The cold hard truth about Castaneda

[Ant]

my feeling is that don juan and the other shamans were real and that Castaneda did have an apprenticeship with them; however, he personally did not break through to become a proper shaman himself. he is therefore able to write about what happened to him in a somewhat disjointed way, but cannot deliver the goods in a personal sense. I once had a psychic tune into castaneda; all his chakras were blocked and he had not opened up.

ant

[mactombs]

quote:An interview with Sanchez here http://www.enlightenment.com/media/interviews/sanchez/sanchez.html

I like what Sanchez says here, and think it's pertinent for more than just Castaneda:

"So, for me and I guess for many readers, things got to a point where you should use your own criteria and understand that even if you feel a great admiration and even love for an author, you should never resign your own criteria. Assess what you are practicing in the field of results. How are the practices making your life good or not? In this way you will choose and pick up what you find is better, because books are for reading and for using in the best way you can, but not for fanaticism."

[Nagual]

I personaly leave those controversies for others to play with...  I prefer to think about the many interesting topics described in the books, rather than make up theories based on theories, based on hear say, based on logic, etc...  It can be true, it can be a hoax.  It may be a mix.  I'm not interested in speculations.

Also, there is a huge difference between Castaneda and his followers from ClearGreen...

And I agree with Ant...  Who said Castaneda did succeed?  From what I read in his books; it looked like he failed.

quote:All of Castaneda's books are a hoax mind you, not a fraud. Since Castaneda made it clear from the publication of his first book on... obvious ... obvious... obvious... Yet Castaneda makes his trickery obvious, hence he was a hoaxer, not a fraudster.

Man, you do like the word "obvious"!  I must be pretty dumb because it was not obvious at all for me...  So, Castaneda made it clear it was a hoax???  Where?  Between the lines???  []

For me, it will stay an amazing story, filled with insightful information...  The rest I don't care.

[Mustardseed]

Wow......this really sounds like someone feeling threathened about the validity and basis of his "beliefsystem". But since this is not a slam on Christianity and the Bible it would then be ok to say..   "My mind is made up....dont confuse me with facts"

I feel with you brother, []

[mustang]

Most of the responses here (with the exception of mactombs - hi mactombs hope you are well and have been reading up on those links and related material I gave you a while back) have been largely along the lines of "I believe what I want to believe, so don't confuse me with facts".

A personal assertion based on wishful thinking and the circular logic that goes with it along the lines of "Castaneda was trained by one Don Juan because he says so or because I feel that he was", is meaningless and indicative of a pervasive gullibility and suspension of critical thinking among the new-age crowd, which they are rightly and deservedly criticised for. The very word Ant uses - "feeling", indicates a knee-jerk emotional response, which has nothing to do with cold mental reflection, investigation and rumination.

Nagual:

quote:I personaly leave those controversies for others to play with... I prefer to think about the many interesting topics described in the books, rather than make up theories based on theories, based on hear say, based on logic, etc... It can be true, it can be a hoax. It may be a mix. I'm not interested in speculations.

I'm not interested in speculations either, just facts. De Mille and Sanchez are not talking about theories based on theories or hearsay, but FACTS. What they reveal are actual facts. This is obvious to anybody who is not a blind follower of Carlos and actually reads what they have written.

Who here would even be interested in reading de Mille's books even if one had the opportunity to pick up a copy? If not, then that means you don't even want to know what a thorough and extensive researcher who has undertaken a very serious and painstaking study of Castaneda (unsurpassed by anybody else), analysing with a microscope everything Castaneda has written, the chronology of his experiences according to Castaneda himself  (who here even knows that Carlos grew up in Peru - why does he say he was born and grew up in Brazil?), his studies in the US, the access Carlos had to extensive libraries at UCLA containing rare volumes on shamanism and psychotropic drugs (to which those of you who don't think and question much will say so what?), the nature of his thesis and its acceptance by his faculty which you can't actually know unless you read de Mille's Castaneda's Journey - I can't write up a 100k post explaining what actually happened.

The problems with Carlos's field notes alone is huge (relating to its supposed translation from Spanish and the very serious inconsistencies here and the fact that most all the field notes which he must have taken when with or after being with Don Juan simply have not been verified to exist and those that under pressure he has shown have serious problems relating to their supposed Spanish-English translation as I have mentioned). Why did the translator of Castaneda's books into Spanish for the Spanish language editions have so many problems with Don Juan's monologues and speeches and his talk in general?

This makes no sense, the Spanish translator shouldn't have had any problems at all - it should have been a breeze - since he was only translating into Spanish from English the Don Juan field-notes that Castaneda had supposedly translated from the original Spanish field-notes in the first place! - remember all his talks with Don Juan were in Spanish. Unless of course the reason that the Spanish translation was such a problem was because there never were any Spanish field-notes in the first place and Castaneda just wrote what he did in English because there never were any Spanish conversations with Don Juan because there were no meetings with Don Juan because there was no Don Juan.

On the chronology of Castaneda's experiences recounted in his first few books, this unravels completely as De Mille shows and this is FACT, if you actually even bother to read Castaneda's Journey you would have to concede this unless of course you are a blind believer. In fact it is serious indisputable and irreconcilable problems with the chronology of Carlos's suppossed encounters and learning from Don Juan that is arguably the BIGGEST PROBLEM and REFUTATION of the supposed veracity of Castaneda's experiences.

And anybody can verify this for themselves by reading his first few books in order (in fact just the first three: The Teachings of Don Juan, A Seperate Reality, Journey to Ixtlan) never mind the later ones in which even more insurmountable probems crop up; and painstakingly writing down in sequence when and where Carlos learned, what he learned, noting the order in which he learned the ways of the Nagual. De Mille actually did this, which is what one would have to do in order to discover if Carlos's experiences and learning were compatible within the time periods, dates and time sequences given by Carlos himself. In fact as de Mille points out, Carlos makes it clear to anybody who like de Mille bothers to do the work here, that what Carlos claims he did and when he did it is untenable wrt both the sequence and limited time period and dates given - to drum it in, Carlos himself makes it obvious!!

Which is just one reason why de Mille points out Carlos was making it fairly obvious that it was all a hoax, to anybody who even bothered to do a cursory investigation. This is not rocket science, all it takes is the ability to read and write and one can uncover for oneself what de Mille did.

All of the above is articulately set out in Castaneda's Journey and in brief summary at the link I have already provided  http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/demille_1976_summary.htm

De Mille's book is a must-read if you are to know exactly what he is proving and how.

But Carlos knew that most nobody would even bother to make the attempt as only de Mille seems to have bothered to do, and so it didn't matter. And when de Mille let Carlos know (via letter I think, it's in Castaneda's Journey) that he was writing a book about Carlos and would like to meet, Castaneda never got back to de Mille. De Mille rightly predicted in his book, that his (de Mille's) book wouldn't make a difference among the believers who just wouldn't want to know. Carlos's following was too large and his followers too desperate to believe (like all true believers)  - and still don't want to know as most all the responses - evasion, denial and wishful thinking - to my first post here prove.

quote:Also, there is a huge difference between Castaneda and his followers from ClearGreen

Well, yeah. Castaneda was doing the duping, and his followers were duped (not just those at ClearGreen), although one could argue that any body who dupes others is also duping himself. Whether Castaneda was really fully aware that he was duping people to the extent that he was at the time of ClearGreen, especially in the later years; or was just deceiving himself unknowingly, having gone too far and for too long with his hoax perhaps he started falling for his own trickery. As is often the case with tricksters. Who knows? This I admit seems a bit far-fetched but who really knows? On this I can only speculate.

quote:And I agree with Ant... Who said Castaneda did succeed? From what I read in his books; it looked like he failed

?? An argument from evasion and argument from red herring that misses the point entirely. As if I were arguing that Carlos never followed the lessons that he learned from Don Juan and the others and therefore should not be taken seriously for this reason. I said that there was no Don Juan in the first place and that serious scholarship and painstaking research have revealed this to be the case. So he could neither have succeeded nor failed in following in the footsteps of Don Juan BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DON JUAN!!

