You really need to stop with all the self referencing. Just gets you lost inside your head.
All I do, is interact with others, and they with me. End Of Story. I am in control of my senses, and only choose to place my attention, or respond, where I want to. These ideas you propose, under so many guises, showing weakness and fear of others' influence over you, is very odd, especially from someone who professes to be more than all that. My advice? Live your life, and let others live theirs. This idea of second attention would only arise from someone obsessed with attention. The whole thing is nonsensical and so was Fred, btw. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > This rap is long, and purely for my own amusement in writing it, so if > you are interested in neither of those things, "Next" my ass right now > and save yourself some misery. But as I was walking my dogs earlier, I > found thinking of how weirdly Jr. High School FFL has been lately, how > weirdly Jr. High School TMO teachings about sex and relationships have > always been in general, and in contrast thinking back to some of the > things that Rama - Fred Lenz used to say about such subjects. So I > thought I'd rap about them for a while, partly as a counterpoint to the > weird misconceptions of what he taught that people who never met him > tend to think they might have been, and partly just for fun. > > This should NOT be seen as an attempt to tout what he said as either > true or useful; it's purely an exercise in writing for me, to see how > much I remember. The dude's daid, after all, and didn't go out in the > most uplifting manner ever, rendering himself crab food and all that, so > it's not as if I'm trying to recruit anybody to anything. I'm just > having fun doing a kind of Castanedan recapitulation on an odd set of > teachings, one that you might not have heard from very many other > teachers or books. > > That caveat emptor clearly stated, here goes... > > > With regard to their relative potential to become enlightened in a > particular lifetime, Rama always taught that women had a better shot at > it than men. The reason he felt this way is that women seem to have a > more developed Second Attention than men. > > I am using Second Attention here in the Castanedan sense, meaning the > ability to affect the world around us using only mental intention. No > chants or mantras or handwaving or magical hocus-pocus Woo Woo stuff, > just thinking something and having that thinking rechannel certain of > your energies such that the thing you're thinking becomes an objective > reality, not just a subjective one. > > As an example of this, I'll reference one of his terms, "pushing it > out." This referred to women or men's ability to push out a type of > energy that makes them appear more attractive to others. You "push it > out" using occult energies, and people who are susceptible to occult > energy tend to react to that energy by focusing on you, and giving you > more attention. They also have a tendency to be oblivious *to* the > occult energies, and to confuse what's happened to them as "charisma," > which it isn't. To use a real-world illustration of this to make it more > familiar and less Woo Woo, try to remember back to the last party or > gathering you went to in which someone "made an entrance." > > I'm talking about those moments where someone -- male or female -- walks > through the door and every head in the room swivels to look at them. > People actually *feel* their entrance so strongly that they *turn > around* to look at them. THAT is the use of the Second Attention. THAT > is "pushing it out." If you step back from the wrap of the Second > Attention energy and assess things more rationally, you may notice that > the people who can do this are *not* necessarily the most physically > attractive people in the room -- but they ARE the most "psychically > attractive" in that they attract the most attention. > > Rama was of the opinion that women are on the whole more skilled at the > use of the Second Attention than men are. The reason for this, in his > opinion, is that women have been held down in positions of lower power > -- socially, economically, and spiritually -- than men, and as a result > have had to develop compensatory skills. Faced with a society in which > one's very existence and ability to eat (since in many societies women > couldn't even *work*) depended on one's ability to attract a "good > husband," Rama's theory was that women developed more of their Second > Attention abilities, especially the ability to "push it out." > > In most cases, the women who do this aren't consciously AWARE that > they're doing it. It's more of a reflexive thang, as it is for the men > who can also "push it out." They do it all the time, but aren't > consciously aware that they are doing so; they're kinda "unaware > occultists." Such people often *trick* themselves into "turning on" > their Second Attention by dressing up in clothes that make them feel > sexier or more powerful, and voila!, it works -- people are more > attracted to them. They may tell themselves that it was the clothing > that did it, but Rama felt that the inner mechanism was that they had > tricked themselves into flipping the "pushing it out" switch ON, and > *that* use of occult energy was what