing to ponder how the world was changed by the combination of CC's work and the 60's revolution in general.
These thoughts were inspired by reading this article:
http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/
-
As do Buddhists, so did Don Juan say that stories are merely stories. They must be examined critically, tested and tried to the extreme. What matters, is what one does. What one does.
-
I enjoy reading the stories about what it was like for the people who met CC, esp. the ones who want to debunk him. It is one thing to feel the power in the stories he wrote...true or not, the stories are a genuine gateway to power, and other worlds... What gets me though, is how when I read things the debunkers say I am only more fascinated, more entranced. Is it just that I am so entranced, so indoctrinated? Perhaps...but what is really at the h eart is that I took something from his works that spoke to me on a deep level, and nothing, NOTHING can shake that. What gets me excited is how the debunking stories actually make the flame of devotion to my path brighter. I leave those stories feeling energized almost as much as when I read CC's books, and sometimes more...
Perhaps these people have been permenantly imprinted by CC, by the legacy he left behind, and I can feel that connectiong. Which is not his legacy, and I almost wish he had actually kept himself out of the lime light, but perhaps the legacy would not have spread as well with out the intermixing of ego. Perhaps it is that these debunking stories actually keep his stories alive, does matter if they are for or against it is all the same.
Then it is amazing to ponder how the world was changed by the combination of CC's work and the 60's revolution in general.
These thoughts were inspired by reading this article:
http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/
I have written a book about Castaneda. "In the Eyes of Carlos Castaneda - an Astrological portrait" - unfortunately it is written in Swedish. I wrote it to and from during a period of 20 years and I made much research. One of my most important sources was Richard de Mille and his book "The don Juan Papers, Further Castaneda controversies". (Ross-Juhanison publishers, Santa Barbara 1981).
De Mille did really go in the foot prints of Castaneda and he made a lot of interviews and compilation of other Castaneda critics. Despite that de Mille was critical to the way Castaneda had presented his teachings of Don Juan he admitted that there was a core of truth in Castanedas "stories". And de Mille let another expert tell the conclusion.
Quote from my book:
"De Mille is with some righteousness critical to Castanedas factual information but he would admit some reliability to the content. It’s no use to get too deep into the discussion about the reliability in the works of Castaneda but some of it reflects back on the ”person” Castaneda and has in that sense some importance.
We can initially notice that Castaneda was an eccentric in the academic world and for each new book he placed himself further out towards the area of fiction. Richard de Mille lets a, excuse me "real anthropologist" to comment on the work of Castaneda in the early 1970’s.
Professor Mary Douglas, University College, London:
Much has been said as to whether this is real antrophology or wether the pseudonym, don Juan, hides any one real person, or where precisely the elements of fiction and truth are found. The purpose of this article /The Authencity of Castaneda/ is to consider whether the latest campus cult deserves serious attention from antrophologists. The answer is obviously yes. In itself the philosophy of ascetic mysticism, so gradually put together, is enough evidence of truth in the tale. It would be flippant to dismiss it. (RdeM, pp. 25.)"
-
One source to de Mille was Margaret Runyan and she claim tha she met Carlos on a regularly basis from June 1956 to 1966. And by that statement de Mille argues that it is proven that Castaneda had quite little time to spent in Mexico… but there is more to say about that statement later. Besides ordinary intellectuall conversation attending the movies was one favourite doing. Even castaneda mention that he is fond of attending the movies in the books. Well, Margaret Runyan marries with Castaneda and she has written an own book about her experiences with (The Magical Journey With Carlos Castaneda).
“Did you talk about mysticism and metaphysics?“ I (RdeM) asked her
“That was all we ever talked about“, she said - but meant she talked, he listened./.../ They used to got to Ingmar Bergman movies and discuss them afterwards.
“Did you see Seventh seal?“ I asked
“That‘s the one we talked about the most“ she said /.../
“What about Wild strawberries?“
“That one too“ she said (pp 366).
It is free to associate to the inluence that those films might have on Castaneda. In the Seventh seal there is for instance a part where the knight plays chess with the death. Margaret let us know that Castaneda could be very helpful but that occurred only on his own terms. When quite immediately after they got married the family life has a draw back since Castaneda has already been swallowed by the sorcerers dangerous and time consuming world, or whatever happened.? De Mille gives another background to what Castaneda did in 1960 except to meet don Juan on a Greyhound bus station.
