Você está na página 1de 36

Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge - Part


I've added, what I'm calling, Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge, to my site, Carlos
Castaneda's don Juan's Teachings. It began on, Jun !"th, #$$$, when I received an %&mail
from ichael. I will use '(' to begin his comments, )( to begin mine. This is *art five of the
dialogue. It continues where *art l+ left off. ,ere.


)( These last few days I've recalled being called a withholding slime. While I mentioned full
disclosure as a necessary *art of my interaction with you I've not lived u* to that.

( -ll of that, disclosure or not, is based u*on your understanding of your own im*eccability
and im*ulses. There are so many details of each life, these dialogues really only can be
effective for the broader conce*ts. If there is benefit to you in these e.changes, it is in the
form of course navigation, not the ri**le of the detail of each wave ...

)( I thin/ my rant was in *art an e.*ression of my frustration with the sense that you are all
for my handling *hysical *roblems through normal medical channels and that has me in a bit
of a dilemma with you

( 0uic/ interru*tion & insert & for e.tension.

( 1ur 'reference' systems of ourselves form a basis for our decisions and the resultant
actions. -s members of those who have chosen 'to engage' in 'the way', it is beneficial to
always cross chec/ ourselves relative to what we, each of us, consider our 'im*eccability',
and that is a very *ersonal conce*t for each one of 'us'. If 'you' have a different understanding
of the manner in which any *articular item may function 'for you' than another might for
themselves, then 'your' im*eccability would be negatively im*acted if you sim*ly 'followed'
the a**roach of another.

( - long time ago, when I e.*erimented with racing formula cars on a formula one road
course, the 'tric/' of success was based on many dynamics of bra/ing, setting u* for each
turn, the moment of acceleration from a turn, et al. Collectively we called this 'the line
through the turn'. 2ecause the *recise dynamics of each car on the trac/ is different, because
the s/ill and 'feeling' of the action of each car is different *erce*tionally for each driver, we
had the e.*ression '3ind your own line( follow someone else's line, and you die.'. The
analogy to *ersonal decisions, here, is about the same. We each at any given *oint understand
different things and *rocesses on the *oints of *ersonal decisions.

( 3or myself, as a matter of my own im*eccability for myself, this is what I /now( y
evolution 'on the way of /nowledge' is not com*lete4 im*eccability drives me to attem*t to
bring this evolution toward it's ultimate com*letion, doing everything I can to accom*lish that
goal, and ma.imi5ing the time that this effort re6uires & whatever that might be. In my own
situation having medically flat&lined more than once, having travelled both volitionally and in
clinical death to the third attention, having observed those who have com*leted their *ath and
7for that matter8 are allies in my 6uest, im*eccability causes the drive to 'continue'. )elative
to my body and all of it's *hysical com*onents and it's wea/nesses that can cause tentative
*hysical continuance, my own im*eccability 'demands' for myself that 7literally8 I do
everything I *ossibly can for myself 'to /ee* this organic function' viable, *artially because
there is some tentativeness 7in the chronic sense8 to that *rocess. The term 'everything I can'
means, literally, everything that is essential and that includes invocation of the medical
*rofession without which invocation, my body would have *erished without doubt by now,
that this death would have been *remature relative to my com*letion of my evolution, and I
would have become stuc/ in the third attention as an unfinished wor/ ...

( unacce*table. 3or myself, it would *robably have been worse as a violation of
im*eccability sim*ly because there is understanding9/nowledge, of where the intended level
of evolution will *rogress( it has been seen.

)( as, on the one hand, your a**roach, e.*lanations, guidance, ... what have you, in the area
of the Castaneda material, call it sorcery, I guess, stri/es me as nothing short of ins*iring. 1n
the other hand, when you tal/ about scientific things, it stri/es me that you are, while
a**arently a leader there in your own right, a follower at the same time in areas outside your

( ,ummm. Interesting. y flash res*onse is that the universe is not divided into
'science9technology' and :on&science and technology. There is only the realities as we
understand them. ;cience is e.traordinarily limited in it's understanding. %ventually, though,
from what I can see, and foresee, the 'magic' of sorcery might be understandable at least in
conce*t if not detail, in broader and even *erha*s technical terms, and at least it's interesting
and sometimes fun to s*eculate u*on that.

:1T% T1 )%-D%);( ne.t is an e.am*le of my saying stuff as if it were true when actually I
didn't /now and <ust s*it it out as though I was sure. In this case( that Dr. Dean had said
something about wine when I wasn't really sure e.actly how he'd said it or what he meant by
what he'd said. ;o I was more going on what I though must be true and grabbed out of the air
what I thought I'd heard Dr. %dell say in order that I might sound more 'right.'

)( ;*ecifically, you mentioned that wine was shown to be beneficial due to ... whatever you
said, and you didn't *resent that as o*inion, you *resented it as fact. Well, that is <ust wrong ...
that it is a fact that wine is good for you, that is. I listen to Dr. Dean %dell 7don't /now the
correct s*elling8 on tal/ radio and he has mentioned a number of times that all of those claims
about the benefits of wine have not been *roven. ,is *oint is not that what you say ha**ens
with wine doesn't ha**en, his *oint is that the negative effect of the alcohol my well turn out
to be greater than the *ositive effect of the, ... whatever it is in the wine that is causing the

( There is wholly no *oint in significantly broadening the conversation on this *oint,
because that would form the tra* of the 'what if's' that society gets so hung u* with. =ou
believe that what I've said 'is wrong' because Dean %dell said something else. The
confidence in my statement is not altered because the body of evidence is sufficiently strong
to *lace it in the *robability of the $> *ercentile grou* of certainty, at least as far as I can
determine, and while that may eventually turn out to 'be wrong' it's the best that can be
related with the data base of the time. In science, everything must be 'falsifiable', or it's not
science & it's a religious belief system or something a/in to that.

)( 2ut I love your calmness. -nd I've meant to reread your comments that I'd said sounded
li/e I'd *ushed you to your limit of im*eccability. The fact that I haven't reread them is a
reflection of my /nowing that I can absolutely ta/e you at your word and so while I intend to
reread them for clarifying and further learning, there isn't the slightest bid of doubt in me that
all your comments were made in total calmness and clarity && because you have since told me
that they were.

( If you *erceive them in the clarity that is attem*ted, then that is what they re*resent to
you. 2ecause you are sensitive and *erce*tive, it is *ossible if not *robable that you would be
able to 'feel' if this dialogue was ina**ro*riate driven by self&im*ortance or refle. emotion,
rather than /nowledge or clarity or whatever term that might be assigned. I wonder why 'I've
told you that they were' would be in your thought *rocess ...

)( -nd that fact about you is so thrilling to me when it's cou*led, as I *erceive that it is, with
your *rofound e.*erience.

)( ;o, bac/ to the 'scientific side' '*roblem,' I really want to heal my body through natural
means. -nd I really don't 6uite understand your lac/ of su**ort for that, given that I'm not
ta/ing any drugs, I'm eating no refined sugar of grains ... see, I thin/ that is it && right there && I
don't 'get' from you that you a**reciate natural healing through boosting the bodies natural
healing *ower, i.e., immune system, and all, with diet and e.ercise, *rimarily macrobiotics
with lots of green <uices. -nd what you've answered to me so far has been to *oint out
scientific studies.

( The very best I can relate to you is only what I understand, no more. 3or myself, in the
very best im*eccability for myself, the statement *revails( 'I would do everything, from every
*otentially&correct source' to fi. my condition. Certainly the a**roach you are attem*ting is
su**orted, it is <ust 'not everything', it is limited to what 'you believe'. The reason my
a**roach to this com*onent of our dialogue tended to wander to 'science' is sim*ly because
you seem to have dismissed that totally from your a**roach, and therefore you are not 'doing
everything' to im*rove your condition4 that is, 'everything available'. Does that really ma/e
sense to you? Is it really im*eccable?

)( @@=es, I see what you are saying. 3irst off I notice an intimidation coming over me as I
imagine myself in the *resence of a *hysician.

( @@It is suggested that you e.*lore *recisely 'why' you find this conce*t intimidating.
Ahysicians are only human and as humans, they are as easy to deal with as any service
contractor in business. They, *articularly the new genre of them, can be held in discussion for
clarity and ins*ection as easily as, say, an auto mechanic.

)( Well, I'd li/e to /now from you what you K:1W on the sub<ect through second and third
attention e.*erience, not what you've read and come to agree with because it 'fits' ... I don't
/now, maybe your life style, ... I don't /now. 2ut, you see, I too can do that and that leaves us
with <ust different o*inions.

( The *rocess is not the se*arate consideration that you seem to believe that it is. ;omehow,
according to your revelation of your ideas, there is a *artition between the a**roaches, but in
truth there is not.

)( @@I'm seeing that now, and really, you showed me that before and I resisted it.

( @@The 6uestion again surfaces( 'why?'. ;*ecifically 'why' the resistance. These are not
answers that are re6uired by me ... they are internally directed for you.

)( =es, I thin/ my rant was a manifestation of a gigantic frustration that I'd found an ama5ing
source of /nowledge in finding you but that with it was coming what I considered to be
almost a scientific drivel in the area of health. :ow, you've made the *oint about, I don't recall
e.actly, but to the effect that when one doesn't /now something they try to ma/e u* for it by
claiming to /now what they don't. ;o I'm sensitive to that charge being made against me when
I claim to '/now' what is best for my body && food wise. To be sure, I don't, but I have such a
strong sense about it && that it is correct what I'm doing ... and yet ... to be sure, I don't
'/now' ... at least I can't fully say that I do /now ... and that, to me, is the great 'missing' ...
the fact that I can't fully say that I do /now. ;o, because of that 'missing,' do I let the doctor
cut off the s/in *roblem. I <ust feel such a huge sense of failure at that thought and then in
rushes all of the doubts as to how it would all go related to that && after that.

( Consider only this conce*t for now about 'the /nowns' ... as I understand that you have
related them to me.

( #. =ou seem to '/now' that you have a *hysical condition that may be significant.

( !. =ou seem to '/now' that you have not brought yourself to the full *otential of your
evolution, or you wouldn't be engaged in this dialogue and engaged in the study that you have
been for years.

( B. =ou seem to '/now' that you have chosen to limit yourself to a s*ecific form of self&
treatment and *erha*s diagnosis itself.

( C. =ou seem to '/now' that this could fail to be effective and at the same time, do not
*rotect yourself with alternate *arallel treatment.

( 1nly 6uestions are a**ro*riate( Is this im*eccable /nowledge? -re the *otential
conse6uences of the decisions based on this /nowledge, acce*table? -re your actions and
decisions *rudent and *rotective of your im*eccability?

( 1nly you can interrogate your im*eccability and find these answers. This is 'not', and
never has been, a 6uestion of 'ichael and science, or ichael and health' ... the true conce*t
is really ')ic/', and although you may choose to focus on my dialogue, the indications are
that this is only an e.tension of your internal dialogue.


( 1ne of my *roteges 7<ust one8 would 6ualify as a biblical scholar. ,e's aged about CC by
memory, and our relationshi* is a**ro.imately #D years duration. 7I've never really calculated
it statistically, however the average duration of 'contact' with *roteges or a**rentices is
guesstimated to be *erha*s #> years.8 -bout seven years ago, or ten years into our
relationshi*, while sitting at dinner one evening when he was *robing me about s*ecific
'coincidences' of late, I finally admitted to him that there were abilities that were being
e.ercised that had never been o*enly said to him and that his life had been changing because
of this *rocess. ,e was also informed that he also could develo* into these abilities and that it
was <ust a 6uestion of o*ening u* to *otential. To ma/e the *oint, he was given a few
e.am*les not as words, but as forced connections and lin/s to the second attention.