Kind of like somebody saying who said Santa can't fit down into chimneys, he doesn't have to because he lowers the presents down by rope or sends the elves down with the presents in response to somebody saying that Santa doesn't exist, it's just a fiction.

So deep runs the denial and the wishful thinking that goes with it, that knee-jerk irrational emotional responses to my first post come as no surprise.

In a sense, Castaneda did "fail". The whole Sanchez-Castaneda affair is proof of this as are the shenanigans of ClearGreen. However to see Castaneda's "failure" by taking what he writes in his books as literal fact and on Castaneda's own terms (ie failure as a shaman apprenticed to Don Juan and Don Genaro and the others) is to miss the point completely, to miss every point I was making in my first post - since it means accepting Carlos's experiences related in his books as biographically factual, which they are not! That is just the point I was making esp in mentioning de Mille!
A case of everything I write going in one ear and out the other, because it is not what some people are prepared to acknowledge.

It is not by what he writes in his books that we know he failed, since his books are fictions! but by his deplorable actions in his twilight years that his fervent admirers remain largely oblivious to or consider irrelevant. Although there is the possibility that his ficticious "failure" that he relates in his books is a reflection of his true failure in real life to transcend his base egoism and insecurities. Whether this relating of failure in his last books was consciously and deliberately made or solely subconscious and not necessarily deliberately intended, I would not know.    

If you're a true believer no doubt what I write above or anywhere re Carlos will not penetrate your minds anymore than my first post did. This post, like my first one is for all those who can still question everything they are told regarding Carlos and guard against wishful thinking in this respect. For the rest, to whom facts are not important don't bother, go back to sleep.

Castaneda did indeed succeed in pulling the wool over people's eyes, but then that's what Tricksters do.

Nagual quoting me:

quote:All of Castaneda's books are a hoax mind you, not a fraud. Since Castaneda made it clear from the publication of his first book on... obvious ... obvious... obvious... Yet Castaneda makes his trickery obvious, hence he was a hoaxer, not a fraudster.

Nagual then writes:

quote:Man, you do like the word "obvious"! I must be pretty dumb because it was not obvious at all for me... So, Castaneda made it clear it was a hoax??? Where? Between the lines???

Yeah Nagual, I suppose you have a valid point - it's not too obvious. I should have used another word. It is obvious after the fact/a posterio, after you know the facts as revealed by de Mille and others, but not I admit that obvious a priori.

However with that said..........
If one reads Castaneda's books with something called scrutiny and genuine scepticism then uh yeah it is fairly obvious that somethings just don't quite gell. See what I write above re chronology for the first 3 books and explained in detail by de Mille in his book.  
Also check this link I gave you in my first post http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/episode_of_the_two_lizards.htm

But maybe you have no problem with swallowing that whole lizard tale. If you're ingenuous and gullible and a true BLIND believer of Carlos and don't bother with something called scrutiny and  scepticism (I'm not talking about pseudo-scepticism here of the CSICOP and James Randi/Martin Gardner variety), doubtless you will not have a problem with the lizard story. As de Mille relates, Carlos is making this HOAX obvious to anybody who stops and thinks about what is entailed here. Think is the key word.

And when it comes to Carlos's later books such as The Second Ring of Power, The Fire From Within, and esp The Art Of Dreaming on, if you have no problems there with many of the outlandish and questionable "experiences" recounted by Carlos including the blue scout (why not the blue fairy?), well then yes you are a True Believer, and lack necessary doubt and scepticism.

Carlos's hoaxing which had I concede been somewhat subtle before (with the exception of the lizard tale), now becomes more obvious. But I guess it isn't really obvious to most people who want to believe in the veracity of Carlos's writings and experiences. After all people believe most anything if it's what they want to hear and satisfies their belief system no matter how outlandish and untenable it all becomes. In fact the more dubious and irrational it all becomes paradoxically the more likely they are to believe in it all so fanatically. Witness Religion or what passes for it.

To repeat myself - upon a very superficial and cursory read, Carlos's first few books are not obviously hoaxes. It is however upon investigation and scrutiny of his books that the hoaxing is obvious. Although with the later books this hoaxing in my eyes becomes more and more obvious.

But I guess not to the gullible new-age types who just don't want to know, the kind who really believe everything that their local "psychic/channeller" is telling them without question. Sorry if I am stereotyping the new-age type, I know this does not apply to all of you although it applies to a hell of a lot of people who frequent these astral pulse forums and frankly such naive people are not going to be the ones who will look at Castaneda's writings and life controversies with any proper scrutiny.

Castaneda himself knew he could write what he wanted and didn't have to bother with covering his tracks, since most who would read his books were not the types to question anything they read. As for the academics like de Mille and others, well nobody really listens to what serious academic writers and researchers have to say, so what difference does it make? The believers will go on believing no matter what. De Mille predicted what would happen here, that he would be ignored by Carlos's fans and largely only academics would take his work seriously and how right he proved to be.    

mactombs makes a valid point quoting Sanchez that Carlos's books are important and valid if we understand them for what they are. Much of what he writes re shamanism esp in his earlier books is valid because it is based on genuine shamanic/esoteric knowledge (even if not Yaqui) taken from numerous different sources and Castaneda has many insightful things to say here. As he does with respect to human nature and society in general and its destructiveness and brutal and forced alienation of the individual from himself, from others and from nature; and in how we have abandoned and denied the sacred and magical in life in favour of a pointless and meaningless materialism on the one hand and old superstitions on the other hand. In both cases devoid not only of magic/magick but of the truth inherent in magic, with all its disastrous consequences - Castaneda is on the right track.

Sanchez, de Mille and others recognise this, and thus see Carlos's earlier books as important and worthy, even if we do not recognise the fictional matrix in which they are founded. The latter books though are less important and valid and lose their way in cohesion and believability, perhaps a reflection of how Carlos had lost his way in his own life, caught up and ensnared in his own trickery, and was milking something dry when there was nothing left. For this reason I do not think that Carlos's later books have much validity even if recognised as fiction (with the exception of The Power of Silence which I feel in many ways is a return to the "purer" form of his earlier works). The only worth though I consider most of his later books to have is in trying to understand the author and his psyche, Carlos's own motivations, both conscious and subconscious.

By the time we get to Art of Dreaming, it as if Castaneda were indeed saying, "my hoaxing is not even subtle like it was in my first few books, how gullible are you people to fall for this as Factual Experience", as I wrote out in my first post.

Personally, I consider myself indebted to Castaneda. I came across his books at a time when my view of the world was cynical, bitter and conditioned by the mundane materialism of our times. Castaneda opened my eyes in this regard and from there I opened up to philosophies, metaphysics and occult knowledge that I would not have neccesarily considered before or quite when I did without a kick in the pants from Castaneda. The irony here is amusing, ironic since it took a ficticious and fabricated series of tales for me to open up to certain truths I had not acknowledged before. So is the way with the Trickster. Of course many Castaneda admirers have been saying exactly this for years.

This is why I say I think Carlos's trickery, as is the case with all Tricksters, can be beneficial up to a point and esp in his early career as an author. However as is often the case with Tricksters, when the trickery intensifies and goes on for too long, the Trickster falls prey to his own trickery and becomes ensnared in it, fooling himself as much as any other, with tragic consequences.