“Learning and the love of learning were the bonds between us,“ Margaret wrote. “We are married spiritually and always will be.“
The spiritual marriage has taken some rather hard knocks. After four years of friendship they were married in Tijuana on 27 January 1960. Six months later Castaneda moved out of Margarets‘s apartment. The explanation was that Carlos had met don Juan and must spend weeks at time studying with him“. The separation lasted for 13 years; Margaret filed for divorce in 1973. /De Mille continues/
-
One support for that Castaneda had an ascetic vein is given Barbara Meyerhoff. You'll find this qoute in my chapter about Mars in Scorpio, which CC had.
Richard De Mille interview (pp 352-53):
"Barbara M: Did you know he lived in San Diego?
RdeM: He did?
Barbara M: For a while in a basement room.
RdeM: He told you this?
Barbara M: Yes. In a friend‘s house. I thought it was rather a long commute to UCLA, but those things never seemed to bother him.
RdeM: Not when he could go back to Mexiko in the blink of an eye.
Barbara M: Maybe that‘s it. Anyway, he said he gradually emptied the room out. First he got rid of the bed. Then he got rid of the books. Until there was nothing left but him and the typewriter./.../ he overcame it by giving up all his normal habits. He gave up food. He gave up sleeping. Honing himself, so to speak. And I thought it was all rather shocking. But he was training himself in ascetism. He was a profound ascetic streak. If I had to give you a psychological intepretation, I might say he´s a tragically isolated man, struggling for discipline, dominated by his will, animus-possesed, anima-terrified, seeking impeccability, seeking passion with control. Willful ascetism. He was merciless with himself. Though he indulged himself by not giving in to the system, at the same time he sternly made himself give up personal relationships. Maybe he really wanted to give them up, but I felt it was a struggle. Made himself give up that little boy. Made himself be there in the library every single day, perfectly dressed in the dark suit, with the briefcase, everything in order, a narrow, determined quality. I suspect it‘s getting fiercer and deeper as he gets older."
"He was merciless with himself," ....
-
You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.
(Just an aside.)
-
You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.
(Just an aside.)
That position of his horoscope would not surprise me much.
Mars in Scorpio is in a crucial position for people with physical body first. They can endure, they can try the ascetism an the like. In low .vibration outcome - people with Mars in Scorpio is overly violent and can come into situations as assault, rape and sexual fixation.
-
Yes I have Mars in Scorpio, for whatever good or bad it does me.
I never could understand de Mille, not that I could be bothered reading his books. Why are these people so obsessed with the mechanics? Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?
-
Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?
Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair. :)
-
Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair. :)
It doesn't work that way.
Scorpios goes in with all or nothing and if we takes it all - the man has to be real.
-
It doesn't work that way.
Scorpios goes in with all or nothing and if we takes it all - the man has to be real.
Astrology is like looking at canned meat - in both cases one makes judgement on the basis of manufacturing date.
-
Astrology is like looking at canned meat - in both cases one makes judgement on the basis of manufacturing date.
Canned meat?
Judgement?
Astrolgy is one thing - to cast horoscopes is another.
Lions are proud and they guard their children.
Virgos like to serve others and are interested in diets.
Libras do best with a partner and "must find" harmony in their life.
Scorpios have secrets and are passionate beyond their own imagination.
Sagittarius are easy to deal with but they usually have no real backbone.
Capricorns have a real backbone, they are old when young and young when old and they are stubborn by nature.
Aquarius I do not know that much about, maybe they are the real adopters of all new IT-technology, Facebook, I-Phones and apps!?
Pisces lives in the dark ocean and chaos with momentary insights and light upon their souls (except gurus from down under). In fact the Pisces is the ultimate sign for a true seeker and warrior. It is the number twelve in the Zodiac and thereby the completion of man is herited in the Pisces. Then it starts all over with a new seed with in the Aries.
Aries likes to start new projects - for others to complete.
The Taurus has his/her purse (of gold) - he/she know what to do in this life and they let the things that they want come to him/her.
The Gemini is a kind of less educated Sagittaurus that like to talk about everything, communication is the keyword. Writer, journalist, working with TV or any media is their place. But they lack a backbone unless other positions support that.
The Cancer have friends - but they are few, the cancer build his family and nourish it.