( ,e was ste*&function shoc/ed, and it wasn't hel*ful that I said that insofar as I could
discern, 'Christ was a sorcerer'. Im*ressed with 'the *ower' e.am*led, he said ' WowE ,ow
do you /now that it is :1T the *ower of the D-)K side?E'. y res*onse to him was an
em*hatic, '2ecause I am not the *ower of the dar/ sideE'. In any case, it too/ about si.
months for him to tal/ to me again, and another si. months in damage control. -fter that bad
news, the good news was that he became curious enough to read all of the CC boo/s, and to a
large e.tent became something of a scholar in those as well. The ne.t few years were s*ent in
e.tensive dialogues 7usually in e9mail as well as *ersonal forms8 finding alignment between
biblical forms and the CC9DJ 6uotes relative to sorcery, and eventually alignment was
found although the terms and a**roaches are very different. -lthough in summary it might be
said that the 'shoc/ treatment' had a *ositive benefit, there was almost a year of 'recovery'.
In a <o/ing way, I suggested that he might want to write a boo/ or a *a*er announcing that
'Christ was a sorcererE' and although he understood the *oint, he also said that many who
should learn the commonality to o*en their minds, wouldn't even o*en the cover of such a
boo/ because their minds would sna* close instantly because of the offense to their limited

( De*a/ Cho*ra, who has en<oyed huge success with about #F boo/s and has now
'institutionali5ed' himself, was a licensed endocrinologist having ta/en his initial medical
degree in :ew Deli, India. ,e accordingly, had been e.*osed to both the Indian a**roaches as
well as being trained in Western edicine. 1ne of his earlier boo/s 7I have read only two8 had
a *hoto of him on the cover as attired in a white lab coat and with a stethosco*e hanging
around his nec/. To me, this is a cleaver mar/eting device to a**roach society in terms that
society can initially acce*t before the minds would 'sna* close'. In that boo/, he 6uoted in
one *aragra*h( Jesus Christ4 an Indian ;haman4 and Carlos Castaneda 6uoting don Juan
atus as 'a sorcerer'4 and bingo, they were saying the same thing at least in this 6uotation as
*resented. In other *laces in this same boo/, Cho*ra tried to hel* bridge the *erceived ga*s in
society between science, medicine, and meta*hysics.

( The one boo/ of Cho*ra that I would recommend to novices 'see/ing' a new *ath would
be 'The Way of the Wi5ard' because it's light reading and not too long in *age count.

( -nyway, I'm only rattling a little to you with the *ur*ose only of *ointing out that many
'out there' in society, which is to say most humans, would 'sna* their minds refle.ively shut'
if they are initially hit with an a**roach that triggers their survival 7defensive8 refle.es. CC's
a**roach with 'sorcery' *robably had that effect.


)( ichael, here is an %&mail e.change with another that has me now stum*ed as to where to
go. Would you advise me? The friend I was referring to in my re*ly is you and I ho*e I wasn't
being too *resum*tuous.

( :o, you are not being *resum*tuous, and my e.tension to you is evidence of that, and
your concern albeit ta/en as courtesy, indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations
about ... 1h well.

)( ichael, I have the sense that I ought to have this '1h well' thought com*leted. I will try
to com*lete it myself. Were you saying '... your concern ... indicates that there still is some
curiosity or reservations about why I have started this e.change.'? :o, no no, that is not it,
well, maybe *artly.

( Aerha*s it's in attem*ting to understand what I am, and not fully trusting your *erce*tions
on this ... your call.

)( Were you saying '... your concern ... indicates that there still is some curiosity or
reservations about &&&'? Well, this is not wor/ing, my second guessing, that is. 2est if I loo/ at
who I was when I wrote 'I ho*e I wasn't being too *resum*tuous.' I su**ose I have a very
strong resistance to giving myself over to another and you've been so generous with your
time, but not that, you are there for me, in many ways, the don Juan figure, and while I've ...
7:1T% T1 )%-D%);( The ne.t four 'm('s' brea/ u* my original %&mail ... not that that is
new to these dialogues, it's <ust that it seems worth mentioning again in this case8

( =our getting warmer ... but ...

( a. =ou're really only second guessing yourself, not me, and,

( b. =ou can 'never' meet any standard of im*eccability by 'giving yourself over to
another' & because that would be a 'belief system', not a system of facilitation, and,

( c. The definition of what don Juan, es*ecially as 'a figure', needs some refinement.

)( ...no ... that 7viewing you as a don Juan figure8 demands something from me and I'm
<udging myself as not living u* to the demand, even close to, #>>G. Through your su**ort
I've made the ma<or change of living in a state of e.*ectation. That is a transformation from
where I was( living in a state of trying to turn off my internal dialogue every now and then &&
because I thought Castaneda's writings were all *robably true. =ou have brought the
confirmation so the reservation I have loo/s to be one of ac/nowledging myself as 'on the
*ath of /nowledge.'

( Commitment to 'the way' is only a commitment to yourself. It's already been established
with *artial than/s to the *iece you received from your father, that you have the
characteristics intrinsically, so it <ust needs commit & unconditionally to yourself & to *rogress
on 'the way'. The reward for this will continue to change your life & forever, as in eternity.

)( I've never 'gotten' that. It's always been a cliche for me, ... no, now I'm going off into self&
*ity, ... sorry, wrong turn, bac/ on trac/ here ..

( Hreat e.ercise in *recisely the *ath of im*eccabilityE

)( ...it's <ust been a cliche so when I don't act im*eccably there is an e.cuse. I imagine myself
as at the level of im*eccability of silent witnessing and then I don't hold myself to that
standard. 2y not holding myself to the standard, I ma/e e.cuses and don't have to be
res*onsible for what I am. It's a denial of self and maybe it's that denial of self that hasn't fully
let you in as so doing would re6uire that I dro* the false defense.

( -yn )and would hel*E ,er *hiloso*hy directly hits at what you said immediately above.

)( I see myself now writing this and it's all starting to cloud over &&& more defense to stay
where I was and not come out into, say, 'the light.' It's worse than that, I'm bac/ in denial of
that silent witness that I see myself able to be.

( Aerha*s you have fear, a very *rimordial refle. of survival. If you 'hang on' to what you
have been 7since you are on the threshold that could change you & forever8 it's *robably 'eagle
snac/ time' and you /now that, but at least you '/now' and are accustomed to 'the *ast' even
though it's not *articularly comfortableE

)( It's as if this is some /ind of a game that I'm *laying with myself and with you.

( Doesn't seem li/e a game ...

)( I've grown u* with the notion that I was somehow s*ecial... because I did math well, I
guess. 2ut, I've used it as another e.cuse for non action. '1,, *oor me, I'm 'some s*ecial
one' what a terrible burden is on *oor me,' instead of wor/ing hard and ma/ing something
out of it. ;o I <ust *issed that ability all away.

( 'one' is a finite number. Aerha*s you are an significant com*onent of something that is
broader than 'a one'. =ou might contem*late what might be meant by that 'something that is

)( I li/e writing to you.

( I would ho*e so. It would violate your im*eccability to e.change with me if you didn't
'li/e it'.

( ;ince my re*ly to your friend's %&mail is <ust a 6uiet reflection on the nature of the
relationshi* and dialogue that has formed between us, it may be left as a reflection since I
actually believe it's far more im*ortant for you to contem*late it than for me, and that became
my intent of the 6uiet thought, although it really started as <ust that( a 6uiet thought. It is
somewhat ironic that im*eccability itself, the sub<ect of the *iece, re6uires that we define the
*arameters, nature, significance 7in other words( all characteristics8 of each relationshi* for
ourselves and no where is it re6uired that this be communicated to others.


( =our friend's %&mail as/ed the 6uestion( ' Why not study the 'not so im*eccable' of others
to learn about im*eccability of self?'

( The 'not so im*eccable' is *aled in the imagination when com*ared to truly understanding
'the im*eccable'. Why? ,istory, current events, and almost anyone in society with whom one
has 'normal' contact are all re*lete with e.am*les of the 'not so im*eccable'.

( Im*eccability, *er se, re6uires initially an understanding that 'im*eccability', meaning the
standards for that attribute, is a moving *arameter, or if you wish, a continually moving target.
-s we evolve, the conce*t of im*eccability drives us to continually evaluate, interrogate, and
re&evaluate ourselves, our emotions, our decisions, and our actions based on our decisions, to
determine 'if' the action will be, or was, im*eccable. 3or those of us on 'the way of
/nowledge', the result of these interrogations will be, if before the fact of the action or
decision, that 'yes' it is believed to be im*eccable. 1n retros*ect, through, after the fact, we
may learn that there was a *arameter in the decision *rocess that was 'not' considered, and that
having fully considered the 'new' *arameter 7that was there all along but not considered8 we
might find that the action or decision was not im*eccable after all sim*ly because all of the
decision *arameters re6uired were not viewed ob<ectively. In learning, new definitions and
standards of im*eccability are discovered.

( ;o, in the retros*ective mode, was the action or decision truly im*eccable? -nswer( yes,
given the *arameters considered. 0uestion( was the *rocess of ma/ing the decision truly
im*eccable? -nswer( no, because something bloc/ed full awareness of all of the factors or
*arameters re6uired to come to an im*eccable decision or action. The im*act is, then to
discover 'why' the *arameter was not considered. What bloc/ed the consideration?

( Hiven this *rocess something *ositive is gained although it might have been derived from
a 'non&im*eccable' *rocess( a lesson was learned4 and, that lesson taught something about the
detachment re6uired for true ob<ectivity.

( 1ur lives are in general re*lete with 'learning curve' decisions of the 'not&im*eccable'.
To find these, it is not necessary to go beyond self and often very non&*roductive to do so.
Iltimately, the most 'non&im*eccable' decision is to :1T learn the lessons offered from the
errors or the negative result. To learn, is to immediately convert a negative into a *ositive that
may be integrated throughout life.

( There are warnings when reviewing 'non&im*eccability' from, or in the actions of, others.
This is because the observer is 'not' necessarily aware of the number or 6uality of *arameters
that were invo/ed in ma/ing the decisions or in ta/ing the actions. - good e.am*le is to view
'our *arents' & i.e., anyone's *arents & and their im*act on the child. -ll *arents & all & did their
best. Certainly, the actions and the result may be truly flawed throughout the s*ectrum of
causation and result. The truth though, good, bad, nefarious, or indifferent, all *arents did
their best with the attribute set that they had at the time.

( It is no different relative to im*eccability. ;tudy not the *erceived im*eccability of others
because it is sufficiently saturating to understand the im*eccability of self.


)( I had an interesting dream ;unday night. It was the first time I was in a dream where the
events were telling me that I was dreaming and yet, with all the clues, I never recogni5ed it as
a dream and continued it to the end believing it was 'real life.'

( In my understanding of the way these truly function, you e.*erienced a second attention
'visit'. Henerally the distinction between these and casual dreams are e.actly what you have
said 'it wasn't recogni5ed as a dream, it seemed li/e real life'. 3or me, there is no 6uestion
that this was a second attention event, whether or not you might recogni5e it as such.

)( I have assumed that they are second attention situations whenever I've been about to act
volitionally and from the stand*oint of /nowing that I was dreaming. That you call this
recently described dream a second attention e.*erience, I have no *roblem with that, I <ust
wish that I'd caught the dreamness of it so that I could have broadened my sco*e of actions.

( any second attention e.*eriences are truly the 'alternate reality' mode of *erce*tion and
they in general are not 'wis*y' or vague( they have their own reality that can be integrated
into our wholeness. It might assist you to consider that !nd attention, even Brd attention,
e.*eriences are, well, e.*eriences. They don't really need labels, *er se, <ust recognition. The
manner that I use is to '6uietly' e.*erience the mode, absorbing the e.*erience li/e a s*onge,
then *rocess it later.

)( What ha**ened was that I was counting items and the count /e*t changing. I'd count J and
then count them again and there would be D or eight, so I would recount and there would
again be an e.tra. I actually said to myself 'this has to be a dream, I have to be dreaming'.

( This is another characteristic of a second attention event, it's essentially li/e you are
e.*eriencing real life, and dreaming at the same time. There are dee*er second attention
e.*eriences where this is occurring, the real life com*onent, and one tiers into a dream also &
and /nows that it's a dream -:D that the e.istence of real life & is also held within a dream.
The fact that you made the last statement 'this has to be a dream ... ' again confirms the
*rocess. The second attention is an alternate reality, and it is e.*erienced <ust in this manner &
initially. Kater it can be e.*erienced in a /nown awa/e state, li/e when wal/ing around for

)( ,ow does that begin? ,ow is it brought on.

( It comes rather 'naturally'( it doesn't wor/ to force it. - truly 6uiet 'first attention' mind
becomes o*en to the other attentions. The *roblem with most of humanity is that they cling
onto the #st attention so dee*ly & and this is done through a noisy mind & that they <ust don't
o*en to other states of being. I've come to thin/ of the noisy mind as a refle. de*endency. The
very best conce*t I can suggest is to <ust rela., and en<oy the e.*erience. )ecord the
e.*erience to memory and use #st attention intellect later, after the fact. 1nce, though, I was
driving a car through a toll booth area in :ew Jersey 7a few years ago8. I was attentive but
rela.ed. AoofE everything within my vision vanished and I was in the fog of the !nd attention.
That was ama5ing, but had to be corrected and intent accom*lished that because it *laced my
first attention e.istence in <eo*ardy 7driving a car8. -lso, in driving a car, the 'sto* the world'
mode wor/s also, where everything about you is sto**ed or in very slo&mo, so the alternate
reality is that =1I can move slowly through the crowd.

)( When I've gone from lying in bed awa/e directly into dreaming it has been similar to what
CC described. It will start with an image of anything, a clear image that I then have to 'hold'
in *lace and after 'holding it for a few moments it turns to a full scene and I then am able to
easily /ee* it going for, I don't /now, !> or B> minutes, although I've never considered how to
actually measure it, time wise.