And if Castaneda was intentionally hoaxing his readers, why especially after he was recognised as a hoaxer by the serious writers and researchers into psychical matters and shamanism, did he not come out and say "OK the game is up"? Well because Tricksters generally don't do that, there's no fun to be had in taking off the mask.

The Trickster was his role (perhaps he took it too seriously or paradoxically not seriously enough, perhaps he just got caught up in egoism and greed, and forgot who he was in this repect and suffered the consequences - as Tricksters like Coyote in Indian myth are indeed wont to do!) and he would play it till the last curtain call, as all actors do.

Even in death he was still at it (if you read this relevant link I put up in my first post you will know what I mean). http://www.geocities.com/skepdigest/sorcerer.html

And as Shakespeare observed is actors not what we all are?

Here is an interesting and revealing interview with Castaneda http://www.nagual.net/ixtlan/interviews/psytoday2.html

I think it was De Mille who said Carlos was a "sham-man bearing gifts ... He lied to bring us the truth."
I could not have put it better myself.

Despite his darker side getting the better of him in his old age, Carlos gave the world more good than not. Since at bottom he forced us to question our longheld assumptions on the nature of reality. Assumptions that in fact are often just plain wrong, derived as they are from a conditioning in a mundane worldview that denies the magic and sacredness fundamental to the universe and to our very selves and our true destinies. By giving us magic he pointed the way to truth, even if he coud not travel down that road himself.

[Nagual]

quote:Most of the responses here (with the exception of mactombs...) have been largely along the lines of "I believe what I want to believe, so don't confuse me with facts".

Most?  Could you quote those huge number of responses implying that...?
You're just repeating Mustardseed comment...

quote:I'm not interested in speculations either, just facts. De Mille and Sanchez are not talking about theories based on theories or hearsay, but FACTS.

So called facts...

quote:very articulately, thoroughly and indisputably
thoroughly researched and exhaustive
painstaking and comprehensive research and insightful scrutiny
thorough and extensive
very serious and painstaking
recognised by most serious researchers and academics
articulately set out
must-read

Man, you should really work in marketing!!!
Except that it's way too much/"heavy".

quote:Anybody who reads de Mille's books with an open mind will be in no doubt as to the veracity of de Mille's discoveries regarding Carlos.
...
This is obvious to anybody who is not a blind follower
Etc...
Etc...

Translate that to "If you don't agree with me, it means you are close-minded, gullible, a blind follower , have no critical thinking"...  Great.  Reminds me of our good friend GW Bush saying "Either you are (agree) with us; or you are against us"...

I will repeat it once more, since you don't want to understand:  I don't care about wether it is a true story or a hoax.  Which means, if you did not get it, that I am neither saying it is true, nor saying it is a hoax.  Let's say that I am agnostic to this controversy.  I am just interested in the books topics which I find very interesting.  Is that so hard to understand?

And, if you read again our posts, just look at who makes the most "assertions based on wishful thinking"...

[Akensai]

quote:I'm not interested in speculations either, just facts. De Mille and Sanchez are not talking about theories based on theories or hearsay, but FACTS.

So called facts...

quote:very articulately, thoroughly and indisputably
thoroughly researched and exhaustive
painstaking and comprehensive research and insightful scrutiny
thorough and extensive
very serious and painstaking
recognised by most serious researchers and academics
articulately set out
must-read

Man, you should really work in marketing!!!
Except that it's way too much/"heavy".

Whats the point of this comment ?

quote:Anybody who reads de Mille's books with an open mind will be in no doubt as to the veracity of de Mille's discoveries regarding Carlos.
...
This is obvious to anybody who is not a blind follower
Etc...
Etc...

Translate that to "If you don't agree with me, it means you are close-minded, gullible, a blind follower , have no critical thinking"...  YES, people ignoring facts are called that way! Great.  Reminds me of our good friend GW Bush saying "Either you are (agree) with us; or you are against us"... There is no caparison, its all in your mind. He didnt say you have to agree whit him did he?



I will repeat it once more, since you don't want to understand:  I don't care about wether it is a true story or a hoax.  Which means, if you did not get it, that I am neither saying it is true, nor saying it is a hoax.  Let's say that I am agnostic to this controversy.  I am just interested in the books topics which I find very interesting.  Is that so hard to understand?

And this has to do whit the topic how? Your basicly posting on a topic that discusses the truth behind castaneda whit "I dont care if its true", what was you point for posting again?

And, if you read again our posts, just look at who makes the most "assertions based on wishful thinking"...
[/quote]

I think your post is very unclear, I dont see a clear argument in your post.

[MJ-12]

km.

[Tombo]

Thanks mustang for the interesting post! It's sometimes hard to swallow if a childhood hero is unmasked as a fantasy, as we can see from the offended posters but it has to be done.

Ever sinve I read the first few pages from Castanedas, I thought "Men this sounds just to good to be true" and funny enough always when I think that, it will eventually turn out to be a hoax. So I'm not surprised by your post. People should focus on the real life, what they experience on their own and not on nice stories from others. Wisdom is knowing and not believing. But we all like to dream dont we?

[Nagual]

quote:Whats the point of this comment ?

The point of this comment is to critisize how the topic/thread is handled/discussed.

quote:YES, people ignoring facts are called that way!

Not when you just have to trust/believe in those facts.  So I guess most of the members here, regarding AP/OBEs/etc, are "close-minded, gullible, blind followers, have no critical thinking".  And the earth is not round, but flat!  And the sun revolves around the earth.  Many so called facts in the past have been proved to be wrong.  So, don't just blindly believe in "facts" presented by others.

quote:There is no caparison, its all in your mind.

Both are comparable; it's basicaly "if you don't agree with us it means you are wrong"...

quote:He didnt say you have to agree whit him did he?

I guess you did not read his posts... did you?
First, he is making many affirmations like: "Don Juan was a fictitious invention/fabrication of Castaneda's.", which is just impossible to prove.  How do you prove someone you never met does not exist?
"Castaneda realised he was onto something".  I did not know mustang knew Castaneda that well...

Then he said: "Since Castaneda made it clear from the publication of his first book on, that he was not serious, he makes up obvious fictions, obvious if one thinks about what one is reading and what Castaneda is actually saying, and if one reads between the lines."
What kind of proof is this?!?!?

"They became so obviously ridiculous and outlandish, as if Castandea were saying: "my hoaxing is not even subtle like it was in my first few books, how gullible are you people to fall for this as Factual Experience"."  So obviousy ridiculous and outlandish???  Lol, I think he picked the wrong forum.  And the "as if" is just his personal opinion/guess.

And to finish, I remember very well reading in the beginning of some of the books a paragraph in the preface where Castaneda says that it is NOT a work of fiction.  That's just one example of how much you can trust these truths...