-
Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair. :)
I doubt there is anything that is undebunkable if someone wants to debunk it.
Why debunking Carlos doesn't work, relates to the systemic effect. For various reasons, relating to reinforcing, and feedback cycles anything done to debunk a story like Carlos's will only feed the fire, and keep it going.
-
Why are these people so obsessed with the mechanics? Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?
Each learns in their own way....but the question you ask is much more grand than that.
-
I doubt there is anything that is undebunkable if someone wants to debunk it.
Why debunking Carlos doesn't work, relates to the systemic effect. For various reasons, relating to reinforcing, and feedback cycles anything done to debunk a story like Carlos's will only feed the fire, and keep it going.
You are missing the point here. The path of spiritual evolution is personal and experiential. Intellect plays an assisting role there. Now, how can anyone debunk my experience gained through practicing techniques described by Carlos?
Mind you, that that experience has nothing to do with how, where and why Carlos lived and ended his life. Moreover, that experience is completely indifferent regarding the success or failure of Carlos as a nagual/warrior.
It only has to do with whether things he described work. The question of Castaneda doing what he preached is a matter of faith and belief - hence secondary to the matter of one's very personal spiritual aspirations.
-
You are missing the point here.
Nope, I simply have no interest in restating what you preach over and over.
You can debunk your own experience, then continue to practice and gain more experience. We "have to believe" in whatever is of value to us, because there is no way of knowing anything for certain.
Yes, Carlos's practices work, for me, but someone else could easily practice them, and be convinced they gained nothing. I reiterate, nothing is undebunkable.
Just as you "believe" I don't get it, because I emphasize a different aspect than you. Are you that immersed in your own beliefs that you can not see past them?
-
Nope, I simply have no interest in restating what you preach over and over.
You can debunk your own experience, then continue to practice and gain more experience. We "have to believe" in whatever is of value to us, because there is no way of knowing anything for certain.
Yes, Carlos's practices work, for me, but someone else could easily practice them, and be convinced they gained nothing. I reiterate, nothing is undebunkable.
Just as you "believe" I don't get it, because I emphasize a different aspect than you. Are you that immersed in your own beliefs that you can not see past them?
If Castaneda's practices don't work for somebody, but work for me, I have no reason to change my mind about the practices. Your or anybody else's experience does not have that power.
If I manage to deepen my experience using some of the outlined practices, then I am not debunking the practice, but my experience. It is a different thing.
At the beginning you said that nothing can debunk Castaneda for you:
I enjoy reading the stories about what it was like for the people who met CC, esp. the ones who want to debunk him. It is one thing to feel the power in the stories he wrote...true or not, the stories are a genuine gateway to power, and other worlds... What gets me though, is how when I read things the debunkers say I am only more fascinated, more entranced. Is it just that I am so entranced, so indoctrinated? Perhaps...but what is really at the h eart is that I took something from his works that spoke to me on a deep level, and nothing, NOTHING can shake that. What gets me excited is how the debunking stories actually make the flame of devotion to my path brighter. I leave those stories feeling energized almost as much as when I read CC's books, and sometimes more...
Now you are desperate to tell me that everything can be debunked, and if nothing else, then I'll do it myself. No problem there. As you say - everything can be debunked, even your attachment to Castaneda's writings. :)
-
At the beginning you said that nothing can debunk Castaneda for you:
Now you are desperate to tell me that everything can be debunked, and if nothing else, then I'll do it myself. No problem there. As you say - everything can be debunked, even your attachment to Castaneda's writings. :)
Anything can be debunked, nothing can debunk Castaneda's works "for me", if I refuse to allow it. I believe in Castaneda's works because they work for me, and I choose to believe in their validity. At the same time I do not believe in Castaneda's works, yet this is not a contradiction. Even reality itself is debunk able, none of this is real, so I believe because I have to, yet I also do not believe.
You may think I am being evasive, but then you would be missing the point.
As for everyone else's interest in his works, that is were I speak of the systemic effect. I am talking about how dynamic systems function. Trying to invalidate, will only keep the story's momentum going. Just as talking about your personal history, even to invalidate it, will only keep it alive.
-
(http://diagoras.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/original.jpg)
-
Ha, I love House!
You must be talking about me with that quote, as your self-importance is to inflated for you to describe yourself that way.
