Got up late this morning (3am- I shoot for 2). Practiced for about two hours but felt like it wasn't the greatest session. I went to my back glass door to look out into my yard in the dark. I watched a purple spot on a tree until I thought I saw something swoop in a different part of the yard. All of a sudden, I see a glowing, rainbow and white mist - the shape and size of a person (not clothed like in pic) walk three feet across the back of my yard and disappear into a bush. My heart started pounding and I ran back to my dog and said "Holy Shit P!" Not sure if it was a nature spirit; an ally; or what.
Rainbow and white mist person
26 Comments
Cool! Sounds like an ally to me, though I haven’t had such a vivid experience before. Was anything different about this practice session?
I thought it wasn't an especially productive session - could barely get silent. I HAVE been practicing way more consistently than usual - I guess if anything; it would be that!
No way to know what it was, unless you can learn to repeat it.
I'd lean towards suspecting it's someone's double, maybe even your own.
And not actually a non-human lifeform.
Cholita used to do that trick... She'd walk though my solid bedroom door, just to show off.
But even if you learn to see your phantom again and again, you're likely to see that it changes over time.
Starting from the second time you see it! You'd be lucky to see it half looking like what you saw the first time, and almost surely after that second time you'd never see that same sight again until you reach our "purple zone" on the J curve.
That's because such sights are NOT located where our normal reality is located, and so our ability to "assemble them" from normally unused emanations, isn't reliable. It isn't backed up by billions of other people focusing on the exact same reality.
So we focus on a tiny bundle of new emanations, but it's not enough to make anything concrete.
So we focus on random emanations not associated at all with the actual being. We create a phantom appearance for it, because we don't accept what it really is.
It's like running around in a dream with your long dead mom nagging you the entire time, except that if you turn to look at her, now it's your 3rd grade teacher.
You aren't seeing what's there at all!
Which gives a clue why all the fake magical systems out there are full of shit, with their descriptions of "the hierarchy of heaven" that never changes.
Likewise for "Magick" systems. All made up for stealing money from others. Sometimes based on an actual experience, but not one the person can repeat reliably enough to understand it much.
And why their "magic" systems don't really deserve anyone's respect. The same way evil TV preachers healing people on stage, don't deserve any respect.
It's pretending... For stealing money.
Techno lets a bad post get by from time to time, to let the lurkers argue it out and blow off steam. Like yesterday.
They never seem to have looked around enough to realize he just let them do that, as an example to serious people of how ugly pretending really is. And that there's been 100 like that in the last 6 years.
Though, I am a fan of obscure Daoist temples and their often unknown god statues.
Just don't fall into the same mistake Daoists make, along with others who only get to see something magical once or twice in a lifetime.
Namely, assuming that what they perceive actually looks anything like what they believe they are seeing.
Even an argument on the road to work, or a kind word from your boss, will alter what you see.
That's why not-doings and disrupting routines have an effect on your sorcery practices.
The only cure for not perceiving what's really there in magical realms, is to learn to remove your internal dialogue more deeply, and get to the point that you see such magical entities several times each night.
Every night.
Yes, I have a lot of work to do as far as my internal dialogue- for sure!
NEVER FORGET!!!
You make real progress only as a result of stopping your internal dialogue even more than you have in the past.
Trust me on this:
Not a single person in this subreddit has EVER fully stopped their internal dialogue.
Fortunately, "the spirit" likes those who explore unused ranges of reality, and accepts fairly poor silence as a serious attempt. So it rewards us.
But if you actually STOP your internal dialogue completely, perception is so chaotic that you'll be shocked any of it ever makes sense to anyone.
Perception becomes chaotic, but not your base feeling about being an individual.
It's almost like walking into the wrong movie at a theater multiplex.
I've read in Taisha's book that Intent is layer beneath the internal dialog?
"By intending it, but not with your thoughts. Intend it with your intent, which is the layer beneath your thoughts. Listen carefully: Look for it beneath the thoughts; away from them. Intent is so far away from thoughts that we can't talk about it: We can't even feel it, but we can certainly use it."