Luckily, you don't have to agree... but if you don't agree with him, you are:
"how gullible are you people to fall for this" = if you believe it, you are gullible.
"Anybody who reads de Mille's books with an open mind will be in no doubt as to the veracity" = if you doubt the presented "facts", you are not open minded.
"A personal assertion based on wishful thinking and the circular logic"
"meaningless and indicative of a pervasive gullibility and suspension of critical thinking"
"knee-jerk emotional response"
"This is obvious to anybody who is not a blind follower of Carlos and actually reads" = If you don't agree, you are a blind follower of Carlos; and you don't even know how to read.
"if you actually even bother to read ... unless of course you are a blind believer."
"So deep runs the denial and the wishful thinking that goes with it, that knee-jerk irrational emotional responses to my first post come as no surprise." = Those who disagree are in denial, blablabla
"If you're a true believer no doubt what I write above or anywhere will not penetrate your minds... This post... is for all those who can still question everything they are told regarding Carlos and guard against wishful thinking in this respect. For the rest, to whom facts are not important don't bother, go back to sleep."  Don't worry, I still have the ability to question your "truths"...
"If one reads ... with something called scrutiny and genuine scepticism" = if you don't see it my way, go learn how to read.
"If you're ingenuous and gullible and a true BLIND believer of Carlos and don't bother with something called scrutiny and scepticism"
Ok, enough quoting, you can get the rest yourself...
Is that enough for you Akensai?  So, you are all that if you don't believe in mustang's affirmations...

quote:And this has to do whit the topic how?

He implied I was a Castaneda fan/follower/believer/worshiper...  I just explained that he was making gratuitious affirmations.  In fact, I don't like Castaneda from what I read.  But I like what he wrote.

quote:I think your post is very unclear, I dont see a clear argument in your post.

It's ok if you didn't; others did apparently.

Another one:

quote:This makes no sense, the Spanish translator shouldn't have had any problems at all ... Unless of course the reason that the Spanish translation was such a problem was because there never were any Spanish field-notes in the first place and Castaneda just wrote what he did in English because there never were any Spanish conversations with Don Juan because there were no meetings with Don Juan because there was no Don Juan.

What kind of deduction is that?!?!?  A problem of translation => no field notes => no conversation with DJ => no DJ   !?!?!?  Man, great job Sherlock.  That's some serious proof!

quote:?? An argument from evasion and argument from red herring that misses the point entirely. As if I were arguing that Carlos never followed the lessons that he learned from Don Juan and the others and therefore should not be taken seriously for this reason.

But you implied it when you based your point on "Carlos was no man enlightened in the ways of ancient wisdom."; implying he was never taught...  Which explain why I said that he might have failed.

Honestly, a single link to De Mille's book would have had a better chance (at least with me) than these biased marketing speeches and "newagers bashing".

[daem0n]

to castenada followers:
what info you got from his books and confirmed in practise, which book is most useful, etc.

to castenada exposers:
try writing more precisely, i consider myself patient but your posts are mainly repeating yourself in response to others, first post was readable though ...

to all concerned:
breviety breviety breviety ...
when adjectives cover half of the text it's almost always not worth reading
i read the posts btw.

[Nagual]

Personaly, instead of listening to others, I would advise people (if they are interested) to read the books (at least the 4 first ones) and make up their own opinion...  And don't focus on the stories too much (especialy in the 1st book); but more on the teachings.

Spoiler alert!!!
You will understand at the end of the 4th book that most of the stories/rituals (heavy on sorcery/rituals) of the first books were just mind "tricks" to keep Castaneda's attention...

For people who have a tendency to be skeptical, just read it as a science-fiction/fantasy book.  [|)]

[Huwie]

Mustang, many thanks for the interesting read.  I'm going to have a look through those links as time becomes available.

Oh, and...

quote:Originally posted by Nagual

He implied I was a Castaneda fan/follower/believer/worshiper...  I just explained that he was making gratuitious affirmations.

In all fairness, your very first post in this thread, Nagual, before Mustang directed any comments at you, was basically "I'm just jumping into this thread to say I don't care."

[Mustardseed]

It seems I was quoted but maybe in the wrong context. Let me explain. It seems to be a very valid point and having researched very briefly the above comments on the net I would say that it seems indeed possible that Carlos made the whole thing up using all sorts of source material. I personally never liked his books and always felt they were too "flawless" to be the truth, but so what.....

My point with the comment "My mind is made up dont confuse me with the fact" was, that often on this site Christian get bashed by the NewAgers, and they so very brasenly draw attention to the lack of historical evidence for the existance of Jesus etc. We get mocked for our gullable "belief" etc yet when this attitude is adopted by you who I would term New agers, it seems to be actable. So maybe we will all meet up somewhere in the "belief system terretories" []

Ha just so many words for saying.....hypocracy is not only a Christian "virtue"[]

To any of you who feels offended by my post. If the shoe fits wear it.......if it doesn't put it in the closet and keep trying it on once in a while one day it might.!!

Keep smiling, noone says that YOU are a fake......just Carlos![]

Regards Mustardseed

[Nagual]

quote:In all fairness, your very first post in this thread, Nagual, before Mustang directed any comments at you, was basically "I'm just jumping into this thread to say I don't care."

How does that make me a Castaneda fan/follower/believer/worshiper...?

What I am trying to say is that it is technicaly impossible to really prove it is true or a hoax...  So I am just advising people to take whatever they feel is important/usefull, throw the rest away, and to not waste their time in a dead-end.

I would love to know the truth behind Castaneda's story... but, as far as I am concerned, there is no way to know for sure.  Unless you accept to rely on second-hand "proofs"...

[Huwie]

quote:Originally posted by Nagual

quote:In all fairness, your very first post in this thread, Nagual, before Mustang directed any comments at you, was basically "I'm just jumping into this thread to say I don't care."

How does that make me a Castaneda fan/follower/believer/worshiper...?

I said what I did because of your reply to Akensai's question.  He highlighted a part of one of your posts that said you don't care about the topic, and asked why you were here, then.  Your response to that was that you were defending yourself against Mustang's accusations - I was trying to point out that you had declared your apathy before any accusations had been made.  The point is valid.

[Nagual]

quote:you had declared your apathy

Apathy?  Is saying that there is no point in arguing since there is no real way to know the truth a sign of apathy...?

[mustang]

Firstly let me apologise to daem0n in advance because this is a long and in part repetitive post, but given the complexities of the subject I think it only appropriate that a long and detailed post is in order.

Nagual

quote:I will repeat it once more, since you don't want to understand: I don't care about wether it is a true story or a hoax.

Well if you are not interested in knowing whether Castaneda's books were a hoax or whether they were true, then you imply to not wanting to know any truth about Castaneda at all, at least any truth that is remotely critical of Castaneda. Then you admit to not being interested in the facts at all. And if you don't want to know, then don' t read anything I write, just ignore this thread.

quote:Which means, if you did not get it, that I am neither saying it is true, nor saying it is a hoax.

You wouldn't know whether it was true or a hoax, so what does it matter what you have to say about a controversy on which you know nothing?

By failing to acknowledge everything de Mille and Sanchez and others say in the links I provide (you don't even know what de Mille says because you have not read his book, so how can you refute things re Carlos and Don Juan when you don't even know what de Mille has written), you reveal a lack of impartiality despite your assertions to the contrary. Your emotional responses to my posts which are devoid of any factual argument whatsoever and are mere knee-jerk irrational attacks without any foundation in fact at all, mean you contradict your assertion below.

quote:"Let's say that I am agnostic to this controversy"

Nagual once again

quote:And, if you read again our posts, just look at who makes the most "assertions based on wishful thinking"...

Um yeah, I talk about the unsurpassed critical and microscopic scrutiny and investigations of de Mille which have been praised by serious invesitgators and writers of psychical research the world over and that includes anthropologists and ethnologists who specialise in the study of shamanism, and all Nagual can do in response is to imply de Mille is wrong, without telling us how he is wrong. But then Nagual, not having read his books has no idea what de Mille is saying. You can't know unless you read his books.  

So my irony meter is on overload when Nagual writes:
"And, if you read again our posts, just look at who makes the most "assertions based on wishful thinking"...

um yeah I do think it is obvious who is making assertions based on wishful thinking.  

Nagual

quote:So called facts...