Another really good story, Les Miserables; I love the dynamic between Javert and Jean Val Jean....
-
Anything can be debunked, nothing can debunk Castaneda's works "for me", if I refuse to allow it.
You answered exhaustively to the question in the title of the thread. Case closed.
-
You answered exhaustively to the question in the title of the thread. Case closed.
Is it more important to you that you disagree, challenge, and conflict, so as to reinforce your self-righteousness, than to externally consider the views of another, and there by free yourself? Funny thing, what I am saying is not so different from what you are saying, and yet you still discuss (verbally concuss), instead of dialoging.
Liberation leads to liberation
-
"Having to believe means that you accept the facts of something, consider all possibilities and possible outcomes, and then choose to believe in accordance with your innermost predilection. Believing is a cinch. Having to believe is something else. If you have to believe, you must use all of an event, account for all possibilities, and consider everything. Before deciding that you believe one way you must consider that it may well be another way."
"Death is the indispensable ingredient in having to believe. Without the awareness of death everything is ordinary, trivial. It is only because death is stalking us that the world is an unfathomable mystery. Without an awareness of the presence of our death there is no power, no mystery.
Having to believe that the world is mysterious and unfathomable is the expression of a warrior's innermost predilection. Without it he has nothing."
It is because everything, including ones self, and ones personal experience is an unfathomable mystery, that a warrior skilled at controlled folly can laugh at him/herself. If we were sure of ourselves it would be no laughing matter.
-
"Having to believe means that you accept the facts of something, consider all possibilities and possible outcomes, and then choose to believe in accordance with your innermost predilection. Believing is a cinch. Having to believe is something else. If you have to believe, you must use all of an event, account for all possibilities, and consider everything. Before deciding that you believe one way you must consider that it may well be another way."
"Death is the indispensable ingredient in having to believe. Without the awareness of death everything is ordinary, trivial. It is only because death is stalking us that the world is an unfathomable mystery. Without an awareness of the presence of our death there is no power, no mystery.
Having to believe that the world is mysterious and unfathomable is the expression of a warrior's innermost predilection. Without it he has nothing."
It is because everything, including ones self, and ones personal experience is an unfathomable mystery, that a warrior skilled at controlled folly can laugh at him/herself. If we were sure of ourselves it would be no laughing matter.
You have the seed Nick - but you're not there yet.
A Warrior do not laugh out of controlled folly, controlled folly is how to get along in a crazy world created by humans, a Warrior laughs along with the construct of the Universe, and that is fun!
-
Nick, you like to complain and file accusations about my beliefs, self-importance, blindness, etc.
I have no problems with that. Yet, I wonder why exactly do you resort to such mode of expression so frequently? Do you feel that you are losing ground? Do feel that things you consider important and valuable are not respected? Do you feel you are not respected sufficiently?
You started this thread to say that Castaneda is undebunkable because you choose to keep it that way. You like to believe it, and that's that. At the same time, in your words, everything can be debunked (but not the things you choose to believe).
Hence, it is about beliefs. You justify your beliefs with mystery and say that because everything is so very mysterious, one cannot but has to have beliefs as a last resort. In fact, you cover and hide large parts of unknown and unknowable with beliefs.
That logic runs contrary to what one of the characters of Castaneda's books - Don Juan - said. He said that warrior cannot afford the luxury of beliefs, because they make warrior rigid and petrified. They prevent him from dropping human form. Beliefs prevent warrior from seeing the world as it is. The world cannot be defined as one likes (that's the foolishness of mental body, but not of the other bodies we have). Beliefs blind and freeze one in his tracks. Warrior has no story, no truth to defend. If anything is worth its salt, it will prove itself (if practiced).
Your story and my story are different stories. I cannot have the luxury of beliefs. On the contrary, I work to drop them, and to free my mind from any imprinted mental constructs. The practice I mentioned is the way to do it. Experience changes, I change, and what matters is whether techniques known to me facilitate it continuously.
World has to be faced without the safety of mental shields. To see, one has to let go and navigate the universe naked.
Castaneda could have been sex-crazed lunatic who died of cancer and guided his followers to a monumental disaster. Or maybe it was about something else totally. His life, his choices. His story is nothing I have to defend or cling to. It does not matter.
In fact, I do not have to defend any story.