( Don't try to measure in time & waste of effort. In the !nd and Brd attentions, the
e.*eriences can be so dramatic that seconds might have the e6uivalent of hours in #st
attention matters. The de*th of the e.*erience is what is im*ortant, not the duration.

)( 2ut the initial stage of those seems 6uite *recarious and sometimes I can't hold the
beginning image but rather it sli*s away and I'm bac/ to <ust lying there in bed.

( Just guessing, but you *robably try to 'thin/' rather than 'feel' to 'live' the e.*erience.
-nother attem*t at analogy would be that of an armchair traveller & watching a film. Kie bac/,
and observe. This sets a *attern of *rocess. The s/ill about being more interactive will come
after this 'observational' *attern becomes standard *rocedure.

)( Isually, though, if I can find that initial image, I'm home free because even if it sli*s away
I'll go into dreaming after falling aslee*. 1ne of the things don Juan e.*lains to Carlos it the
tas/ of becoming aware of falling aslee*. That is how I inter*ret what I <ust described.

( -nother descri*tion might be to be that rela.ed so that one can <ust sli* into the state of
reality. To fall aslee* is to rela. sufficiently so that can occur and surrender into the slee*
mode( same sort of *rocess.

)( The strange thing is that I didn't believe it and continued acting in the dream, not as I do as
a dreamer when I /now it is a dreamer, I continued as if it W-; real life and <ust went ahead
and let go of the fact that I was seeing the funny count.

( It'd hel* if you would <ust admit that you have been e.*eriencing events in the second
attention, acce*t that, and *lace it into the category of 'e.*erience'.

)( y acce*tance has always been an assum*tion. The assum*tion being that CC was
accurately re*orting don Juan's teachings. ;o, had you not come along, I might well have
acce*ted another e.*lanation had one been *resented to me.

( Iltimately, all you have to accom*lish is to acce*t your e.*eriences for yourself and
integrate them into your being. It's all <ust self acce*tance, really. Then, once the information
based on the e.*eriences is achieved, then intent and will may be utili5ed to ma/e alterations
as may be understood as beneficial.

)( I feel li/e I really blew a chance to have a great volitional dream. I'm so ready to intend to
see the lady in the dress, etc. and here was a dream that was actually showing itself to be a
dream and I wouldn't 'switch' to /nowing it as a dream, interesting.

( =ou don't have to 'switch' and <ust understand it as 'an e.*erience' and don't get hung u*
on if it's a volitional dream, blah&blah or what, <ust acce*t it as an e.*erience. If *eo*le try to
'*artition' these e.*eriences it handica*s integrating all of the e.*erienced into a whole form
of '/nowledge'.

)( =es, I see the value of not getting hung u* on if it's a volitional dream, blah&blah, etc. and
at the same time it is my intention to /now when I'm dreaming9in the second attention, so in
the related case I did miss that chance. -s for trying to '*artition' it seems to me that that is
sim*ly *art of discrimination and unavoidable to *erce*tion, that is to say, it can't be hel*ed. I
did what I did, I was aware of it, it is *art of a whole form of /nowledge, but isn't it
unavoidable to distinguish the differences and doesn't it even hel* to so distinguish so that
*erha*s one is better *re*ared the ne.t time such a dream occurs. 1K, what I need to as/ is(
,ow does *artitioning handica* integrating e.*eriences into a whole form of /nowledge.

( In the early stages of *erce*tions, *artitioning is a willful tas/ that re6uires effort, and it
doesn't integrate well into a whole. The idea is to 'recogni5e' the e.*erience for it's attributes,
without attem*ting to *lace s*ecific 'boundaries' 7*artitions8 around it. The 'recognition' will
aid in the definitions sufficiently without forming boundaries.

)( I've actually entered into volitional dreaming from an awa/e state in bed. Those are the

( =ou are more advanced than you re*resent9admit yourself to be. :ow, as/ yourself 'why'
you don't commit to acce*tance and try to *artition yourself.

)( I wrote more on this /ind of dreaming with this line of yours in mind. 1n this *art4 It
stri/es me that the word 'advanced' also *artitions. I don't mean to misre*resent myself. I
don't thin/ about admitting anything to myself, dreaming wise. I've acce*ted it all 7dreaming8
<ust as a fact of my life. Is there something there that you see me as not acce*ting? -cce*ting
it as second attention e.*eriences <ust came to my mind and right off I would say about that
that the *hrase 'second attention' is <ust a *hrase to me. -nd I li/e it as a *hrase with its
meaning of 'another' e6ually valid attention to the daily world one. -nd that fits very well
with what dreaming is to me. ;o I guess I'm bac/ to not understanding what it is that you are
seeing that I'm not acce*ting. -s for *artitioning, is there something you see there that I did
not clarify above?

)( 1thers start by flying and I immediately then /now it is a volitional dream at which *oint I
usually land and start *racticing 7or sometimes not8 what the CC boo/s have instructed to do
for your level of dreaming. 2ut, li/e I say, I've never actually been cued to the *oint of
actually ac/nowledging in the dream 'this has to be a dream' and yet not acce*t that and act
u*on it.

( ,ow about 'this is an e.*erience, what am I going to learn from this?', as an a**lication
of adventure?

)( =es, yes, but, this has to become my way in the first attention before I'll have a chance in
hell of being able to do it in an unrecogni5ed second attention situation li/e that dream was.

)( What do you mean 'as an a**lication of adventure'

( Drawing from my own a**roach9e.*erience7s8 the following may be useful. The first
occasion of travel into the third attention, I was a bit sur*rised, but instantly recogni5ed what
was ha**ening to me. I 'floated' along 'for the ride' with the attitude of 'well, wow, I wonder
where this is ta/ing me, and why, and this might really be a challenging adventure'. That is
the s*irit of what I mean. Im*eccability re6uires the self&confidence that if something occurs
that violates my im*eccability I'll /now it and immediately have the *ower9ability of blowing
myself out of the e.*erience and bac/ into the safety of the #st attention. ;ince that can be
accom*lished on the instant at any time, then all I have to do is to allow the 'adventure' to
ta/e me and in that manner, all I have to do is be alert.

)( I felt very stu*id when I wo/e u*. -ll I can thin/ is that I also don't usually have dreams
that e.actly co*y what I'm e.*ecting to really ha**en in real life, and this one did, so I <ust
couldn't believe it was a dream no matter the 'funny counting.'

)( -t the beach with my daughter I was starring at the s/y and it's sliver of a moon u* there
on what was a bright sunny day and I saw 7only in full turned 1: internal dialogue8, little
s*ec/s of scattered light flic/ering, but it seemed to <ust be the /ind of thing you would e.*ect
u*on, say, *ressing on closed eyelids.

( =ou e.*erienced seeing, and you still find e.cuses not to acce*t. -ma5ing. =ou didn't
*ress on your eyes to artificially create a res*onse. =ou saw energy from the universe. When
you see the cocoon of what CC would call 'a nagual' you will see the same electrical
flic/ering within the golden&amber color. )ather than e.tend your hand 'into' the flic/ering
that you were seeing, where you could feel it, you choose to acce*t the e.*erience. When you
feel it, it will feel li/e 'electric ants' on the surface of the s/in of your hand, then if you don't
withdraw, the energy will *ass 'through' your hand. If you then e.tend your will9intent into
the energy flow through your hand, you would be able to 'see' the modification the flic/ering
of the field of energy you *erceived. =ou would be actually able to interact with the energy
and alter it's course. =ou would be able to learn how to channel9<oin with the energy to sha*e
and heal, with *ractice. =ou would be able to '<oin' with the energy and learn how to use it to
increase your own energy. In travelling into and through, fully immersed in the third attention,
this s*ar/ling energy becomes a *latform for one to 'surf'( it em*owers, and you have begun
to see it.

)( 1h. When I read that, I guess it was two days ago now, I set out to '*lay' with it. I told my
daughter 7#B8 about it and she says that she can see it also. I can, I've found, see it at will
when I loo/ into the blue s/y or clouds 7though it's harder to notice in clouds8. I've now
e.tended my hand into it but until this <ust now reading, I'd forgotten that you said you could
feel it li/e electric ants, and I was loo/ing for a 'field change' which I didn't find. I find it a
bit disconcerting that I don't have to do anything much s*ecial to be able to see it, although
crossing the eyes ma/es it ha**en the fastest 7faster as in the *erce*tion of it starts u* more
6uic/ly8. That's really energy flow and not some o*tical thing li/e the mass of floaters in my
eyeballs? Well, I /now it is not that and if it was o*tical it would seem that I could re*roduce
it starring at a light blue wall. I hate to be a *ain with my sce*ticism but, as I mentioned
before, I don't even have to turn off the internal dialogue to achieve it and that seems at least a
little bit unfair somehow.

( It's already noted that you have ability, so your s/e*ticism is really s/e*ticism about
yourself more than anything else. =ou can 'see', but interaction re6uires more intent and will
& there's the difference. 1ne has to 'lin/' self with the energy for it to become *roactive and

)( )emember now, try and have a little bit of *atience here with me, I'm the one who has
never /nown a wa/ing unusual e.*erience and to be told now that a little flic/ering is my
seeing energy flow li/e others can't 7won't?8, well, it doesn't 6uite seem li/e much to write
home about. I also reali5ed that I've been seeing this at times for a long long time ... and, I <ust
now reali5ed, that I've always sus*ected it as *ossibly being something s*ecial.

( Aatience is a very im*ortant *art of loosing the human form ...

)( 3or some reason, I thin/ you should be glad that I'm a sce*tic, even if it is frustrating for
you. I am listening and I'd love to s*end the day *laying with the *erce*tion of these flic/ers.
The second I feel electric ants I'll *robably *ee in my *ants. )emember, :1 W-KI:H
-:=T,I:H ;1 3-), but some flic/ers? Come on, it's got to get better than thatE 2ut I'll be
*atience, I'm thrilled to death that you told me I'd done something( seen energy flow. I am
definitely out there *laying with that one and doing my best to be o*en to the e.*erience.

( It's hard to say '<ust feel' because it seems li/e that, however, there is a lin/age to cause
that. 1ne basically ta/es a *iece of one's own energy and lin/s it to the field. )emember the
'air*lane' e.ercise we rattled about some time ago. ;tart with the e.ercise, hands 'feeling'.
When the warmth overcomes your hands, slowly loo/ u* into the s/y, loo/ at the s*ar/ling,
then slowly turn your *alms into the s*ar/ling, and feel.

)( I have definitely seen energy in dreaming ... twice. 1nce in front of a bush, once li/e above
me over a street I was wal/ing down and both times the colors were astoundingly bright and
vivid and flic/ering and very locali5ed. That's what I want to seeEEE Well, that's what I'd love
to see again, anyway.

( =ou will.


)( I am further along, because of your emails, in returning to the listening state during daily
life. -lso, listening to my com*ilation has ta/en on new meaning after your emails.

( Hood news.

)( ,owever, the *hysical distraction of my 'loosing mobility at the shoulder' right arm and
its associated almost constant *ain together with the self diagnosed s/in *roblem, well, ...
actually those things are not the distraction, the distraction is sus*icion that I am going to die
from the second item above and even wonder if the first item above is not actually an
indication that the s*read of the second has begun. 7:1T%( this is about one year later that I'm
editing this for my web *age and the shoulder is $"G bac/ to normal and the s/in *roblem
has totally vanished.8

( ,onestly, my *roblem is and was the 'self&diagnosed' *art. =ou could well have some
form unrelated discomfort in your shoulder. The observation here is that you really 'don't
/now' what's going on, have really only your own o*inion based on your assum*tions, and
the observed result is that you use a huge amount of emotional energy s*eculating on what is
going on. Wasting energy, it is understood, is not in accord with the s*irit of the nagual and
the way to resolve this is to gain '/nowledge' and in this situation a medical o*inion would
be useful. y fear is that this is all becoming self&defeating for you, and yes, I do care.

)( 1n the other hand, my feeling of total energy, otherwise, /ee*s me ho*eful while still
sus*ecting that it may be foolishly so. -nd so, I've been finding myself in bouts of de*ression
as I continue to de*lore my 'giving u*' to having the /nife cut away.

( I, of course, do not /now what you really have going on and my sus*icion is that you
might not /now either.

)( 3rom !&!J&$$ have not had a dro* of anything that was not whole and natural eating
mostly brown rice and beans, fish, raw and coo/ed vegetables and fruit ... *eriod. 2ut, again, I
admit to being frustrated and a bit de*ressed by my arm and the other. I believe that you thin/
my decision is not based on im*eccability but I must tell you that I truly do.