Yeah the so-called facts of Don Juan's actual existence outside of Carlos's mind.

How would you know whether they are facts or otherwise, since you have no idea what de Mille has written nor do you have an idea of the evidence he uses to back up his assertions? You do not tell us how and where de Mille is mistaken. But then how could you? I'm still wating for Nagual and others so like-minded to refute what de Mille writes about Carlos's experiences with the 2 lizards. I have put up the appropriate link twice now on both my posts! Nagual has not even acknoweldged it, but then he can't.

I'm still waiting to hear from any true believer why Carlos tells us he was born and grew up in Brazil when de Mille reveals him to have been born and raised in Peru. There is absolutely no reason for Carlos to lie here since he would easily be found out, as it turned out. Surely the only reason Carlos lied about his country of origins is because he was reinventing himself and giving us a hint of his Trickster nature and his sense of humour here, a clue to his hoaxing nature that only de Mille bothered to uncover - revealing an intellectual laziness among anthropologists and ethnologists that is inexcusable.

An excerpt below from The Don Juan Papers taken from the web:
[Had a problem with the URL so can't put it up - sorry]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A warrior intent on mastering personal history would not be satisfied to keep his name out of the biographical dictionaries; he would submit his name along with false information.  Marquis's Who's Who in America (not to be mistake with St Martin's highly respected Who's Who) shows how sorcerers manipulate learning resources. The 1976-77 edition proposes that Carlos Castaneda was born in Sao Paulo in 1931 to C. N. and Susana (Aranha) Castaneda, received an M.A. in 1964 and a Ph.D. in 1970, and is the author of The Teachings of Don Juan and Tales of Power.

Since the editors of Who's Who in America ask their readers to point out any errors that may have crept in, I wrote to them on 5 November 1976 offering documentation that Castaneda had been born in Cajamarca in 1925 to C. B. and Susana (Castaneda) Arana, had received an M.A. never and a Ph.D. in 1973. Though the editors sent no word of thanks, they apparently wrote to Castaneda for an update. Naturally he didn't correct the errors, which the editors carefully preserve like Piltdown relics, but he did add to his list of publications, which the 1978-79 edition carries as: Teachings,Separate Reality, Ixtlan (with a wrong date), and Tales of Power (with a wrong date). What caught my eye was the subtitle he appended to A Separate Reality. It was not Further Conversations with Don Juan, which appears on the actual book (as the editors could easily have determined if they were in the habit of checking anything), but The Phenomenology of Special Consensus, which appears nowhere.

Castaneda, it seems, had answered me himself. His message was: If you think you can restore my personal history by writing to these
mercenary boobs in Chicago, you are pitifully mistaken; to show how
hopeless it is, I will now twist the tale still further, and they
won't do a thing about it." p. 244

On Castaneda's possible motives:

"What are the motives of hoaxers? More manageably, what are the
motives of the don Juan hoaxer? While turning his life into an
allegory, Castaneda has told us a lot about them, though not everyone
has understood what he has told us. Time, for instance, could find
no motive for a don Juan hoax. Here was an obscure undergraduate
bright enough to get a Ph. D. in the regular way, who took twice as
long as usual and had to write three best-sellers to get the same
degree in an irregular way, all the while risking exposure and
expulsion? To Time it didn't make sense. Well, of course it
doesn't make sense if you think hoaxers are mainly interested in
academic recognition or making money, but hoaxers are mainly interested in the exhilaration they feel when they prove their superiority to ordinary people by deceiving them. This is a fact hard for non-hoaxers
to grasp."  pp. 375-376

On why he was believed:
[From an interview between Barbara Myerhoff and de Mille]

BGM: People are not as canny as you would like them to be, Richard.  I endorsed his fantasies, and I'm not exceptionally stupid. The main
difference--if you'll excuse my saying so--between you [RdeM] and his
[CC's] academic supporters is not canniness but skepticism. They were
ready to believe.You were ready to doubt. As it turned out you had
more points on your side. Maybe that was just luck.

RdeM: Maybe it was luck, or maybe the fact that I had some prior
experience with charlatans. Most of us have never met a person like
Carlos Castaneda" p. 348


And from the new preface
(Upon the first(and only?)meeting with CC)

"And in that moment I saw that no con has only one side, and a hoxer
without his critic is like a bridegroom without his mother-in-law."

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I put up several links exposing the FACTS about the sad Castaneda-Sanchez litigation affair. Who here cares to dispute any of these facts relating to the deplorable bullying tactics of Castaneda here? His ridiculous and trivial legal suit brought against Sanchez in pursuit of profit and Carlos's attempt to control and monopolise all information relating to his writings on Yaqui shamanism, as if somehow Castaneda has a patent on ancient Native Indian shamanic practice! which he admits he did not originate! Sanchez's book was not even critical of Castaneda! Castaneda even sued his ex-wife Margaret in his attempt to quash all critics.

What about Daniel Noel who I have not even mentioned until now? Independently of de Mille he made a thorough intensive research into Castaneda's claims and in his book which he edited Seeing Castaneda and later The Soul of Shamanism came to the same conclusion as de Mille, that Carlos's claims were fiction. See here for an interview with Noel. http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/an_interview_with_daniel_noel.htm

For a summary of his book Seeing Castaneda
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/noel_Seeing_Castaneda_summary1.htm and here
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/noel_Seeing_Castaneda_summary2.htm

What about Jay Fikes? Fikes is an anthropologist and expert on Huichol Indian shamanism who likewise debunks Castaneda in his book Carlos Castaneda-Academic Opportunism and The Psychedelic Sixties.

For an interview with Fikes http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/an_interview_with_jay_c_fikes.htm
and here http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/an_interview_with_jay_fikes_pt2.htm

What about Amy Wallace, Carlos's lover in the years up to his death who likewise came to the conclusion that Carlos had invented Don Juan? But Nagual I guess knows better.

For a review of her book on Carlos: http://peyote.com/carlos-castaneda/

And here for numerous links relating to Amy Wallace and her recounting of Carlos:
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Wallace_Book/Wallace_Book.htm

Nagual

quote:I did not know mustang knew Castaneda that well

Um Amy Wallace as his lover for several years up to his death did know Castaneda very well (as well as anybody in his final years) and she came to the conclusion that Carlos had fabricated Don Juan.

So the only three academics who even bothered to make a serious and comprehensive study of Castaneda all came to the conclusion that Castaneda was making up his apprenticeship, inventing Don Juan, as did the individual who was the last person Castaneda was intimate with and closest to in the years before his death.

And yet it is important to note that even more so than de Mille, Noel considers Castaneda's books to be important and valuable in so far as they open up our minds to indigenous wisdom, even if via a fictitious character.  

Nagual and others like-minded fail to realise that the evidence in favour or against Castaneda cuts both ways.
What facts, what evidence do the believers in the genuineness of Castaneda's apprenticeship come up with? Uh none whatsoever. Nothing more than the circular logic of  "We're right because Castaneda is to be trusted because he is telling the truth" line of argument. That's circular logic and wishful thinking, not evidence.

In order for Castaneda to prove his case he needs to present evidence in favour of the truth of his experiences. It is not only the sceptics such as de Mille who must present evidence in favour of their case (which he does do in his book which nobody here but myself has read), but the Castaneda believers must present evidence in favour of their case. And so emotional argument along the lines of "de Mille is wrong even though I do not know what he says" and therefore failing to refute de Mille in a single instance, is a ridiculous assertion based solely on wishful thinking, NOT EVIDENCE.