-
Nick, you like to complain and file accusations about my beliefs, self-importance, blindness, etc.
I have no problems with that. Yet, I wonder why exactly do you resort to such mode of expression so frequently? Do you feel that you are losing ground? Do feel that things you consider important and valuable are not respected? Do you feel you are not respected sufficiently?
You started this thread to say that Castaneda is undebunkable because you choose to keep it that way. You like to believe it, and that's that. At the same time, in your words, everything can be debunked (but not the things you choose to believe).
Hence, it is about beliefs. You justify your beliefs with mystery and say that because everything is so very mysterious, one cannot but has to have beliefs as a last resort. In fact, you cover and hide large parts of unknown and unknowable with beliefs.
That logic runs contrary to what one of the characters of Castaneda's books - Don Juan - said. He said that warrior cannot afford the luxury of beliefs, because they make warrior rigid and petrified. They prevent him from dropping human form. Beliefs prevent warrior from seeing the world as it is. The world cannot be defined as one likes (that's the foolishness of mental body, but not of the other bodies we have). Beliefs blind and freeze one in his tracks. Warrior has no story, no truth to defend. If anything is worth its salt, it will prove itself (if practiced).
Your story and my story are different stories. I cannot have the luxury of beliefs. On the contrary, I work to drop them, and to free my mind from any imprinted mental constructs. The practice I mentioned is the way to do it. Experience changes, I change, and what matters is whether techniques known to me facilitate it continuously.
World has to be faced without the safety of mental shields. To see, one has to let go and navigate the universe naked.
Castaneda could have been sex-crazed lunatic who died of cancer and guided his followers to a monumental disaster. Or maybe it was about something else totally. His life, his choices. His story is nothing I have to defend or cling to. It does not matter.
In fact, I do not have to defend any story.
Yet defending is exactly what you are doing, what I have observed you do in numerous contexts, which is why I attack you, to watch you defend. If this isn't true, why are you still replying to this thread?
You 'perceive' complaints where there are none. You perceive others less spiritual than you so as to fortify the beliefs you claim you do not have the luxury of.
-
You have the seed Nick - but you're not there yet.
A Warrior do not laugh out of controlled folly, controlled folly is how to get along in a crazy world created by humans, a Warrior laughs along with the construct of the Universe, and that is fun!
No I am not quite there yet, but I still say the warrior laughs at herself out of controlled folly, and that is achievable because she can't know anything with certainty.
-
Yet defending is exactly what you are doing, what I have observed you do in numerous contexts, which is why I attack you, to watch you defend. If this isn't true, why are you still replying to this thread?
It is my deliberate folly.
You 'perceive' complaints where there are none. You perceive others less spiritual than you so as to fortify the beliefs you claim you do not have the luxury of.
So you have actually tried deliberately to 'attack' me? Pardon me for taking these attempts for complaints. However, it seems that you are going slightly over the edge in how you make your points.
The intent to 'attack' does not do any good to anyone. At one stage of the path, the intent will start directing energy. Dark applications of power (like that of attacking other person) that are guided by ill intent mean that 5/6 of the applied energy will never leave and will strike the very person who uses it.
-
No I am not quite there yet, but I still say the warrior laughs at herself out of controlled folly, and that is achievable because she can't know anything with certainty.
A Warrior does not laugh at him- or herself out of controlled folly, it is no fun with practicing controlled folly - it is only a must do. A Warrior laughs along with his Source. However, what may amuse a Warrior and his or hers Source is some times, human folly.
This because the funny thing is the revelation of how things "really are set up" in this Universe and how that state of "how it really are set up" is in conflict with the world of the humans. They (the humans, in their folly) got the horse behind the carriage so to speak.
To put it in other terms: We laugh when we get insights - it is as simple as that.
-
..... which is why I attack you, to watch you defend.....
Perhaps the title of this thread should be, "Why Debunking Each Other Doesn't Work."
-
The intent to 'attack' does not do any good to anyone. At one stage of the path, the intent will start directing energy. Dark applications of power (like that of attacking other person) that are guided by ill intent mean that 5/6 of the applied energy will never leave and will strike the very person who uses it.
True.
-
Perhaps the title of this thread should be, "Why Debunking Each Other Doesn't Work."
:D
-
It is my deliberate folly.