( I can only view this from my own *ros*ective( if you are not correct, then the result is
truly negative and there is concern that given the other negativity based on history that you've
re*orted 7I'm not s*eculating, <ust reflecting on your re*orts8 this might be forming your 'way
out', and ca*itulation is can not be im*eccable because it's about the same as the 'warrior'
surrendering, not being a 'warrior' at all.

)( This may well be a test all right, but to me, it is a test of whether or not I can muster u* the
will to harness intent. Writing this to you hel*s me to not give u* ... that is the frame of mind I
must /ee* active ... your contact has greatly hel*ed.

( Intent can be used to ta/e more action, it needs to be noted. The suggestion is to focus on
what is in the 'whole', your true intent.


)( I s*ent much of the day wor/ing on9reading over your emails from the beginning. -side
from totally forgetting about and never even starting the *ro<ect of writing what each
*aragra*h means to me, another thing struc/ me and that was your *oint about my

( 1/ay. The significant item to me in the above is the 'never even starting the *ro<ect of
writing what each *aragra*h means to me' for reasons( a. It's not intended as a *edantic
e.ercise so it's ho*ed that it will have *ersonal integration benefit, i.e., /nowledge as o**osed
to <ust information4 and, b8 'means to me' because that ma/es it *ersonal as all 6uests for the
warrior must be.

)( I su**ose it is a small *oint, but I though I would at least show you where I received my
education on the matter. If you would ta/e the time to go through the com*lete tutorial's #$
section at(
)( as I did 7I recall that I s*ent about four hours there !&!J&$$8, I thin/ you might have more
confidence in my diagnosis ... what that would mean, I don't /now, <ust more reason to go to
the doctor I su**ose.

( :o 6uestion about it in my mind.

)( I got further information that same day at(
)( Where I determined mine to be third stage. any treatments are described here and I
gleaned onto the last treatment mentioned( '2iological thera*y tries to get the body to fight
cancer. It uses materials made by the body or made in a laboratory to boost, direct, or restore
the body's natural defenses against disease. 2iological treatment is sometimes called
biological res*onse modifier 72)8 thera*y or immunothera*y. Clinical trials are being done
to find biological thera*ies that are effective.'

( I loo/ed through the sites that you referenced above, and certainly they a**ear com*etent.
The ;tage III descri*tion has the surface at about C millimeters which is a bit less that B9#Jth
inch diameter. The 'de*th' of the tumor, though, has a significant im*act between the ;tages,
and that cannot be determined without imaging or *enetration.

( Comment( It is interesting that in your 'rant' you decried western medicine but in these
web sites you are utili5ing it's methodologies to 'self& diagnose'. This is '<ust' an observation
to *oint out what may be a dichotomy.

7:1T%( -t this *oint I am *utting in a whole new dialogue that develo*ed from this
'Comment' of ichael's. Where we leave off here continues below starting at ';o, I'm doing
my own 'trial,' I su**ose you could say.'

)( I truly admire and res*ect science in any area, medical or otherwise. 2ut at the same time I
see the structure that organi5ed medicine has become and the *rocess re6uired of students,
usually young and im*ressionable, to become doctors. -dd into the mi. our litigious society
and the -- and you get what we have today in doctor&*atient relations( the 'standard
treatment' of the day a**lied to the condition as best diagnosed by the *hysician. Well, fine.

( :ot so fine, of course, however 'very' *ractitioner&s*ecific as to results. The 'human
form' of institutions is re*lete with *ower struggles, and self&im*ortance. Insofar as can be
observed, this situation a**lies to most 7if not all8 human form organi5ations, no matter how
well intended.

)( :ow consider our organic bodies as the whole organisms which they are leaving out all the
meta*hysical notions. -nd consider that here is essentially no re6uirement of medical students
to study the interrelatedness of the whole organism nor is there but a scant amount of research
into the sub<ect in the first *lace. 1ne *ractices medicine after studying cause and effect
observations made through the history of medicine, basically. -nd that is fine.

( '3ine' to a degree, but limited.

)( That is what has wor/ed *retty well ... not? I ma/e that <udgement based on things li/e the
re*ort that <ust came out about how "FG of all Ja*anese have a medical *roblem. I imagine
one arguing that the two are unrelated, to which I would say, yes, it would a**ear so, but isn't
the medical community's near total denial of diet as the cause of anything the cru. of the

( In the main, that is *robably true. Ahysicians who are homeo*athic do e.ist, however, they
<ust have to be found. Diet has some causal im*act, however it is very difficult to *lace a
cause and effect relationshi* *articularly in humans because of the e.*osure and life cycle.
-dd to this the genetic *redis*ositions, and it's e.acerbated *rofoundly sim*ly because the
reactions of any one human body, to various stimuli, can be very different and be D:-
7genetically8 driven.

)( -nd then you find out about the billion dollar sugar industry's and the mil/ industry's and
other's financing 'scientific' studies that always e.onerate them. I /now that things are
changing somewhat, but go and see what they feed *atients in hos*itals. =es, you witnessed
something from me directed at medical *rofessionals. 2ut it was more in the line of what I've
unfortunately done with my son( directed anger 7the source of which is always another sub<ect
thus the *roblem with it8 at him over something I saw that was not su**orting his whole
develo*ment. What if the removal of moles turns out to be the modern day blood&letting or
head hole drilling? I find great encouragement in 'Clinical trials are being done to find
biological thera*ies that are effective.' There is the ho*e for the future. -nd the statement that
ac/nowledges the medical community in that regard even more( '2iological thera*y tries to
get the body to fight cancer. It uses materials made by the body or made in a laboratory to
boost, direct, or restore the body's natural defenses against disease.' Well, DI,EEE

( I wish that the <udgement of that were only that sim*le. I'm not attem*ting to defend the
things that annoy you and that you have commit to. The sim*le fact is that is has been only
recently, meaning the *ast five years or so, that we have had the technical tools, or even the
measurement of those tools in order for this to ha**en to the e.tent that is has. %arly
virologists that were very successful, li/e Jonas ;al/, were fortunate to have a virus that didn't
mutate as much as modern viruses do, and that didn't interact with the genetic *redis*ositions
as much as modern viruses do & almost li/e a form of Darwinian 'natural selection'. The fact
that technology has 'raised the bar' on lifes*an from so many issues that tended to be
fre6uent in society 7e.g. yellow and scarlet fevers4 bubonic *lagues4 small *o.4 *olio, et al8 we
now are facing wor/ing on the 'really tough' and more selective *roblems.

( 1ne of my concerns, *ersonally, about the em*hasis of diet *er se was based on some of
the assum*tions that were made on historical *o*ulation sam*les. Ariti/in was one who made
serious errors on these assum*tions. In that time, *erha*s #F to !> years ago, these
assum*tions were based on the observations of s*ecific tribal communities and their diets.
The *roblem was, and is, that many of these s*ecific tribal communities sim*ly had 7*roven8
genetic *redis*ositions and that the ama5ing life 6uality that they had actually didn't really
re*resent diet *er se. Technology at that time was not ca*able of really understanding or
measuring the genetic factors, so 'diet' became a fad.

( %ven recently, there was, is, a *o*ulation grou* in Italy with long life s*ans, and virtually
5ero heart attac/s even through they eat a diet rich in red meat, and dairy *roducts. =es, it
*roved to be genetics, not diet, in this *o*ulation.

)( :ow, *ass the sugar? I don't thin/ so. Ket's go out for a beer? WrongE ,ow about, Ket's
totally rebuild the cra**ed&on&for&C"&years immune system and trust the ama5ing organism
which is the body to do what it needs to do for its wellness. ;ounds li/e something
,i**ocrates would say.

( Well, there are many *ostulations about what cause the genetic systems to mutate as they
age. In laboratory *o*ulations, the systems 'age' as a function of *re&*rogrammed effects that
are currently thought to be D:- based intrinsically. The 'aging' and mutations are li/e a
co*ier and each time a co*y is made on *a*er, it gets a little altered9fu55ier. %very cell in our
bodies is re*laced on a se6uence about every seven years, and they change <ust a little with
each re*lication. ;ome would say that diet has an im*act, and yes indeed it may & it may also
have nothing to do with it. 3or myself, I'm not a believer or a non&believer in these matters. I
am an observer.

)( There is im*eccability. Cutting away what offends with a /nife is bac/ with cause and
effect medicine and <ust fine for those unwilling to give u* their nightly bowl of ,aagendaus.
I hold that there is a better way and that whole and unadulterated food is at the heart of it.

( 3or me, that is <ust s*eculation. It's good that you have something to believe in so
fervently. I have a *rotege who 'sounds' much as you do, and he's made a life study of these
matters, including his attitude about the medical *rofession which on that he a**roaches a

)( ;o, I'm doing my own 'trial,' I su**ose you could say.

)( The article states( ';tandard treatment may be considered because of its effectiveness in
*atients in *ast studies, or *artici*ation in a clinical trial may be considered. ;urgery is
currently the only standard treatment of melanoma. Clinical trials are designed to find better
ways to treat cancer *atients.

)( )eviewing all of this I'm reminded of the seriousness of what I'm u* against. I thin/ I will
call the number given and as/ about *artici*ating in a clinical trial of 2). 7:1T% T1
)%-D%);( I never did8

( 3rom the above, that is the *attern of your own descri*tions in this transmittal as well as
others, it is *ossible to delineate some line items.

( #. - *erson seems to be sus*icious and has some *redis*ositions about western medicine,
but utili5es it's descri*tions and informational facilities.

)( -nswered above

( Aerha*s.

( !. - *erson who has e.hibited a significant familial history of melanomas in close
relatives, meaning that there is almost certainly a genetic *redis*osition & another 'fact' that
western medicine has *atterned, and for that matter even 'eastern' a**roaches because there
is sim*ly familial traceability.

)( -nswered above in that, with the above logic, this is seen as dietary failure and the body's
attem*t to do its best 7than/s to genetics8 with what it is given.

( ..2ut at considerable ris/ since -KK of the 'bet' is being *laced u*on one roll of the dice.

)( :1T%( Then ne.t two lines were after this dialogue, of course, as so much of this is
intermi.ed... I <ust felt the want of ma/ing it clear here.

)( I feel that way about going under the /nife. -nd yet ... you do argue well.

( Why than/ you, although the discussion has not been *articularly effective.

( B. - *erson who, given this 'evidence' ma/es a conscious decision to 'self&diagnosing'
and 'doing his own trial' however the failure of 'his own trial' could be his e.istence in the
literal sense, eagle meta*hor and all. ... ,ummmm.

)( Inderstood but with a different view of the 'evidence.'

( It seems that your view of the 'evidence' is to e.clude at least half of that available.

( -gain the 6uestions are a**lied.

( Is a *erson with these characteristics being im*eccable to him9herself?

)( -bsolutely

( There are many definitions around the word 'absolute', including ultimate, final, *erfect,
so you are very bound in confidence to your term by using that word, and for that matter, in
the assum*tion that im*eccability by itself is absolute.

)( I do, so much, en<oy your *reciseness. Aerha*s I could better have said 'I absolutely ho*e

)( Than/ you, ichael, for staying in my face. =ou continue to sur*rise me and I continue to
be thrilled for the e.change. I li/e the *hrase 'bound in confidence'

( Is a *erson ta/ing these ris/s being im*eccable?

)( Would, given my argument, the *erson o*ting for the /nife be being im*eccable? ... a
denial of the bodies innate ability to do what is right for its survival when given a chance. =es,
one could argue 'What if !&!J was already too late to begin giving the body that chance?' I
'have to believe' that it was not. Without that belief I have nothing.

( Aoint is well made and not thoroughly. The argument seems obvious, at least to the outside
observer, that the 'evidence' you have in hand on your genetic *redis*osition would suggest
that significant countermeasures are a**ro*riate *artly in com*ensation for the genetic
*redis*osition. The argument could be made that intellect may com*ensate by decisions and
actions for the genetic *redis*ositions, and that absent that, the genetic *redis*osition will do
what 'natural selection' has always done( remove those *rematurely from the gene *ool that
have the genetic *redis*ositions.

( -ssuming that *hysical death is understood, is such a *erson *re*ared for death in a
manner that could facilitate his continuance through maintaining coherence of sentience in the
absence of a *hysical body, or, will the *erson dissi*ate into oblivion because of the lac/ of
coherent energy?

( ,as the *erson, having 'studied information' in many meta*hysical and *hiloso*hical
de*ths, had sufficient time and 'intent' to 'convert' the 'studied information' into true

( Hiven the decision matri. and the a**roach to a /nown life&threatening condition
7assuming com*etent self&diagnosis8 e.ecuted by the *erson, will there be sufficient '*hysical
time' available to com*lete the conversion of 'studied information' into true '/nowledge'
that could facilitate 'continuance'?

)( I am continuing now. Than/ you for giving me the o**ortunity to loo/ at this in de*th.

( That was my <ob( to cause a review4 and nothing more.