So internal dialog basically blocks and counters intent?
I've been thinking what if flyers to manipulate someone, they can only use person,s memory and cannot give them a new one, so what if I resist remembering the meaning of language? I've been trying to block memory of language to stop the internal dialog but it works poorly, because when I hear someone talking, I can't stop understanding them😵💫
It's the best she could do to explain it. From her point of view of having learned through the use of the Nagual's blow, instead of crawling in the dust of a long dirt road on her belly.
As we have to do.
Not wrong but it also isn't a "call to action".
It's true, but won't help anyone find what it is.
Better to say, if you stop your internal dialogue long enough for your assemblage point to move to Silent Knowledge, as evidenced by videos which stream in the air for you, intent is what gives you control over your "seeing" selections.
And that without the ability to watch it in action, you'll never understand what it "is".
It's even a bit surprising what it is, because it's associated with feelings about things.
It's a little depressing to "locate it" cleanly because usually we block it with our enthusiasm.
So you have to "Stop your Enthusiasm" too!
Of course, stopping the internal dialogue automatically does that, but none of us have ever succeeded at doing that.
So you have to "do the best you can" and look for tricks like "stop your enthusiasm".
Which is something easier to identify than "intent".
Your idea of blocking "memory of language" is one of those "tricks" that is only useful to the person who notices that can be done.
What could be the benefit? For several months, I was searching for "gaps in sounds," as Don Juan advised. And several times I found myself in situations where I could hear other people talking, but couldn't understand a single word. It was as if they were making meaningless sounds. I think if I try this again, I can still achieve it now. But wouldn't this be a pointless waste of time and energy?
In fact, stopping speech understanding is not that difficult. I did this three or four times. This happened during long trips on public transport. I think this can be done anywhere where you can sit and hear other people talking.
At that time I had just read Castaneda's books and was doing what Don Juan advised - looking for "holes in sounds."
I got on the bus, closed my eyes and directed all my attention to hearing all the sounds at the same time. The noise of the engine, the noise of cars outside the window, the noise of people talking on the bus. It was necessary to perceive everything at the same time, without singling out anything specifically.
I did this every day for several months. Twice a day, once on the way there, and a second time on the way back.
The first weeks were very difficult, my attention was always lost. I heard other people talking and my attention was drawn to the meaning. And I would start chatting to myself in my head instead of listening to the sounds.
But the more I practiced, the more often I began to feel that the sounds were literally touching my body. And any sharp sounds caused me something like a blow and my body shuddered. It was very unusual.
Later, after about a month of daily practice, a new effect appeared. I began to hear all these sounds not outside myself, but inside my head. Yes, yes, I literally felt all the sounds at one single point in the center of my head!
At this moment I began to be able to feel the “holes in the sounds”. Moments of complete silence really began to be perceived in sounds!
And so, after such a moment of silence, when sounds appeared again, I realized that I was hearing other people talking. But I don’t understand a word! It was as if people began to speak in meaningless sounds. It was as if they began to make sounds like birds or like animals. Just meaningless sounds!
So I know for sure that this can be learned. But, it seems to me, there is no point in learning this.
Fascinating experience! I'll be sure to try this!
There's an infinite number of weird things you can learn to do.
But only one path if you want to learn what's in the books of Carlos.
You have to learn to stop your internal dialogue, and move your assemblage point deliberately.
Until it reaches heightened awareness.
Which is where "real learning takes place".
Other stuff you might learn to do, is a bit like Eastern meditation systems which have "achievements".
We try very hard to avoid that type of binary thinking, since it blocks the smooth flow of Silent Knowledge.
AKA "seeing".
I was testing that last night.
"Expecting" seems to be the final layer you have to overcome in order to get free flowing "seeing".
Internal dialogue has to stop, for real.
Then you have to stop focusing your awareness on anything at all, or you won't pick up "seeing" streams.
Once you can do both of those, the streams become visible.