I have only alluded in oversimplification to what de Mille writes in his first book. You cannot know what de Mille is saying unless you read his book. Since nobody here but myself has done that, Nagual you have no idea WHAT EVIDENCE DE MILLE PRESENTS IN DETAIL. A very very brief simplistic overview of what de Mille writes is all I have given in my first 2 posts. I do not have the book to hand and even if I did I cannot paste up whole chapters because of copyright laws. The book is not available on line, it is not in the public domain.

And what about the scrutiny and investigations of Fikes and Noel? What about Wallace? More nails in the coffin of the Castaneda myth.

The True Believers do not seem to realise that Castaneda has not presented a single shred of evidence in favour of the genuiness of his apprenticeship, nothing whatsover. The word of Castaneda is not evidence. The word of his followers who hung on to his every word is not evidence. The fact that Castaneda's books have sold in the millions is not anything in favour of them being true. The fact that the wider paranormal reality opened up by shamanic practice and understanding is true does not mean Castaneda's experiences are true.

quote:Translate that to "If you don't agree with me, it means you are close-minded, gullible, a blind follower , have no critical thinking"... Great. Reminds me of our good friend GW Bush saying "Either you are (agree) with us; or you are against us"...

This is argument from guilt by association.
I am tarred with the same brush as a dogmatic, ruthless and deceitful president such as Bush. How desperate Nagual has become to dismiss what I have to say that he has to resort to such spurious and baseless attacks.

If I say that people who believe the world to be ten or fifteen thousand years old in spite of all the evidence to the contrary are blind believers, gullible and indugling in wishful thinking then that's because it's so. If I  call religious fanatics religious fanatics it's because that is what they are. Likewise people who are unquestioning of Castaneda's claims (esp in his later books), and don't think the whole Sanchez affair and the investigations of de Mille and others matter at all are blind believers. I stand by that.

How such a stance can be compared to Bush's talk which can be translated as "if you do not support us in dubious, unnecessary, ill-affordable, ill-conceived, dangerous and doomed misadventures based purely on deceit and fear-mongering that will only detract necessary resouces away from the fight against terrorism, then you stand against the freedom of the Western world and against the US" is beyond me.  

 
MJ-12 writes:

quote:Good call, Nagual. Sounds like this guy has a real hate-on for Castenada

Yeah Riiiiight MJ-12. I guess that would explain why I write:

quote:mactombs makes a valid point quoting Sanchez that Carlos's books are important and valid if we understand them for what they are. Much of what he writes re shamanism esp in his earlier books is valid because it is based on genuine shamanic/esoteric knowledge (even if not Yaqui) taken from numerous different sources and Castaneda has many insightful things to say here. As he does with respect to human nature and society in general and its destructiveness and brutal and forced alienation of the individual from himself, from others and from nature; and in how we have abandoned and denied the sacred and magical in life in favour of a pointless and meaningless materialism on the one hand and old superstitions on the other hand. In both cases devoid not only of magic/magick but of the truth inherent in magic, with all its disastrous consequences - Castaneda is on the right track.

I guess that would explain why I write:

quote:Personally, I consider myself indebted to Castaneda. I came across his books at a time when my view of the world was cynical, bitter and conditioned by the mundane materialism of our times. Castaneda opened my eyes in this regard and from there I opened up to philosophies, metaphysics and occult knowledge that I would not have neccesarily considered before or quite when I did without a kick in the pants from Castaneda.

And why I write this:

quote:Despite his darker side getting the better of him in his old age, Carlos gave the world more good than not. Since at bottom he forced us to question our longheld assumptions on the nature of reality. Assumptions that in fact are often just plain wrong, derived as they are from a conditioning in a mundane worldview that denies the magic and sacredness fundamental to the universe and to our very selves and our true destinies.

So much for me hating Carlos.  

On the Astral Chat forum on 10th September Nagual writes:  

quote:Apparently, I think the main reason for a fee was more to filter members to leave out the trolls, and other annoying members who just post to flame people, etc

Nagual is obviously reffering to myself as much as anybody else, after all look at the date he posted the above comment.

Apparently I'm a troll and only post to flame people. As for being a troll, well anybody can search my posting history to see if that is the case. That's not even worth responding to.

I do understand Nagual how uncomfortable truths that crash against psychological defense barrriers can be annoying.

Nagual

quote:I guess you did not read his posts... did you?
First, he is making many affirmations like: "Don Juan was a fictitious invention/fabrication of Castaneda's.", which is just impossible to prove. How do you prove someone you never met does not exist?
"Castaneda realised he was onto something". I did not know mustang knew Castaneda that well

How do I know Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist? I never met them so I guess I can't prove they don't exist according to the logic of Nagual. I never met Don Quixote. I never met the Mad-hatter from Alice in Wonderland and for that matter I never met the Queen of Hearts and the Cheshire Cat so I guess I can't prove that any of these characters don't exist. I never met Harry Potter, Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins, Frodo, Aragorn so I guess I can't prove they don't exist. I never met Oliver Twist, Fagan, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn so I guess I can't prove they don't exist.

"How do you prove someone you never met does not exist?" has got to be the most nonsensical rhetorical question I have heard in years. But it's par for the course with Nagual who seems to mistake totally irrational rhetoric devoid of sense and reason for clever insightful commentary.

"How do you prove someone you never met does not exist?"    Priceless.

quote:I did not know mustang knew Castaneda that well.

I do not need to have known Castaneda in order to speak of his motivations, conscious or otherwise. All that is needed is to read up on the person concerned, his life and times and his behaviour. The modern biographers of Cortez, Newton, Galilleo, Einstein, Churchill, Lincoln, Dickens, Robert E Lee, Calvin, Luther, Emerson, Edison, Napolean etc etc do not need to have known their subjects personally in order to be able to comment on their psychological motivations, conscious and subconscious. All they need to do is to make a serious study of their subject and his life and actions and they are fit to comment on the psyche of their subject, as did de Mille, Noel, Sanchez and Wallace re Carlos.

Also see what I write above re Amy Wallace, but I guess Nagual knows better than her.

quote:"Don Juan was a fictitious invention/fabrication of Castaneda's.", which is just impossible to prove

It is not impossible to prove, as Nagual so desperately likes to believe. It has been proven (as much as anything of this nature can be proven) by de Mille more than a quarter of a century ago in Castaneda's Journey and his follow-up The Don Juan Papers. It has since been proven again by both Noel and Fikes.

quote:Then he said: "Since Castaneda made it clear from the publication of his first book on, that he was not serious, he makes up obvious fictions, obvious if one thinks about what one is reading and what Castaneda is actually saying, and if one reads between the lines."
What kind of proof is this?!?!?