)( reference your comment, 'Why than/ you, although the discussion has not been
*articularly effective.'

)( Do I detect a bit of cynicism in the 'Why' of Why than/ you? The 'not been *articularly
effective,' would seem to su**ort the sus*icion.

( :ot at all. It was an e.*anded way of saying 'than/ you'. :o more. The statement 'not
*articularly' is based on observation. I have no reason to be cynical.

)( What can't be refuted is that the /nife removes as a *ossibility that the *hysical as*ect of
the condition is actually *art of the bodies defensive system and in an as yet undiscovered
way, necessary for the bodies cleansing itself of the *roblem when, and this is the /ey, given a
chance through the discontinuance of the *oisons in the modern diet. I sus*ect4 for e.am*le,
that the 'evil' sun that we all should stay out of is not evil at all and in fact is very beneficial.

( -greed. I often4 for e.am*le, visit 7sni*8 as a *racticing nudist. I am more concerned about
the chemistry involved in all the 'sun *rotection' stuff & which could indeed have long term
effects that won't show u* for decades & than I am 'managing' my wholly e.*osed body in
terms of 6uantity of e.*osure. y body 'communicates' to me what it's tolerance is and I *ay

( ;e*arately, the s/in condition that you have been re*orting is very conce*tually
interesting, even in the manner that you view the condition. There are a number of viruses that
seem to 'get onto' the body initially rather than 'get into' the body. Warts, e.ce*t in genital
form for a woman 7/nown to migrate into cervical cancer8 don't *articularly *ose a threat to
the body and they go in general unnoticed by the immune system. 1ne of my sons had a huge
history of warts on his hands. ,e wor/ed in a deli and his hands were moist most of the day,
and he has many e.am*les of having the warts burned off. 3inally, he decided not to act u*on
them, and after about a year, all of a sudden, *oofE his immune system 'noticed' the *roblem
and all the warts went away. ,er*es, another retrovirus, has a similar story and it could be
*ro<ected that melanoma also is similar e.ce*t that once it brea/s out of the form, it mutates
and overwhelms the immune system. The successful treatment where the immune system is
caused to res*ond by acting on *rocessed sam*le of the tumor material itself is new to
technology, and very successful, however it cannot be mass *roduced because the *athology
is uni6ue to each event of each *erson.

( It does not ta/e much imagination to *ro<ect that if your immune system doesn't notice the
*roblem in time, then it won't react with any certainty or intensity, and diet will have nothing
to do with it.

( It is also *ossible that these viral mutations humanity e.*erience are carried by D:-
across generations. We generally now acce*t that genetics *lays a role in the *redis*ositions
to these, and other, *roblems, but we do not have the measurement technology to determine if
D:- actually carries, *re&*rograms, cells to develo* the virus itself. 1ur undifferentiated
cells grow into various body *arts, and it's not so off the wall that the micro&code that these
carry also *re&*rograms cells into aberrant behavior. It that were to turn out to be true, diet or
anything else in the environment, would have nothing to do with many cancers.

)( I sus*ect that it is the nature of refined sugar and other man made chemicals in the body
and the bodies attem*t to *urge itself of them, that, then in the sun, and at a level of chemical
to.icity beyond the bodies ability to co*e, results in conditions that could well be brought on
by that sun e.*osure. 2ut the 'as advertised' notion of staying out of the sun is, to me,
another e.am*le of how war*ed current thin/ing is. 2ut, *ublish a *a*er against the sugar
industry and you are swe*t away by the sugar industry who will fight you tooth and nail.

( :o industry has much *ower to *revent the truth at this *oint, as the tobacco com*anies
have learned. ;*ecifically because of the tobacco com*anies, the doors are fully o*en for truth
to be e.*osed. The *roblem that you cite, however, is missing the com*elling evidence that
the tobacco com*anies contrived to hide.

)( ;o the, I s*eculate, indirect cause, the sun, ta/es the blame and we're told to stay out of it.
It's laughable 7e.ce*t that it's not8 when you really thin/ it through. -nd I wouldn't get bogged
down in considering genetic *redis*osition. Just trust the body to do what is best for itself
when given a chance. I really thin/ that so often we out smart ourselves ... <ust give the body a
chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is.

( -ctually, for myself, that is my a**roach. I believe the *eo*le, li/e my *rotege 7who is
truly scholarly on the health9diet9cancer sub<ect8 less than the su*ermar/et mentality, because
of their e.tremism. The body seems to do <ust fine as long as it is e.*osed to moderation.

)( :o one wants to tell *eo*le to change their diets meaningfully 7and I understand your stand
that no one /nows what a 'correct' diet is.8 That's too much li/e wor/ for *eo*le. We all want
what is easy.

( Aerha*s, but res*onsible *eo*le will react if they have a clear understanding. The media
does not hel*. The health&food 5ealots don't hel* *articularly when they are hy*ing 'natural
diet' stuff that in itself is *rocessed with very 6uestionable 6uality and contaminant controls. I
would in general '6uestion' the efficacy of an a**roach when it's discovered that those
e.*osing the a**roach have a vested interest. If I have cynicism on something 7many
sub<ects8 this is *robably as close as I come & however I'd *refer to thin/ of it as ob<ective
observation. I don't say 'no, it's not *ossible' even in this intonation, and I am driven toward
the data base.

)( ;o, for the most *art, even *erha*s those *hysician who /now or highly sus*ect, don't
advice other than 'standard *rocedure.' -nd so we have4 for e.am*le, the thousands of
children having ear o*erations each year and the *hysician who admits, 'of course we /now
that mil/ is the *rimary cause. I don't tell my *atients *arents to have their children sto*
drin/ing mil/, then I wouldn't have any *atients.' WrongE then he would be run out of town
by the mil/ industry.

( ,ummm. :o comment.

)( I recommend that you find a co*y of ;ugar 2lues by William Dufty. I would li/e to hear
what you thin/ about it should you read it.

( -ctually, no motivation. I grew u* in the C>'s and the F>'s. I never had an ear *roblem and
growing u* never /new anyone that had, and I've ta/en tons of mil/ through my life and still
do because I en<oy it. y e.*erience <ust does not have the drama that you im*ly is the fact. If
e.*erience and re*orts don't match, believe e.*erience. y children, aged at the youngest !C
and at the oldest B>, dran/ tons of mil/, still do, never had an ear *roblem, nor among the
*arents and children of their *eers do I /now of anyone that did. y e.*erience <ust doesn't
align anything even vaguely a**roaching your re*ort.

)( -bove I wrote '<ust give the body a chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is.' I
<ust loo/ed u* 'miracle' in the dictionary 7erriam Webster's Collegiate8 for the s*elling 7'a'
not 'I'8 and read this definition( 'B C,)I;TI-: ;CI%:C%( a divinely natural *henomenon
e.*erienced humanly as the fulfillment of s*iritual law.' I e.*ect so.

( -nd I do not. 'Christianity' is a belief system. ';cience' is a measurement system. -
belief system cannot be *roven or falsified. -nything in science must be falsifyable, must
always and forever be 'tentative' 7e.g. the best data that we have to date, but there may be
better data eventually found8 or it is not 'science', it is a belief system. 'Christian ;cience' by
my definition is a o.ymoron, as is ';cientific Creationism', both confusing the measurements
of what can be found, with *hiloso*hical and religious belief systems. These systems are not,
in reality, in conflict with each other because they e.ist in se*arate and *arallel elements of
human considerations. ;cience never /nows 'why' anything actually ha**ens( it only
measures and attem*ts to define what it can observe4 and, it attem*ts to measure and define
the interactions between things that it observes4 but, it never /nows 'why'.

)( Aerha*s you misunderstood what I said above? I said that I e.*ect it to be the case that the
body is e6ual to 'a divinely natural *henomenon e.*erienced humanly as the fulfillment of
s*iritual law.' 'Divinely natural' means to me that the body is <ust what it is, no more no less,
<ust what it is ... there is an im*lication there of its being beyond verbal understanding as well,
in that divine would e6uate to me with don Juan's indescribable force.

( ;omething has been observed in our dialogues. 1n occasion, when 'clarity' needs to be
brought out toward each in our own way, we tend to use a *rovocative method as an attem*t
to cause refle. information, and although it can be a challenging methodology of human
interface, it is efficient.

( =es, of course, there is agreement with the flow of the statement. The only real difference
to me, based on e.*erience yet again, is that DJ's indescribable force is truly 'difficult' to
describe, but not indescribable. 1nce the *ower of the universe has been e.*lored, touched,
travelled u*on as the traveller is *ro*elled by it, the e.*erience albeit vast and *rofound,
becomes a '/nown' com*onent of self and it's energy forms are also found within ourselves,
bodies and all. The e.tension of self, which amounts to the cou*ling of self, into these
manifestations of energy cause us to become 'e.tensions' of the universal energy flow, and
ourselves cou*led to them. 3rom that *oint on, almost li/e one's loosing virginity, one cannot
go bac/ into being an isolated individual and to attem*t to do so, rea*s *roblems for the
traveller9warrior. In any case, the a**rentice may be with effort and develo*ment brought to
understand at least how to e.*erience the touch of the energy, and ho*efully, to channel the
energy 7better said( fields8 meaning that this flows with the individual, not <ust through the
individual. 1nce that occurs, it is truly 'not' indescribable at least among9between those
having had the e.*erience. If the term '*ower of the universe', or, 'universal fields of energy'
are considered as surrogate terms for 'divine', then the descri*tive match is im*eccable.

)( ;o then, it continues to say the we e.*erience that as we e.*erience it and, that, that
e.*erience is the fulfillment of s*iritual law, or, that e.*erience is the indescribable force's
law, say, order, fulfilled.

)( ;ounds to me li/e <ust saying that our bodies are a *art of the indescribable force. I don't
care that someone in the Christian ;cience church coo/ed it u*, but since you brought it u*,
that is a great o.ymoron ... Christian ;cience ... and while your *aragra*h seemed out of the
blue, I totally agree with you and a**reciated your words on ;cience.

( =ou're welcome.

)( Than/ you for clearing u* the 'Why than/ you' comment.

( In my early years, it's believed re*orted *reviously 7not certain8, although born in
California, my mother immediately 7on husband9father's command8 too/ us to my father's
family ranch in . 0uic/ review( he was a ran/ing officer in the arine Cor*s, *arents had
been married about " years before conceiving their only child, mother a haughty -ndalucian
;*aniard 7;evillana8, had no infrastructure because sent into ;an Diego F days before birth of
son because father was reassigned to Aearl ,arbor & wouldn't allow *regnant wife to go there &
Ja*an bombed Aearl about B wee/s after birth of son, father at war 7he was the commandant
on the arine detachment on the 2attleshi* 1/lahoma8, mother and son sent to rural ranch
because ;an Diego was a military target & a total mismatch for mother, a *erson of %uro*ean
social stature in a ranch of a 'different' social stature 7Hrand*arents were socially *rominent8,
but son raised in 'isolation' without other children for the duration of the WWII on the ranch,
met father about age F. The *oint( %very once in a while, there is an im*ulse to *ut ohn mah
best country' twang which can be called u* in an instant, ahs en, 'Waaahy, have ah&nother
meant <ulll&KIA?', and, 'Waaahy, Thannnn/ yuh'. %9mail te.t misses the intonation.

)( It seems to be that I'm e.*ecting a flaw in you and not finding it. I don't mean that I'm
loo/ing for one, but there is something there in me that has me continuing to be e.*ecting you
to falter in your a**roach with me. I am thrilled that you don't and it is that consistency that
nearly has me in front of the doctor ... nearly. Hod, I'm a tough caseE -ren't I?

( Interesting, *erha*s4 'tough?' uncertain4 and, than/ you for the com*lement. There is
awareness that, intended or not, you have been *robing and testing me and that intended or
not, you have used many communication devices to accom*lish this tas/ all to determine if I
am 'real'. There is full awareness that this is difficult to find in another, and therefore not
sur*rising that one might use these devices and *robing in6uiries as techni6ues. -fter all is
considered, though, im*eccability demands that there be a benefit to the e.change, or
im*eccability becomes thwarted, because the e.change becomes relegated to something of a
*astime, and that is insufficient to <ustify the energy re6uired. There 'has' been a benefit to
myself, fulfilled and *robably com*lete, sim*ly because of your uni6ueness in being a source
for your form of 'testing'. 1ur contact has been 'uni6ue' for myself because, sim*ly, I rarely
'e.*ose' myself in the absence of *ersonal contact.