really made them more attractive. > > So. To the Pros and Cons of "pushing it out." > > Being able to use one's Second Attention to effectively attract or shape > the attention of others has its perks. If you're really INTO being the > focus of attention, and in so doing vampiring a little of the energy of > those who focus on you, "pushing it out" is just your cuppa tea. > > But in Rama's opinion the use of the Second Attention wasn't really a > Good Thing if your abstract purpose in life was to become enlightened, > for several reasons. > > First, there IS a certain vibe vampire aspect to attracting the > attention of others. People who are good at it over time become *used > to* being able to pick up energy from the focus of others. > Unfortunately, this tends to make them lazy about developing and > conserving energy that they *create from within*, and as a result those > who "push it out" a lot rarely develop the levels of energy necessary to > move into higher states of consciousness. > > Second, people who use their Second Attention to become more attractive > rarely think about WHAT it is they're *attracting*. When a hot gal > "pushes it out" and gets a guy to focus on her, what is she *getting* > when she gets his attention? Well, according to the Rama guy's theories, > she's getting the full RANGE of his attention. In other words, not only > his sexual attention, but also any low-vibe thoughts and samskaras he > carries around with him. Rama felt that this energy was particularly > destructive to the auras of women, and tended to wear them down over > time. So by *inviting* the attention of lower attention men OUT OF > HABIT, women sometimes sabotaged their spiritual progress by picking up > lower-vibe energies. > > So that's the background theory. How did this work out in real life? > Well, we were all taught exactly how *TO* "push it out" and channel > occult energies to affect the focus or thinking of those around us. > Teaching this formally was in his opinion the most expeditious way to > *wake up* the people who were doing it unconsciously already. Having > been taught how to channel these energies consciously, one also develops > the ability to *see* them, as clearly as if they were waves of colored > light. So if you find yourself in a room and someone tries pushing out > these types of energy at you, you can *see* it and realize that it's a > bid for your attention, and react however you choose to. > > HOWEVER, having taught us all how to do this stuff, his next piece of > advice was to STOP DOING IT. Basically, the teaching was, "Now that > you've gotten over pretending to *not* be doing this stuff, and now that > you know what you're doing when you start to do it again out of habit, > try STOPPING." The reasons FOR stopping this were given above. It's a > waste of energy, it has a poor karmic intent, and it attracts a bunch of > negative stuff that you really, really don't need. It also tends to make > people lazy and unwilling to "do the work" necessary to develop one's > own energies from within, and use them in more productive ways. > > I actually followed his advice. I'd been able to do this "pushing it > out" thang most of my life, and to be honest had gotten more than a > little lazy behind it. But stopping doing it was fascinating, because > interestingly enough it had exactly the effect the Rama guy said it > would -- my internal energy levels WENT UP when I stopped trolling for > attention occultly, not down. These days I don't tend to do any of this > occult stuff at all. The only times I ever use the Second Attention are > the rare times I get stopped by a cop for speeding and need to throw a > "These are not the droids you're looking for" whammy at them to avoid > getting a ticket. It always works, and because getting tickets is > expensive, I don't feel too bad about it. :-) > > But pushing it out to troll for babes, that's just silly in my opinion, > and counterproductive. What's much MORE productive is "pulling it in," > and being more Castanedan "inaccessible." > > Suffice it to say that most of the socially conditioned people in the > world wouldn't think much of these teachings, and might even react to > them negatively. Pretty much everything they've been taught over the > course of their lives is that it's GOOD to attract as much attention as > you can, whatever means you have to use to do it. The *ideal* that many > people aspire to is being charismatic and the center of attention. Those > are the kinds of people they worship on TV and in movies, and they're > ALSO the kinds of people they worship in spiritual organizations. And > those are the kind of people they want to become themselves. > > Cool, if they think that'll make them either happier or more > enlightened. I believe that in the long run it'll create exactly the > opposite. Your mileage may vary. > > Anyway, that's probably all I have to say on this particular subject. I > suspect some will take issue with it, but that's their business, not > mine. I was just rappin', for the FUN of it. What YOU do with the rap is > YOUR business. But I might suggest that if you use it as a springboard > from which to try to attact more attention to yourself here on Fairfield > Life, you...uh...might be unconsciously be doing a little "pushing it > out" yourself. :-) >