So you have actually tried deliberately to 'attack' me? Pardon me for taking these attempts for complaints. However, it seems that you are going slightly over the edge in how you make your points.
Ditto on the deliberate folly, so we are utilizing the same strategy.
As far as deliberately trying to attack you, it depends on how you interpret my use of the word attack. I am attacking you, in the same way you attack others. You would not word it that way, but me wording it that way has its strategic benefits. I am putting a mirror to your strategy, so you can, if you wish, see the inherent fallacy in your actions.
The intent to 'attack' does not do any good to anyone. At one stage of the path, the intent will start directing energy. Dark applications of power (like that of attacking other person) that are guided by ill intent mean that 5/6 of the applied energy will never leave and will strike the very person who uses it.
My intent is not to attack, not in the way you are interpreting. I am doing more or less exactly what you do, just in my own words. My intent is to flesh out self-understanding, by imagining that I am you.
Now, to clarify what you said, your deliberate folly is to act in a highly ineffective manner?
There is another strategy, one that involves working with one another to come to mutual self-understanding. This strategy also goes counter to the very intellectualistic thinking you state is often viewed as a cancer. This western intellectualism is very conflict driven, but it is not the only viable approach. Yet, it is very much the type of thinking you are employing.
-
Loving her - is loving You!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM)
Loving you
Isn't the right thing to do
How can I
Ever change things that I feel?
If I could
Maybe I'd give you my world
How can I
When you won't take it from me?
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another Lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
Tell me why
Everything turned around?
Packing up
Shacking up's all you wanna do
If I could
Baby I'd give you my world
Open up
Everything's waiting for you
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another Lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way
Go your own way.
-
A Warrior does not laugh at him- or herself out of controlled folly, it is no fun with practicing controlled folly - it is only a must do. A Warrior laughs along with his Source. However, what may amuse a Warrior and his or hers Source is some times, human folly.
This because the funny thing is the revelation of how things "really are set up" in this Universe and how that state of "how it really are set up" is in conflict with the world of the humans. They (the humans, in their folly) got the horse behind the carriage so to speak.
To put it in other terms: We laugh when we get insights - it is as simple as that.
Controlled folly is only trully 'controlled' when one lives from their Source.
It is being from the Source that gives the detachment needed to see how things are "really set up".
It is being from the Source that give the detachment needed to allow folly to be, and thereby controlling it.
Things are set up in such a way that if we are honest it is impossible to know for certain what will happen next.
Knowing how things are set up; that we can not predict what will come next, creates an incongruity between what we know is happening now, and what we can not know for certain for the next moment. An incongruity between what is experienced as sensible, and what can never make sense; the grand mystery of existence.
We can not laugh if we are not already somewhat detached from the normal mind of the masses. The more detached we become the more free we are to laugh.
Therefor living from our Source allows laughter.
If we not at least a little detached we will not laugh,
We will not laugh because we will be too much in our response/reaction to either the known factor or the unknown factor (like when someone can not laugh at a joke about a disabled person because they are to attached to their seriousness concerning that issue),
therefor the impressions will not fall equally and not produce at once the sharp yes and no needed to produce laughter.
Another instance is when you have so much excess energy that it has to fall on both sides of our energy accumulators.
The above would also explain why staying up late and being half very tired, but youthful and full of energy can set us up to laugh a lot. It is that you are tired, a downer, and full of energy, an upper, then bamb laughter. Yawning is also the opposite of laughter. Laughing relieves us of superfluous energy, but yawning pumps in energy. Therefor, if you are tired, and just feeling tired makes you inclined to pump in more energy because of yawn, this may lead to laughter. Plus bent tired distorts our perception of reality, thereby allowing many things to seem sufficiently incongruous.
The process of controlled folly is a process of energy conservation, the more energy we conserve the more likely we will have enough for it to fall on both sides of the accumulators. Also the core of controlled folly, living from our Source, will also fill us with abundant energy.
Laughter is the natural result of living harmoniously.
Controlled folly is fun if you want it to be.
I have also noticed that laughter deepens feelings of reverence, and increases intellectual ability.
I would further propose that laughter can be deliberately coveted and used as a tool to aid in seeing through the veil of illusion/maya. This is due to laugher allowing us to see reality as incongruous.