( It is obviously understood that we are involved in a disci*line, or at least discussing
*hiloso*hical a**roaches, that are e.traordinarily isolated within society, and even my
e.*eriences wor/ing in China and Ja*an have instructed that individuals that truly 'have
ability' are isolated in those locations also 7although many go 'through the motions'8. This
e.change has ra*idly a**roached the decision *oint. Certainly if you were to use your
com*etent 7sincerely said8 'com*ilation' style in e.tracting essential elements of our
dialogue, with a little creativity 7*erha*s in not naming yourself as the res*ondent8 you could
*ost on your web site a new *iece that was 'not' based on CC9DJ by now, and my guess is
you might en<oy that sim*ly because you could claim that 'there is another ... ', *rovided that
you have finally come to that conclusion.

( The '*rovocative' *oint 7intended to *rovo/e a res*onse8 e.tracted from a *rior e9mail ...
'although the discussion has not been *articularly effective ... ' was a *ing to 6uestion the
efficacy of what is being accom*lished through this interchange, and this is another since
according to my *erce*tions, this has come to a threshold *oint.

)( I was having similar thoughts this morning. I've noticed that I've let you become 'nothing
s*ecial' in a way, in my thin/ing, even though I intuit that you are something very s*ecial. I
thin/ that this has come out of 'who I am being' in this e.change, and largely, 'who I am
being' has not changed. ;o, even though you've given me new tools to use to remind myself
to '*ractice' during the day, for the most *art, I've rewra**ed myself in daily routine.

( ,umans who have not made the 'transformation', in a CC9DJ manner of s*ea/ing, tend
to view others based on human form references in terms of labels, et al. These views and
<udgements are sim*ly based in the observation that within *eo*le, there are many
'*ersonalities' wra**ed u* inside, and sometimes those *ersonalities are a war with each
other. It is said that these '*ersonalities' are *erha*s moods, or individual dramas, or 'roles'
7more labels8, however they are usually turbulent among themselves and because of the
de*endencies of the human form, humans tend to 'hang onto' these labels as a form of self
identity( the 'I am' statements. Isually, it is noted, these are illusions of the human form
because almost all of the 'I am ... ' statements are *re&established boundaries.

( It is only natural for most to attem*t to assign labels to all that they observe, and those
labels are established only as e.tensions of the labels that they have refle.ively allocated
within themselves. -s the internal dramas *lay out and manifest themselves from an
individual, the 'who is' 7label a**lied to another8 often changes as their human form
de*endency dictates that it must, and since this *rocess is unthin/ingly refle.ive, owed to the
turbulence within of conflicting de*endencies, the decision 'who9what is' another, is also an

( The solution to these conundrums is to discover ultimately 'who' )ic/ is.

)( -nyway, this 'rewra**ing' is, at least, noticed. -nd having noticed it I'm in a *osition to
fight through it. ...

( Can only ho*e that you will. The 'tric/' is to never fully re&wra*, and to use your
'/nowledge' as 'a**lied ability' even as you wal/ through your structures.

)( Than/ you for these new insights .

)( )ereading them, I should rewrite my <udgements to something li/e. ... gosh, what is there
to say about another when one comes to what you said, 'the 'who is' 7label a**lied to another8
often changes as their human form de*endency dictates that it must, and since this *rocess is
unthin/ingly refle.ive, owed to the turbulence within of conflicting de*endencies, the
decision 'who9what is' another, is also an illusion.'

)( Hod, I love the way you write with *ristine crystal clarityEE It's magical, figuratively
7maybe literally, I don't /now what magic is8.


)( -s I was <ust thin/ing of how easy it is to stay off of the *ath when one is letting oneself be
<ust swe*t along by the tide of daily events, I couldn't hel* also thin/ing how foolish that is
and how one ought to s*end most of one's time in the *ursuit of the way of /nowledge. )ather
than having no structure for fulfillment and therewith7out8 having a hit and miss day each day
in term of accom*lishing anything towards the goal of becoming a man of /nowledge, one
ought to develo* and follow a structure for, *erha*s even, formal, following of the way. -
time for reca*itulation, a time for ga5ing, a time for wal/ing, a time for writing down the
meaning of the e.change so far ... 2ut I have no such structure and don't readily see where to
*ut that all into the way of the mundane.

( Alease be assured that it is *ossible to be in the way of /nowledge, every moment, even as
structure is 'wor/ed'. ;ometimes, at least in the early form for an individual see/ing the
/nowledge, the *rocess may ta/e a se6uence of 'structure' in small bits, followed by
*erce*tion in small bits. The 'bits' may start as alternating forms of one to the other, *erha*s
an hour or so a*art. They can be brought down to irregular time bases, e.g., an hour in
structure, ten minutes as *erce*tion, or the inverse, in any combination. It is *ossible to wal/
from a structural *oint, such as a meeting, and gently let the arms hang to the sides, *lace the
*alms of the hands *arallel 7more or less8 to the earth, wal/, feel the energy changes through
the *alms, and gain increasing *erce*tion. %ven in a meeting of some intensity, it is *ossible
to arise from a chair under the guise of stretching, move a few feet around the room,
*erforming this *erce*tion, and gain /nowledge of all in the room and self, and with *ractice
this ha**ens instantaneously.

)( ;aid that way, it shows me to be very foolish.

( ;elf&<udgements, based on self&dramas ...

)( I didn't mention the dream I had with you( It was about four nights ago. I went by water in
a boat to a house, a room, I was with two *eo*le I have little regard for one way or another
and only have the sense that they were there as an incidental *art of it all. =ou were there with
someone else and I was on a la5y boy 7I'm laughing, given the above writing8 ty*e chair
loo/ing at *oetry in Ja*anese that you had given me. The *oetry was written on vase forms so
that I needed to turn the vase to read 7should say, 'loo/ at' as I don't read Ja*anese8 the
*oetry. There was no ac/nowledge from you that it was you, I <ust, in the dream, /new that it
was you as a 'natural' *art of the dream.

( Increasingly, there are mysteries in this allegory for you to discover.

)( What would be a structure for such discovery? -nd what is the *rocess by which mysteries
in an allegory increase ongoingly?

( -ny 'mystery' is only a challenge to learn and discover. -nything that 'has' been learned
as information, is already dead information. -nything that 'has' been learned and is
incor*orated into one's being, becomes *art of the *rocess of evolution. -nything that might
be called 'a mystery' is only something that has not been learned yet. The only real analogy is
that all mysteries are bec/oning the student to learn. In order to learn the student must 6uiet
the mind, and 'feel' with o*en *erce*tion.

( The dreams are only instructional forms and a reality as valid as structural life, and often
more valid. ost seem to not 6uite understand <ust how dee* the illusion of 'normal life'
really is.

)( -re 'the flyers' in The -ctive ;ide of Infinity more than an allegory for this?

( In CC terms, yes. '3lyers' is something of a dubious term because there is more
significance than the 'fleeting' images that the term 'flyers' might im*ly.

( There are clues for you in the *aragra*h that *rovided the statement. There is a threshold,
you are *ositioned u*on it, and it is very significant for you to define it( your im*etus to do so.

)( =es, *erha*s I was trying to change the sub<ect, I su**ose, because I don't want to ... I don't
/now, I'm *re assigning reactions from you. 2ut that *re assigning is based on my
inter*retation of what is behind your *hrase, ''although the discussion has not been
*articularly effective ... ' was a *ing to 6uestion the efficacy of what is being accom*lished
through this interchange'( I'm right, you are wrong, go to the doctor.

( The human form is filled from e.*eriences originating in childhood about 'struggle'. That
'struggle' is often formed between the various *ersonalities re*resenting the various role&
*lays that the human form has de*endencies u*on, and their inter*retations about( he9she
versus me4 right versus wrong4 I versus they, etcetera. These are all human de*endency forms
and as such they are boundaries that limit the whole state evolution into only 'being'. In
general, 'struggle' is also a human form de*endency, and the *rocess of 'struggle' sets u*
boundaries that bloc/ learning the whole of being.

)( 2ac/ to the dream( I sat in the chair with the slight uneasiness of someone who was at a
*arty and didn't really /now the *eo*le but was trying to fit in and was uncomfortable, though
trying to 'loo/ good' and feeling not terribly out of *lace for the effort. -s I loo/ed at the
vase forms, the words 7characters8 were no longer there. -gain, this should have clued me to
the fact that I was dreaming, but it did not. That was it.

( The dreams are only instructional forms and a reality as valid as structural life, and often
more valid. ost seem to not 6uite understand <ust how dee* the illusion of 'normal life'
really is.

)( What is the 'threshold *oint' that you *erceive?

( There are clues for you in the *aragra*h that *rovided the statement. There is a threshold,
you are *ositioned u*on it, and it is very significant for you to define it( your im*etus to do so.


)( =esterday while wal/ing, I became very aware of all of the reactions I have to life as it
flows4 of how easily I get into the automaticness of my reacting.

( HreatE 3rom the randomness, you seem to have found a *atternE 7:1T% T1 )%-D%);( I
deleted where I told ichael that I'd com*iled his email's *aragra*hs al*habetically into one,
therefore randomi5ed, file8

)( ;o, I began to thin/ of my reactions to the flow of life as though I could file the thoughts
that came into my head. I was therefore loo/ing newly at each thought and evaluating it as to
what to do with it li/e I would a file.

( It seems that although you 'were always there' during the *rocess, the retros*ective was
of real benefit to youE


)( It's ama5ing the nonsense thoughts that come to me but the fun thing was to notice them
and categori5e them saying things to myself about the noticed thoughts li/e( file that thought
under 'to tell ichael' followed by the command to myself, 'done' and if the thought would
re occur I'd note it as already handled 7by way of a decided u*on intention8 and dro* it. The
end result of the *rocess of doing that with the thoughts was that I was no longer annoyed by
the thoughts, first of all, and second, I found myself much more able to be as without thoughts
as I've ever gotten. ;o it was good.

( ;ometimes it us very useful to deal with these matters of self&develo*ment is this manner
because one can learn what is 'closed' and still what is o*en. ;ometimes if we don't get that
'down' in a way that we can reflect on and understand, /ee*ing it only in active minds, <ust
increases the mind noise because there are reflections on issues that no longer re6uire
reflection, and these can become tangled u* with the o*en items, causing something li/e a

)( %.actlyEEE That has e.actly been my 'normal' way of being daily( 'reflections on issues
that no longer re6uire reflection, and these can become causing something li/e a <umble.'

)( Telling you now reminds me to wor/ on the same while in the house even.

( HreatE

)( -nd I must admit, since that wal/ a few days ago, I've not been doing it, but the im*ortant
thing is that I /now how and, that reminds me, I was noticing that it is different when I have
something that re6uires visual attention4 com*utering, T+ing, dish washing, coo/ing, you
name it. The ease of it while wal/ing was that my eyes were not focused on anything 7d<
style8 so what I was focused on W%)% the thoughts and categori5ing them. Interesting, I <ust
made that distinction. ... It <ust came to me that I could evaluate what I see in the same way(
'not necessary to loo/ at,' '*ay attention to what you are doing'. It stri/es me that I am
venturing into a whole new way of being here.

( Why, yes indeed, it is true. =ou are on a <ourney to a new way & the way of /nowledge.
The <ourney will lead to a transformation, then to another and another, until your full
e.*ansion of evolution as you define it, or let it freely *rogress of it's own.


:1T% T1 )%-D%);( I've removed most of my *art form the ne.t few *ages.

( It seems that when you a**ly yourself to it, you are successful in gaining income, even
though you re*ort that you don't res*ect yourself 'in' that business. Why not? If you can gain
income from it, and you are not ta/ing actions that *lace you in conflict with yourself, then
why not <ust acce*t the *rofit and success at that?

( 1bservations(

( Thin/ing of yourself as a 'con' is something li/e what *sychologists used to call 'the
im*oster syndrome' where someone has sufficiently low self&esteem that any success
becomes self&denigration because a *erson with low self&esteem cannot acce*t him9herself
and this includes acce*ting reward for effort.

( This condenses to an issue of im*eccability. If you are having conflict with it, then it is an
internal conflict and it fails your own test of im*eccability.

( The denial of money is by itself hy*ocritical. oney, if not ta/en to be a *ath of wealth
obsession, *rovides a structural footing so that one can *rogress in 'the way'. It's rather
difficult to be free if one's body is starving.

( If you cannot live 'for yourself' then you cannot truly, honestly, live for anyone.
%verything is derived from how you *erceive yourself. If you cannot truly and
unconditionally love yourself, then you cannot truly and unconditionally love anyone.
Inconditional love of self re6uires high self&esteem, or all one can attain is a form of
'de*endent love'.

( %.*anded further( why not unstic/ yourself. The self&esteem *roblem is also a self&
definition *roblem.

( 1nce in your rant you said that 'you don't give a damn about the %agle'. Well, the secret is
out( the %agle is you. When CC9DJ said that the goal of the warrior is to gain sufficient
ability to thwart consum*tion by the %agle meta*hor, somehow it wasn't understood that the
consum*tion is that of self. The goal of 'freedom' allows the %agle that is you to fly, and not
*erish by self&consum*tion.