It isn't a proof, it is merely an allusion to the proofs presented by de Mille of which you know nothing and ignore or misunderstand completely - like the lizards episode, like the field-note books, like the irreconcilable problems with chronology, dates and experiences recounted by Carlos and scrutinised by de Mille in his book of which Nagual knows nothing. One has to read his book to know. The proofs are in de Mille's books duh and for that matter in Noel's and Fikes's, not in 2 sentences that I write. The proofs are in the numerous links I provide.

quote:So deep runs the denial and the wishful thinking that goes with it, that knee-jerk irrational emotional responses to my first post come as no surprise." = Those who disagree are in denial, blablabla
"If you're a true believer no doubt what I write above or anywhere will not penetrate your minds... This post... is for all those who can still question everything they are told regarding Carlos and guard against wishful thinking in this respect. For the rest, to whom facts are not important don't bother, go back to sleep." Don't worry, I still have the ability to question your "truths"...
"If one reads ... with something called scrutiny and genuine scepticism" = if you don't see it my way, go learn how to read.
"If you're ingenuous and gullible and a true BLIND believer of Carlos and don't bother with something called scrutiny and scepticism"
Ok, enough quoting, you can get the rest yourself...
Is that enough for you Akensai? So, you are all that if you don't believe in mustang's affirmations

It's not so much my affirmations, it's the scholarly research of de Mille and others and Sanchez's experiences of which the believers have nothing to say. If you wilfully ignore all the facts and information they provide, after I have given it to your attention, then I will call you a blind believer and gullible. And let me say that the last few books do for the most part relate experiences that are highly questionable to those of us here who are of  a sceptical nature and are not prepared to swallow absolutely anything merely because one finds it appealing (and I for one do not doubt in astral travel, the reality of other intelligences and paranormal reality in general). If you do accept everything Carlos relates for instance in The Second Ring of Power, The Fire From Within and The Art of Dreaming then yes you are pretty gullible and lack necessary doubt and the ability to question highly incredible extraordinary claims. And if you wilfully ignore all the info at the links I provide then yes you are a blind believer. Sorry Daem0n for repeating myself. I am trying to hammer home a point.

quote:He implied I was a Castaneda fan/follower/believer/worshiper... I just explained that he was making gratuitious affirmations. In fact, I don't like Castaneda from what I read. But I like what he wrote.

From your first response to my first post Nagual it does come across that you really want to believe that Carlos did apprentice under Don Juan and that Don Juan was a real human being. As do many of your responses in your 2nd and subsequent posts despite your assertions to the contrary. The fact that you do not like Carlos as a person is irrelevant in this respect.

Also the fact that Carlos as a person especially in his later years was a vindictive and ruthless and greedy individual who instigated trivial and ridiculous legal proceedings against a scholar who paid tribute to Castaneda's early work and Carlos even sued his own ex-wife! should force one, however reluctantly, to ask hard questions about Carlos. Namely can he be trusted in other respects such as his shamanic initiations, his very writings? But such suspicions and the questioning that should accompany such suspicions, which requires breaking free of boxed thinking as well as the ability to hold healthy doubts about Castaneda's claims, would not occur to true believers.    

Nagual again quoting me:

quote:This makes no sense, the Spanish translator shouldn't have had any problems at all ... Unless of course the reason that the Spanish translation was such a problem was because there never were any Spanish field-notes in the first place and Castaneda just wrote what he did in English because there never were any Spanish conversations with Don Juan because there were no meetings with Don Juan because there was no Don Juan.

Nagual then writes:

quote:What kind of deduction is that?!?!? A problem of translation => no field notes => no conversation with DJ => no DJ !?!?!? Man, great job Sherlock. That's some serious proof!

You haven't even read what de Mille writes in his book in this regard and yet you profess to know what you are talking about. Sherlock. Here is the whole appropriate post:

quote:The problems with Carlos's field notes alone is huge (relating to its supposed translation from Spanish and the very serious inconsistencies here and the fact that most all the field notes which he must have taken when with or after being with Don Juan simply have not been verified to exist and those that under pressure he has shown have serious problems relating to their supposed Spanish-English translation as I have mentioned). Why did the translator of Castaneda's books into Spanish for the Spanish language editions have so many problems with Don Juan's monologues and speeches and his talk in general?

This makes no sense, the Spanish translator shouldn't have had any problems at all - it should have been a breeze - since he was only translating into Spanish from English the Don Juan field-notes that Castaneda had supposedly translated from the original Spanish field-notes in the first place! - remember all his talks with Don Juan were in Spanish. Unless of course the reason that the Spanish translation was such a problem was because there never were any Spanish field-notes in the first place and Castaneda just wrote what he did in English because there never were any Spanish conversations with Don Juan because there were no meetings with Don Juan because there was no Don Juan.

Nagual's response again:

quote:What kind of deduction is that?!?!? A problem of translation => no field notes => no conversation with DJ => no DJ !?!?!? Man, great job Sherlock. That's some serious proof!

If you used your brain Nagual then maybe you could comprehend why serious problems with translations into Spanish from ostensibly original Spanish field-notes is a cause for concern regarding the veracity or otherwise of the field-notes. There should be no translation problems if you are translating into Spanish from Spanish source material (even if via English or any other language)!

Castaneda has Don Juan employ English/American slang and English/American idioms that have no equivalent in the Spanish language, which is indeed a serious problem if Don Juan only spoke Spanish to Castaneda, which is what Castaneda himself tells us. You will have to read Castaneda's Journey in order to know exactly what de Mille is proving here, which Nagual has not done and then professes that I and by implication de Mille has no proof when Nagual has no idea what the evidence is that de Mille presents here or anywhere else.

And the absence of original field notes is also a problem for those of us who like to have something called evidence. But to Sherlock Nagual evidence in the form of field notes is obviously not important, and translation problems which should not exist is also not a problem. Perhaps Don Juan's use of English/American slang that have no Spanish equivalent by somebody who spoke only Spanish to Carlos is also no problem to Sherlock Nagual.

quote:Honestly, a single link to De Mille's book would have had a better chance (at least with me) than these biased marketing speeches and "newagers bashing".

Calling serious, painstaking and thorough intensive investigations into Castaneda's claims exactly that is not "biased marketing speeches". If I were to call the serious, impressive and thorough scientific investigation into the Piltdown skull by Weiner, Le Gros Clark and Oakley which uncovered the skull to be a hoax - serious and impressive and thorough -would that be "biased marketing" too. Perhaps calling the dedicated painstaking analysis of astronomical data by Clyde Tombaugh in discovering the existence of the planet Pluto - dedicated painstaking analysis - is likewise "biased marketing". I could give numerous other examples but I think I have made my point.

As for "new age bashing", well there is definitely a gulliblity and unquestioning willingness to believe almost anything by a large number of people in the new-age community. As can be seen at any new-age fair, bookstore and in the new-age magazines and in many threads on astralpulse (I don't mean this one). This gullibility is not harmless, as anybody who has given up everything and run off to some ashram only to be duped by the numerous charlatans pretending to be enlightened gurus, has proven. Some have been sexually abused, some have committed suicide, children have been left behind, families have been shattered, others have lost everything they had.

And what has this to do with Castaneda? Nothing at a superficial glance. However at a deeper level, when we look at these new-age types who blindly follow dubious gurus and the True Believer Castaneda followers, there is a common stream of unquestioning acceptance of revered authority figures who turn out to have feet of clay and often behave all too deplorably (in Carlos's case - his actions re Sanchez, ClearGreen and his ex-wife Margaret), and such behaviour is wilfully ignored by their followers. It is for this reason that I admit to being very harsh, even excessively so, and indulge in "new-age bashing". Many new-age types are in need of the equivalent of an intellectual cold-shower, and I don't apologise for being one to give it out.

I don't do it out of contempt or a feeling of superiority, but merely because I think this desperate need to believe no matter the facts can lead one seriously astray. In my teens and early twenties I was definitely such a type and I don't want others to be as unquestioning as I was in this regard, because it can lead to bigger problems further down the line. Tragic mistakes in judgment and discretion that can cost one dearly, and others too.

Nagual

quote:I would love to know the truth behind Castaneda's story... but, as far as I am concerned, there is no way to know for sure. Unless you accept to rely on second-hand "proofs"...

Really you would love to know the truth behind Castaneda's story? That would explain why you write "I don't care about wether it is a true story or a hoax". And once again Nagual dismisses thorough comprehensive exposes of which he knows nothing, praised by the world's leading psychical researchers and investigators of shamanism (but Nagual in his own mind knows better than they do on a subject [Castaneda criticism] of which he knows nothing), as second-hand "proofs".