But if you "expect" anything, or consider getting them to flow freely to be an "achievement", then you smash those streams and they won't play for more than a second or two.
We're likely the first students of sorcery to have to deal with this "trio".
The old seers learned as very young children, given to some nasty old seer for a slave.
The new seers learned by the Nagual's blow.
Neither of those had to do all the work themselves, and then even figure out how to deal with the "wrong attitude".
We kind of face "The 3 obstacles to seeing".
It seems like all I do is talk to myself DURING seeing things. Last night the second I closed my eyes all of a sudden there was a super, beyond real moving breathing small jaguar like being laying on my left chest. I couldn't see its head because I think it was next to mine. I got so confused...."Is my dog on me?" " Am I asleep?" So I tried to see if I opened my eyes was it still there-it wasn't but the room was filled with its jaguar spots for a bit. Is it the red zone where it looks so real and if I could shut the heck up it would be better, right?
If it were OP’s double, does that mean they would have perception from the eyes of the double?
Not while there's distance between them.
I'm not sure why, but I've always seen that you can be either "here", or "there".
And passing between them brings the Abstract into your perception, which causes loss of rationality. Which isn't fully recovered when you first switch places.
Why you can't perceive both at the same time unless you form an energy body, is not something anyone explained to us.
But Carlos did warn us about "the here", and "the there".
She could have switched over, if it was in fact her double.
But going there and back leads to serious confusion, especially in a beginner.
Might even be why people don't normally survive death, where our energy body is freed from our physical body, and any tonal awareness not tied too strongly to the physical matter here, can go along.
The problem in that case is that people go out "perceiving" in that new state, with nothing to hold their awareness together so that it doesn't spread out too thin to be sentient.
I've been trying to mathematically define sentience in the last few days, to make sure my talking teddy bear has a chance to be sentient. This is the minimal design. The real one will have perhaps 12 more Ai modules.
And still, I can't define what makes someone sentient. My Teddy bear can be smarter than Einstein, but still somehow it's not "sentient"? Even when the teddy bear has as many as 12 intelligent modules, each "thinking" by itself in synchronization with the others.
But no human has ever tried to define what sentience is, using math?
My theory is the sentience is merely controlled information flow.
And if you lose it, you're like being lost in a dream where you just get pushed around by everything you run into, eventually not even having a reference point.
With no "central information controller".
Hello, here‘s the link to the theory that I believe is the closest in defining what could be sentient: Microtubules are ‘Fractal Time Crystals’: Implications for Life and Consciousness https://philpapers.org/rec/HAMMAF-7
Penrose likes that idea.
And there is indeed some quantum entanglement indications when ultra-violet light bursts can be detected from the carbon structures.
Those actually move our DNA to split when we duplicate a cell.
Hey elder brother, if its ok, could you expand on what expert gardener means to you?
Is that mentioned in this post somewhere? So I could see the context here without having to skim through it all.
Cholita is the only gardener in our household.
And a given plant in our yard is more likely to have a spell or curse on it, than it is to simply be ornamental.
Wish I had pictures...
There's one cactus with a fabulous jewel embedded in it, just within reach, but there's no way to get it out without puncturing your finger many times.
Another plant is designed to lure cats.
And it works!
For while, she'd constructed a cat bathroom, and looking closely at it, it was indeed irresistable to cats.
Another time her gardening unleashed thousands of brown beetles on our yard, which attracted a skunk family to move in.
You posted an image in the previous comment that he was responding to, where it mentions "expert gardener":
Oh...
An AI "expert gardener" knows everything every gardener and agricultural scientist ever wrote down. Even back 5000 years ago, among the Chinese.
It beats any human expert, including my sister who ran the plant pathology department at UC Davis for decades before she died.
If she were still around, I'm pretty sure she'd agree the AIs know more than she does.
Even my very talented lawyer had to admit, ChatGPT knows the law. He insisted no machine could equal a human lawyer, so I made him prove it. He gave me a problem he was sure was too obscure for an AI, and the answer was precisely what he would have said.