( We've had '%agle' discussions before, so this is <ust an e.*ansion. ;tart with the goal. The
goal is freedom. The meta*hor is 'freedom 7to avoid consum*tion8 from The %agle. When the
body dies, or for that matter when the full consciousness leaves the body and travels into the
third attention, body death or not, de*endencies must be lost. This is sim*ly necessary
because to /ee* oneself together as coherent energy, i.e., a coherent sentient consciousness
energy form 7sometimes called '*ure being'8 there can be no distractions of self. If you can
imagine your 'being' consisting of energy only, then what holds it together? Intent. =es. What
causes intent? Will. If one is hanging on to de*endency, or self&denigration, then there will
sim*ly not be sufficient intent or will to maintain coherence of self. What ha**ens is that the
energy, 7the soul8 sim*ly dissi*ates into s*ace( oblivion.

( ;o, in other words, we9you are our own worst enemies. 3reedom from the %agle means
loosing the human form of de*endencies so that the being can be intact, coherent, and can
then travel through s*ace and time. If you are de*endent, self&negating, you in the role of the
eagle meta*hor, basically self&destruct, albeit through inadvertence.

( ;elf&denigration is hardly freedom( it is the im*risonment into self. If you stay loc/ed
within yourself, the energy cannot leave( door to travel loc/ed4 no freedom4 only
im*risonment4 and, no third attention.

( Wouldn't it be better for you to care about yourself?

( This is only a re*ort of your choices. It is suggested that by isolating yourself, you have
found a statement of ego de*endency and don't recogni5e it as such.

( The negativity, and isolation, *laces one 'away', im*risoned in self. Koo/ at the 'snobs'
that you have viewed and in general des*ise, according to your *rior re*orts. The 'snobs'
have *laced themselves 'away' from others in a stratification *rocess. If you withdraw, self&
negate&im*rison within yourself, you have also '*laced yourself away' from others. It is
e.actly the same as the ego&driven snobs, <ust setu* on a different layer of stratification.

)( ;o, I haven't been writing ... but I've wanted to write and so this is it. I could have as/ed
some trying&to&be&*rofound 6uestion 7actually, I've been wondering, ,ow do you, *ersonally,
/now that you are evolving toward your goal of the third attention ... what does the evidence
loo/ li/e?8

( 1/ay. I learned that self&isolation is a de*endency, <ust li/e 'suicidal' thoughts are high&
ego, selfish, de*endency. y travels beyond the #st and !nd attentions, at the bridge of 7or
into8 the third, *ermit contact and communication with allies. There is nothing vague about
the communications, or the visions. The information gained through these *rocesses inform
me as to my *rogression. It only ha**ened because it was learned that the withdrawals were
ego&based as noted in the res*onses above. When I committed myself to 'the way of
/nowledge', then withdrew, I *aid a terrible *rice that has the color and sound of your re*orts.
While out na/ed in the sun a few wee/s ago, there was a travel to the Brd attention and a
message. y *ast history is filled with e.am*les of connecting to the *ower of the universe,
then withdrawing, then reconnecting etcetera. :ow, finally, it is no longer acce*table for me
to engage in this oscillation( I am o*en fully and lin/ed to the universe4 I can be never lonely
again4 or, withdrawn.

( There are cou*le of very obvious things to note( one cannot *rogress while lashed to a
de*endency on self&negation9self&denigration. If you could find yourself sufficiently to loose
this syndrome of the dee*er dar/ side of the force, and learn that the only reason that it e.ists
is the de*endency on self&negation, then the bounds would be loosened and you could ma/e
*rogress. 3rom your *rior re*orts this *rocess has been in force within you for a very long
time. 3ind out why.


)( Dear ichael,

)( I should review your last two emails before writing as there is something in them that has
made a**arent to me something obvious but overloo/ed ... wrong word, anyway.

( Aerha*s.

)( The discovery began with, in the bac/ground, the recognition that you have been dealing
with me from a *lace that was a mystery to me. That is, I could not 6uite account for your
ability to have res*onses to me that were beyond what I've come to e.*ect with *eo*le.

( In terms of normal societal e.*ectations, the dialogue could be classified as 'different'. It's
certainly reasonable that one might have to recalibrate their 'e.*ectations', and it might be
useful to bring to mind the conce*t that 'e.*ectations' are only based on historical im*rints
and that as such they cannot be uniformly a**lied. %.*ectations might be valid on one level
and on some a**lications, however illusionary on others.

)( I'm having trouble verbali5ing this, =ou have been able to res*ond to me in a way that has
continuously /e*t me somewhat ama5ed by your ... *ointed clarity? ... ob<ective unattachment
to my human form de*endencies ... well, now I'm giving it away. =es, that is it( your ob<ective
unattachment to my human form de*endencies.

( =es.

)( What I reali5ed today was that you have been observing me, my writing 7*erha*s more8,
from an un/nown by me condition, that of having lost the human form. -nd it is because of
that that you have been constantly and consistently, im*eccably4 sim*ly holding a mirror in
front of my face && as I've rattled on && with nothing of my 'rattling' ever touching you, as it
could not, you saw my rattling for what it has been( a s*outing of human form de*endencies.

( =es( to all in the *aragra*h above4 even the nuance.

)( I thin/ I got it when you <ust now told me that the secret was out, that I am the eagle. 1r
*erha*s it was something else there in the last two emails, but anyway, I see it now. I see my
attachment to the human form de*endencies, I see that that is all I have allowed myself to be(
an e.*ression of those de*endencies and a 'rattling on' about them. I imagine that it could
almost be amusing to one who has lost the human form to watch as another, such as myself,
continues to swim around in the same muc/ no matter what you say, all the while you are
sim*ly continuously saying the same thing to me( Knoc/ Knoc/ Knoc/ ... helloE =1I')%
K1CK%D I: T,% ,I-: 31) D%A%:D%:CI%;. H%T 1IT 13 =1I);%K3 T,-T
=1I T,I:K =1I -)% -:D 2% W,1 =1I )%-KK= -)%. ;o much of don Juan's
teachings have been screaming the same thing all of these years and I would come close to
brea/ing into seeing it ... but not 6uite.

( Well said and summari5ed, however the observations carry nothing a**roaching
'amusing', or for that matter, anything else( they <ust 'are'. It is sim*ly a normal com*onent
of the human form that individuals attem*t to define themselves by labels, titles, wealth or
stature, and all of these are only functions, dramas, or roles, that humans integrate into their
self&identification to the *oint where they become integral to *ersonalities they carry
internally. ;tri**ed of these labels 7et al8, most individuals would *anic because that is all
they believe they are, or *erha*s, can be. This self&negation may also become a self&fulfilling
*ro*hecy. If there is a tragedy, it is that individuals have little or no conce*t of what they truly
can evolve to become with this being true to the e.tent that if they were to be told without
*re*aration, they would have wholly no identification or understanding with it and would
consider it 'not credible'.

)( While *ondering this all while wal/ing today I noticed a bicycle rider go by on his bi/e.
,e glided by in a way I've not noticed before. ,e <ust glided by. It was li/e he was flowing on
a canvas. I don't /now why it struc/ me. It was a visual thing no different than what I've seen
before, but, somehow this time the gliding struc/ me as different.

( Inderstanding such as that above re*resents the beginning of seeing beyond the normally
obvious human form, and it matters not that you don't /now why it struc/ you because it is
only im*ortant that it does and this conce*t of acce*tance facilitates more *erce*tion.

)( ,o*efully this new awareness will build ... I can't 6uite imagine how I could go bac/,
thin/ing wise. I can see myself forgetting to remember at times as that has, in fact, been going
on today as well.

( -nyone can 'sli*' off of 'the way of /nowledge' of course, because de*endencies that
most tenaciously 7sometimes des*erately, based on fear8 hang on to, are 6uite *ervasive. If
you can build on and evolve into this new awareness it will change you forever, and after a
*oint, one can never return and if one were to try, the *enalty would be devastating.
;ometimes at this sort of 'crossing' it is useful to have a mantra of something a**ro*riate and
very *ersonal, such as 'I, The %agle, duality as friend and foe' said here only to ma/e a *oint.

)( It's all very interesting

( =es.

)( I understand your '*eace' before your sign&off now and imagine that, if you have with you
those who have also lost the human form, that you don't use it because they are 7at8 '*eace.'

( =ou are correct in that understanding, and 'yes', we do not use '*eace' after a *oint
crossing 7or transition8 of our evolutions since *eace is a baseline for 'us'. Congratulations
are in order because this is a *rofound conclusion, though it could seem so obvious the
*rofundity im*act might be lost as it tends to be when truth is discovered.

( %.*anding4

( When the human form 7of de*endencies and negatives8 is lost, we are automatically 'at
*eace' because there is no internal conflict with the various internal '*ersonality roles' that
humans carry around within themselves. In subtle and sometimes not&so&subtle ways, it is as
if every human carries with him9her a form of multi*le *ersonality disorders because of these
conflicts. With '*eace' a given in our systemic structure, what is then gained is the ability to u
n c o n d I t I o n a l l y love oneself, without de*endencies or condition in the absolute sense.
The ability to unconditionally love oneself then facilitates the ability to unconditionally love,
bringing to fore that the term 'unconditionally' is an absolute by itself.

( 3rom this e.*ansion, you might be able to intuit how we close every dialogue, every
verbal conversation, every e9mail( 'I love you'4 and, this e.*ression among those who have
com*leted, or are near com*letion of, their *rocess is unconditional and even irrevocable by
the definition of unconditionality. There are additional benefits to this 'state of being', as you
might sus*ect, however at this time it is a bit *remature to attem*t e.*ansion of that further in
our dialogue. If you wish to contem*late what this might really mean, however, I will

)( oving along with your guidance.

( Congratulations on your *rogress.


)( ,i ichael,

)( I was <ust listening to -rt 2ell on 2roadcast.com's archives of his shows at(
htt*(99ww!.broadcast.com9artbell9se*t$$.stm and clic/ing on Thursday :ight 9 3riday
orning >$9B>9#$$$ && Then one hour and #> minutes in, starts an interview with Dr. %velyn
Aaglini 76e*Nmsn.com8. ;he claims to be a *racticing witch. I've not *aid attention to this
/ind of stuff in the *ast. It was 6uite interesting and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I used
to thin/ it was all a bunch of cra*, but am now recalling all of the references to similar stuff in
CC boo/s that I left out of the com*ilation. -ny comments on the *ossibilities of another's
influencing, say, health, through s*ells? I can't believe I'm as/ing you that. I've always
'/nown' that even if there was such *ossibility that I could never be effected by it. I wonder.
It all seems, if it is so, that it is on the wrong side of the coin. This, %velyn, <ust commented
7I'm listening as I write8 '/nowledge is a double edged sword.' I really ho*e you will listen to
it and tell me what you thin/.

( 0uic/ note to let you /now I've received this and haven't had time to listen to the -rt 2ell
*iece, though I will as soon as activity *ermits. I did listen to the 'intro' *iece and it seems
interesting enough to merit the whole story. In the absence of this, my re*ly might be too
limited, so it's im*ortant for me to gain the information.

)( I believe it was in the last hour, a fellow called in and mentioned himself being a, I thought
he said 'gardener,' Dr. Aaglini a**arently thought he said 'Huardian' and she mentioned a
thousands of years old grou* called the guardians that she was a member of. That triggered in
me the memory of the before referred to dream where I was 's*lit' and fell bac/wards into a
new dream where the two men were and said 'this is what tem*tation is li/e' bla bla, ... but
before that *oint in that dream I'd as/ed about my e.ercise *rogram 7at the time it was
something I called 'an e.*loration of the infinity which is balanced movement at changing
s*eeds8 ... I forget what I as/ed e.actly but I remember the tall guys re*ly 'we are the
guardians' ... I too/ that to mean that he was including me but did not comment on it further.
,earing this woman made me wonder about it more.

( )ic/E 3inally, I managed to finish listening to the Dr. %velyn Aaglini *iece. y action was
to bite this off in *ieces and ta/e notes because of the large time bloc/ otherwise re6uired.

( There was a lot discussed, obviously, so here are my comments. =ou might have some
s*ecific 6uestions that I don't cover, so as/ away.

( #. Dr %velyn is very /nowledgeable, obviously, however much of her '/nowledge' comes
in the form of studied information. ;he does discuss the 'F Kevels' of ability, which with
some modification com*ared to my own descri*tion about what each level im*lies agrees
with my understanding. ;he o*enly states that she is on the lower end, seemingly with the
idea that if she can 'do this or that at this level, the listener could imagine what would ha**en
at a higher level. y 'im*ression' of her is is that she is about at a Kevel !, and has been
stuc/ there for 6uite some time. This ha**ens when the student sets u* boundaries and uses
those boundaries as references. 2eing stuc/ at Kevel ! also means that she re6uires far too
many artificial '*ro*s' in ritual forms and as symbols 7candles, oils et al8 to hel* her gain
focus that higher, more evolved forms, do not re6uire.