This is inspired by personal experience, the scientific theory called "Incongruity theory", and Gurdjieff's theory from In Search of the Miraculous pg. 236-37
Also, we have to believe because there is no way of knowing with certainty. Yet believing is a part of our folly, because we know it is only belief and therefor we are not affected by the seriousness of dogmatism. We believe without believing.
-
Controlled folly is only trully 'controlled' when one lives from their Source.
Yes, that is ”right”.
It is being from the Source that gives the detachment needed to see how things are "really set up".
Yes, that is kind of ”right” too.
It is being from the Source that give the detachment needed to allow folly to be, and thereby controlling it.
Detachment and control is not equal to have fun or making a big laugh, but it may be a required condition.
We can not laugh if we are not already somewhat detached from the normal mind of the masses. The more detached we become the more free we are to laugh.
We are not detached from the masses, we are in symbiosis with our Self (our Source). It has a certain point to make our transformation into the positive part (alignment, in command, having dominion etc) and not stress the negative as detachment, alienation and alike - which is not true. We go one way, toward our Source, or Soul.
-
Detachment and control is not equal to have fun or making a big laugh, but it may be a required condition.
We are not detached from the masses, we are in symbiosis with our Self (our Source). It has a certain point to make our transformation into the positive part (alignment, in command, having dominion etc) and not stress the negative as detachment, alienation and alike - which is not true. We go one way, toward our Source, or Soul.
When I say detached from the mind of the masses, I am simply using different terminology than you. By detached from the mind of the masses I mean being free to maintain your own individuality, free to be you, and free to see life with an open mind. Being in symbiosis with the Self (Source) detaches the inner sphere(ball) of our being from the outer sphere(ball), to barrow Michael's terminology. We can, of course, laugh without this detachment, but it is always selective laughter. To laugh at one's ego-self is much easier if you have breathing room between You and the ego.
-
When I say detached from the mind of the masses, I am simply using different terminology than you.
That explain a few things. In Esoteric shools it is rather important to be aware of the use of terminology.
By detached from the mind of the masses I mean being free to maintain your own individuality, free to be you, and free to see life with an open mind. Being in symbiosis with the Self (Source) detaches the inner sphere(ball) of our being from the outer sphere(ball), to barrow Michael's terminology. We can, of course, laugh without this detachment, but it is always selective laughter. To laugh at one's ego-self is much easier if you have breathing room between You and the ego.
Hmm, it resonates quite alright. Now - ones detached - to use your terms, create no laughs regarding our ego simply because there is none (in the regular sense). Once in symbiosis, the little ego (the parasite) is gone.
So as "detached", from whatever - we laugh when we get insights.
-
So as "detached", from whatever - we laugh when we get insights.
Except I don't see it as only laughing when we get insights. I see the key being the dual stimulus, a yes and no. Gurdjieff speaks of this:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_visuv_cha_2_frameset.htm
-
You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.
(Just an aside.)
Mars in scorpio in the first house, two grand trines, uranus conjunct midheaven which means the path endured much upheaval.
He wears a mask like the mars in scorp in the first house does, and it bleeds through, his more true self. Neptune conjunct ascendant shows hes a tricky bastard, and that the spiritual life preceedes all.
I dont think he minds me sharing.
-
Popped up.
The books are intended to come alive for who the spirit wills. I cant explain it. I know they came alive for me when I purchased the first book, The Teachings of Don Juan, the day I got it, before I even took it home and read it. Literally it all began in the parking lot, outside the bookstore when I purchased it.
For others who the books are not meant to come alive for, they will lay flat like a cool and interesting story, but not be believed. Like Carlos turning into a crow, or jumping into the abyss.
There are some who take his works as metaphorical, and others who take them literal. I know Sustained Action has tried to destroy his work. I have his books and I do also have The Sorcerer's Apprentice, so I have looked at the whole of it all over the years. I do feel Carlos lost his way, toward the end. But this doesn't undermine the connection with don Juan, or his experiences.
Let the world debunk. But it's kind of like Jesus says "let he who has an ear, let him hear." When he spoke in parables, some would get it, others would not. Those who really seek will find.
I do accept don Juan was a real being. I can accept that cause I have had real experiences upon reading the books. Like I said, they came alive for me and impacted my reality, just by reading them.
I dont care what others do say. They were perhaps, not welcome into this world. We were, we know its real, and they do not understand it. It is not meant for everyone. Never was.