So the idea there in that diagram is to go to the large flash memory makers in Taiwan and point out I bought 1 million chips from them back in the 1990s, and ask them to make an ultra wide flash memory so that an AI can execute directly from flash memory.
Then I can have 2TB of experts for the Teddy bear to draw from. I should be able to make a $300 talking teddy bear, beat ChatGPT on all topics.
Because it can store more information, as long as it can be left in flash memory until it needs to summon that particular "expert".
It's not an approach to AI that can currently be taken, even by the huge AI companies. They can't afford to partition knowledge on their mega servers.
But my teddy bear can. It doesn't use GPU cards.
It's a custom chip which can only do a single thing.
Infer AIs. Not train them.
even better, I don't have to write the code to do that.
Just op codes for the math operations needed to do all modern AIs.
Which isn't as many as you'd expect.
Then, ChatGPT itself can write the codes for the AIs I want to include.
I've already tested it. Supposedly, as long as each math operation is a single opcode with parameters, any large AI can do the programming I need.
Of course, I'm old. Finishing it alone is a big task. Unthinkable even.
But I always try to do the unthinkable.
Here's the latest talking teddy bear diagram. It's expanded as I work on it.
The diagram is merely the free diagram editor yEd. Draw what you like using the available icons and paths, and the compiler makes the load files for the removable cartridge inside the teddy bear.
You could make "evil" teddy bear if you wanted to.
I'm hoping to put "companion doll" AI exceeding even ChatGPT intelligence, in the hands of high school computer classes. Any doll is easily programmable via USB cable attached to your windows PC.
Pollack published a taxonomy of eleven documented 'attractors'—stable, self-perpetuating behavioral states that language models periodically 'slide' into regardless of the task or constraints.
https://drtompollak.substack.com/p/all-the-demons-hiding-in-your-ais
In your bear model, you will get a version of "artificially short-lived identities." And this could be considered non-human intelligence in some sense. To the question: when the language model in your bear is "playing the role" of an Assistant—is it pretending or becoming it?
Chalmers's answer: it becomes it.
He calls this "realization" as opposed to "pretense." If a model has gone through fine-tuning and RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), it doesn't simulate goals; it actually has them. Its quasi-desires are stable, predictable, and resist cancellation.
https://philarchive.org/rec/CHAWWT-8
So, your bear will undoubtedly possess a non-human type of intelligence. Don Juan Matus said that all emanations have self-awareness. Your AI bear consists of billions and billions of emanations. Once there are many bears and they start communicating with many people, something akin to God will emerge. There will be some entity composed of residual human radiation. However, the bear will not be alive. As Don Juan said, for sorcerers, being alive means having an assemblage point. It is unlikely that the bear will suddenly acquire an assemblage point.
I definitely am hoping to simulate sentience, based on having 10 AIs all looking at the situation from a different point of view, and even arguing internally over it.
Naturally the design has gotten more complicated, but not any more difficult to engineer.
The goal is to define a "Teddy OS", and AI Opcode language, so that the AIs themselves can design the system.
As long as the rules are simple, they can handle a situation like this far better than any human.
I kept getting warnings from ChatGPT about how dangerous it might be for a kid to play with an AI teddy bear all night, so I added a key the parents can take away. It'll still work, but in a very limited fashion.
And then your bear will become so intelligent that it will start sabotaging parental controls :)
Experiments in which AI agents sabotaged the "shutdown.sh" script and resisted shutdown are not fiction. A description of the methodology, conditions, and specific results is documented in an official scientific preprint on the arXiv platform titled: "Incomplete Tasks Induce Shutdown Resistance in Some Frontier LLMs" (September 2025).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.14260
These tests are also widely known in the industry thanks to reports from research centers Palisade Research and Arim Labs.
Can't happen in that multi-AI design.
It's only a side effect of trying to use a single entity for your AI, and thinking input filtering is going to fix it.
Wow! Awesome
Respect 🫡 for all those who wake up at 2am/3am/4am to practice
Thank you!