( !. This *articular discussion of the show focused on the dar/ side. With changes in
terminology, much of what has been said is true. Infortunately for humanity, most are
*athetically wea/ 7we've had this discussion in the *ast8 and are 'eagle food' and they are
sub<ected to *arasites that usur* their energies, and often even their lives.

( B. uch of society is, in fact, highly mani*ulated and their fear does not allow that to be
seen, and yes the intent is to /ee* fear and ignorance in *lace so that the shee* can be used.

( C. The 'energy beings' that Dr. %velyn notes are ubi6uitous in the universe. 3rom the view
of the universe there are no aliens, only neighborhoods. ;he *laces way too much em*hasis
on humanity being 'seeded' by aliens, sim*ly because we are all derived from universal
energy that is as ancient as the universe itself, and I find it laughable to *lace these
discussions in terms of 'aliens' because that is a very sim*le human&centric view.

( F. There does e.ist a grou* of what might be called 'guardians'. They do not use that term
since labels for the truly accom*lished are not acce*table, and everything '<ust is'. ;uffice it
to say that this grou* is highly accom*lished, and they form something li/e an umbrella
organi5ation. Their *ur*ose is to 'guide' others to evolve. Their candidates are identified
*artially through their D:- *redis*ositions and subse6uently through the inde*endent actions
that individuals ta/e. 1nce the candidate is identified, s9he is contacted either through visions
or seemingly verbali5ed communication 7really tele*athic8 rather much in the manner re*orted
variously by biblical figures. If the candidate does not become self&im*ortant and can gather
sufficient loss of the human form to 'sim*ly be' as an individual, or in the early *hases,
demonstrates a goal to do so, the candidate&a**rentice becomes a fully&engaged candidate and
a *rofound series of 'tests' commences to validate that the candidate is committed to the way
of /nowledge, which facilitates evolution. 2y bringing others into their fold, the sentient
energy in the universe itself is increased and a form of collective /nowledge is gained. -lso,
suffice it to say, this consortium is well /nown to myself and as nearly as can be determined,
they have been around for about seven %arth millennia in slowly increasing numbers and they
formed the basis of some of the re*orts of Jacob in the 1ld Testament, for e.am*le.

( J. The 'energy cones' that Dr. %velyn re*orts ta/e two forms( one as a *athway4 one as
sentient beings4 and, they can be seen and e.*erienced. Jacob, renamed as 'Israel', of the old
testament called these 'ladders' 7my term has always been 'columns'8 and hence the term
'Jacob's ladders' which is a very *oor descri*tion of what Jacob really tried to describe as
'*athways, or ram*s'. 'Israel', meaning 'struggle with god', came u*on this individual
descri*tion because he resisted his *rogression and formed in fact a struggle with his
boundaries which li/e all early boundaries met with *rimitive terms and descri*tions.

( D. The *ractitioners of 'the dar/ side' are basically forms of the *etty tyrants that DJ
discussed, and they only e.ist because they have victims to su**ly them. -ll *ractitioners of
the dar/ side are stuc/ at low levels, and in the stratification of things, they can only im*act
lower forms of evolution.


( There is a *iece that you might be missing, or at least it might be significant for this to be

( There is a transition that occurs when one can '<ust let go' and merge with *ositive energy,
into the universe. The 'let go', of course, means the de*endencies of the human form & 2IT &
there are *recursors that can <um*&start the *rocess. If you can do your 'e.ercise', and
literally feel the energy of the universe, and allow it to flow through your being as the course
of a river 7this ta/es some letting go by itself8 then as this *rocess continues, 'feel' the energy
and commit to all in the universe that you wish to be o*en and to con<oin & as a commit & your
life and your fortunes will change as long as you stay committed. When you feel the tendency,
after this commit, to withdraw into the confined shell of your body, if you refuse this
tem*tation and rather than suc/ in your energy, do the reverse and allow it to connect and
flow once again, you'll be e.hibiting evidence of the commit and your *rocesses will be
further facilitated.

)( -nother 6uestion that comes to mind for me at times is this one I s*o/e of before related to
the sense of blac/ness I once had( ,ow is it that there I; anything?

( This res*onse can be entered in several a**roaches, and since you have *reviously been
reluctant to flow with 'science' discussions, I'll try to /ee* this sim*le and retain accuracy.

( %verything & re*eat, everything & including all that you and anything else, structural, or
organic, everywhere ubi6uitously in the universe, are constructed from only a handful of
*articles and energy that binds these together. These 7sub&atomic8 *articles have been within
the universe forever. We don't /now why, but 'it is' this way. -s *rocesses evolved in the
whole of the universe, the *articles organi5ed and everything that e.ists including nebula,
gala.ies, solar systems, *lanets, and all matter, organic or inorganic, was formed. =ou, )ic/
ace, are formed from the very beginning of constructs that are timeless. There is a great deal
more to say about this, but at least this is a start.

)( Where I; the universe and what I; it?

( The universe is a formation of energy. It e.ists in several dimensions including the
subatomic 6uantum electrodynamics level of energy formation which we understand to
re6uire about ten dimensions, and sentience itself re6uires many of these dimensions.

( The energy is carried and *ro*agated as fields and through fields the motions of *articles
at the subatomic and atomic levels. ;ome of those form )ic/, and everything else that can be
conce*tuali5ed, including the constructs of all sentience, organic or inorganic. %verything is
derived from these basis. The universe is around and within you. It is ubi6uitous.

)( ;o that if one were to fully evolve, where would they then be and what would be the

( The direct answer to your 6uestion is that one becomes a field of sentient conscious
energy. The difference between 'this' energy and the random energy in the universe is only
that it is organi5ed into sentience. :ormally one would intuit that this energy might sim*ly
scatter and re<oin the li/e&energy in the universe. This would be true, e.ce*t for 'intent'. It is
'intent' that is held within the energy of sentience itself that binds it together. In order to have
sufficient intent, it is necessary to loose all de*endencies or the energy will 'scatter' into the
universe from which it was derived, and it might be said that this is to dissi*ate into oblivion(
%agle snac/s.

( ;o the answer to the 6uestion 'what would they then be?' is sim*ly( *ure beings of energy.

( The ne.t 6uestion answer, 'where would they then be' is sim*ly( anywhere in the
universe. Travellers, ca*able at will of moving a light wave s*eed, *erha*s more.

( The ne.t 6uestion answer, 'what would be the *ur*ose' is sim*ly( to continue to evolve.
-s *ure beings of energy, the same energy that is re*lete throughout the universe, sentient or
not, it is *ossible to con<oin with others. ;ince all energy has the same formational
com*onents, the being of *ure energy may, on intent, con<oin with others as a form of a
consortium, to gain infinite /nowledge, and to im*act outcomes and events. 2y bringing
others to the same evolution, the sentience of the universe becomes increased. -bout in the
late #J>>'s, a mathematician9*hiloso*her, 2aron Hottfried Wilhelm von Keibnit5, *ublished a
model for consciousness in the universe that was essentially correct.

( any e.changes ago, I commented to you that there is a s*ectral gradation of 'ability'
once the human become inorganic, meaning in CC9DJ terms, looses the human form
sufficiently to circumvent self&dissi*ation into oblivion, i.e. gain freedom from the eagle. The
comment was made that these 'levels' could be viewed in five increments, although these are
for *ur*oses of descri*tion only since in truth it all forms a s*ectra of various levels of
awareness or ability.

( -t the meta*hor of 'level #' although the %agle has been thwarted, there is insufficient
ability to travel. It's sort of a form of stasis. )eligions might say that the 'soul is stuc/'
somewhere. It's li/e being tra**ed in a *eaceful library without the ability to travel or to
influence. ;/
**ing to 'level B', there is the ability to travel and even 'observe' others. There is learning
from observation, but no real *ower and events and others cannot be influenced. - good
analogy would be a traveller who can observe & li/e watching a travelog movie as the
meta*hor of the armchair traveller & and there is travel but little in the way of e.*erience. -t
'level F' there is sufficient energy to travel universally, and not only that, to con<oin into a
consortium of consciousness, with others wherein all e.*eriences and *ower of all in the
consortium become con<oined. 1ne is not restricted to 'being' con<oined, since this is a
resource to gain more ability and /nowledge. ;ince the energy form of consciousness is
com*rised of com*onents that are re*lete in all formations of the universe, structural or other,
then this energy has the ability to interact with, alter, enhance, im*act, any other form of
matter or energy. Thought, s*ace, time, energy, and matter are :1T the se*arate constructs of
formation that humans are led to believe.

( Whew. That was a lot for your one sentence 6uestion set.

( I believe that the res*onse above is sufficient, if not in detail, in conce*t. ,ealers, by the
way, sim*ly have the ability to *ro<ect their fields of energy, to alter organic matter and assist
in a correct reorgani5ation of that matter. This is *ossible because the constructs of the fields
themselves are com*onents of what constitutes all matter at the 6uantum level & in the
6uantum universe.


)( Than/ you, ichael. There is a lot to ta/e in there. ;till, though, I continue to have the
sense of 'nothing' as in 'Why is there anything?'

( It doesn't matter 'why' & it <ust I;, and can be limitless as one builds and evolves.

)( I don't really care about the answer ... or maybe ... I do care but thin/ that the answer is
'there is no *ur*ose'

( The *ur*ose is to continually evolve. 1nce the a**rentice9candidate evolves to the ability
to avoid self&oblivion, then the gateway o*ens to truly evolve. If you believe that 'there is no
*ur*ose' then your actions in 'wor/ing' with me cannot be *ossible. When actions and words
don't match, always believe actions, and so I believe yours. If you really 'feel' anything when
you say 'there is no *ur*ose' then you are only hanging on to a convenient method to find an
e.cuse not to evolve and to self&destruct. -lthough this might be further evidence of barriers
that are self&im*osed, they are begging to be brought down & with your will.

)( I recall d< telling cc that a warrior is not interested in the meaning of life but only striving
for im*eccability.

:1T%( This ne.t 7one8 *aragra*h seems to best be inserted here. It was a lone %&mail from
ichael that came(

( Hreetings, )ic/. I returned from a tri* yesterday, and I have this o*en item to return to
you. 1n the tri*, other than handling technical *hysics schnarff, it became *ossible to con<oin,
finally, with another a**rentice who after #D years of hit and miss acce*tance and re<ection of
'what she is' has committed to her evolution and in the frame of two evenings, cata*ulted two
levels of ability set sim*ly by loosing the form of self&denial and late in the first evening saw,
for the first time, her cocoon and it's brilliant formations.

( Well, the a**rentice has been nibbling around the fringes for many, many, years. -bout
two years ago when visiting, the decision was made to 'cata*ult' her in front of her husband.
,er husband, although he is not *articularly accom*lished, determined correctly that if his
wife continued to refuse to acce*t herself and her abilities & that had been identified as far
bac/ at #$"! during e.*eriments with me & she would eventually self&destruct. ;o, I 'lin/ed'
7bonded our energy cocoons8 together with her about two years ago in front of her husband.
Ising this awareness as a *owerful tool, it was setu* for her to find the boundary of her
husband's being, and on command 7to ma/e a *oint8 while standing about ten feet away from
her husband, she was able to *ush him down to the floor only with tele/inetic energy. -s he
fell, he was 7gee5e, cough8 'im*ressed', and her mouth dro**ed o*en as she reali5ed what she
had done. -lthough it was true that this feat was facilitated because of my intervention and
bonding to her, and also facilitated by my intent, the direction and channeling of the energy
was hers.

( ;o, with this im*ressive demonstration of 'ability' 7'*ower' would not be an unreasonable
term8 what would one sus*ect that she would do?

( -nswer( continue to deny, and continue to not acce*t herselfE 7This has been going on as a
*rocess since our initial interactions circa #$"#&"!.8

( Intil last Wednesday evening.

( -gain there was a lin/, *rivately with her in isolation. -ll *rivacy between us was vacated
as it must be during the melding of selves. 72y com*arison, the 'intimacy' of se. is analogous
to a sim*le *ro&forma handsha/e.8 Ising this form as a tool, and after *erha*s five hours the
latter two of which included her husband, the corner was turned and her life, her very
e.istence, has been altered forever. ;he will con<oin the consortium that includes myself, and
that *rocess has already started.

( I tal/ed to her husband late yesterday, and he said that the change was remar/able and
continuing. Thursday night, she s*ontaneously saw her cocoon and started interacting to move
it's energy forms.

( It's much easier after an irrevocable commit is made. &&&&&&&&&&&


ore to come ... let me /now what you thin/ about it. & )ic/

Interesses relacionados