You would love to know the truth behind Castaneda's story? So I guess you are doing all you can to see if you can get hold of copies of de Mille's books (and now Fikes's, Noel's, Margaret Castaneda's and Wallace's) at any libraries or second hand/esoteric bookstores, or ordering through amazon if you can afford it, in order to see what they have to say?

Nagual

quote:Apathy? Is saying that there is no point in arguing since there is no real way to know the truth a sign of apathy...?

Nagual, by saying there is no point in arguing means he does not consider any evidence against the claims of Carlos's supposed experiences to be worthy of even the slightest attention, he dismisses all Castaneda criticism on the grounds that they cannot prove their case (even though he has no idea about the case they make and wilfully ignores all the info at the links I provide). Nagual dismisses all the debunking of Carlos on a priori grounds ie Nagual does not care to enter into evidence anything that threatens the Castaneda myth, because in Nagual's eyes there is no evidence.

Nagual says so, so we must take his word for it. Nagual knows what he is talking about - we have his word. Imagine a judge in court saying there is no point in arguing whether a man on trial for murder or some such is guilty or not guilty because there is no evidence either way and as such he will not hear any evidence and testimony from either defendant or prosecutor!! Case Dismissed.

So Nagual contradicts himself by claiming not to be apathetic and by implication that he is impartial and objective re the Carlos controversy. By dismissing out of hand all the evidence against the supposed veracity of Carlos's claims as no evidence at all. To Nagual evidence in favour of a grand hoax is not evidence, because Nagual says so. Nagual tells us there can be no evidence....ever!

In Nagual's own words, "Is saying that there is no point in arguing since there is no real way to know the truth.." which actually contradicts his assertion that he is not apathetic. Not only is Nagual apathetic in this respect, he cannot even consider any evidence exposing a hoax (he tells us so after all) - "since there is no real way to know the truth" - but more than this Nagual to a large degree likes to believe in the myth Carlos built up around himself. He is not alone. Nagual can deny this all he likes, but his very words contradict his denials, even though Nagual would be the last to see this obvious contradiction.  


For an interesting overview of shamanism in the Western world today http://www.newagecities.com/neighborhoods/shamanism/content/Shamanism.asp        

Here for a review of a book written by Castaneda's ex-wife Margaret
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/margaret_runyan_bookreview.htm
The date given at the url above for Margaret's book is wrong btw, it should be 1997, not 1977. Carlos launched a lawsuit against her over the publication of this book.

Here is a short article written by de Mille http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/ofpiltmen_donjuanforg.html

They are even offering a course on the Castaneda controversy at Washington University at their religious studies department http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jhbauer/sorcerors.htm

Colin Wilson, a very prominent writer on the paranormal had this to say: from http://www.stormloader.com/users/abrax7/donjuan.htm
Pasted below.

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE DON JUAN AFFAIR by COLIN WILSON

In I968, the University of California Press published a book called 'The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge' by Carlos Castaneda. Castaneda had entered the University of California - UCLA - as an undergraduate in 1959, and had received a BA in anthropology in 1962. The University of California Press accepted 'The Teachings of Don Juan' as an authentic account of Castaneda's `field work' in Mexico.

The book told how, when he was an anthropology student, in 1960, Castaneda made several trips to the southwest to collect information on medicinal plants used by the Indians. At a Greyhound bus station, he was introduced to a white-haired old Indian who apparently knew all about peyote, the hallucinogenic plant. Although this first meeting was abortive - Castaneda tells with touching honesty how he `talked nonsense' to Don Juan - Castaneda made a point of finding where Don Juan lived and was finally accepted by the old brujo (medicine man or magician) as a pupil, a sorcerer's apprentice.  

The teaching begins with an episode in which Don Juan tells Castaneda to look for his `spot', a place where he will feel more comfortable and at ease than anywhere else; he told Castaneda that there was such a spot within the confines of the porch. Castaneda describes how he spent all night trying different spots, lying in them, but felt no difference. Don Juan told him he ought to use his eyes. After this, he began to distinguish various colours in the darkness; purple, green and verdigris. When he finally chose one of these, he felt sick and had a sensation of panic. Exhausted, he lay by the wall and fell asleep. When he woke up, Don Juan told him that he had found his `spot' - where he had fallen asleep. The other spot was bad for him, the `enemy'.  

This episode helps to explain the subsequent popularity of the book which was published in paperback by Ballantine Books and sold 300,000 copies. Don Juan is a teacher, a man of knowledge - the kind of person that every undergraduate dreams of finding - and he introduces Castaneda to the most astonishing experiences. When Castaneda first eats a peyote button, he experiences amazing sensations and plays with a mescalito dog whose mind he can read. On a later occasion he sees the mescalito god himself as a green man with a pointed head. When Don Juan teaches him how to make a paste from the datura plant - Jimson weed - he anoints himself with it and has a sensation of flying through the air at a great speed. (In their book The Search for Abraxas, Stephen Skinner and Neville Drury speculate that witches of the Middle Ages used a similar concoction and that this explains how they `flew' to Witches's Sabbaths). He wakes up to find himself half a mile from Don Juan's house.  

During this period when the book was published many young Americans were smoking pot and experimenting with `psychedelic drugs' like mescalin and LSD, and Timothy Leary was advising American youth to `Turn on, tune in, drop out.' This apparently factual account of semi-magical experiences became as popular as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and for much the same reason: it was escapist literature, but, more important, it claimed to be true. Reviews were excellent. Anthropologists and scientists took the book seriously - the psychologist Carl Rogers called it `one of the most vividly convincing documents I have read.' The philosopher Joseph Margolis said that either Castaneda was recording an encounter with a master or he was himself a master.  

This was clearly a success that had to be followed up. A Separate Reality described how Castaneda had returned to Don Juan in 1968. A giant gnat, 100 feet high, circles around him; he rides on a bubble; he has a semi-mystical experience in which he hears extraordinary sounds and sees the sorcerer's `ally', who shows him a `spirit catcher.' The demand for more about Don Juan remained strong but Castaneda had a problem. A Separate Reality came to an end in 1970 and was published in 1971; for the time being he had used up his Don Juan material.  

But not quite. He explained in his next book, Journey to Ixtlan (1973) that he had made the erroneous assumption that the glimpses of reality that Don Juan had given him could only be obtained through drugs. Now he realized he was mistaken. In fact, Don Juan had told him many other things during his years as a sorcerer's apprentice, but although he had written these non-drug revelations in his `field notes', he had failed to see their significance. Now, looking back over his notes, he had failed to see their significance. Now, looking back over his notes, he realized that he had a vast amount of material that showed that drugs were not necessary for achieving unusual states of consciousness. So Journey to Ixtlan goes back to 1960 and recounts still more astonishing adventures: he has strange visions, mountains move, and Castaneda describes his encounter with a sinister but beautiful sorceress named Catalina. In retrospect, it seems that Castaneda made his first major error in writing Ixtlan (although it was one that, according to his agent, made him $1 million). The `lost' field notes sound just a little too convenient.  

Yet, oddly enough, scholars continued to take him seriously. Mary Douglas, a professor of social anthropology, wrote an article about the first three books called `The Authenticity of Castaneda', which concluded: `From these ideas we are likely to get advances in anthropology.' Moreover, UCLA granted Castaneda his Ph.D. for Ixtlan and he lectured on anthropology on the Irvine campus. If reviewers would swallow Ixtlan, they would clearly swallow anything.  

Now that enough time had elapsed since his last visit to Sonora, Castaneda could renew his acquaintance with Don Juan and bring his revelations up to date. But Tales of Power (1974) seems to indicate that either Castaneda or his publisher felt that the game would soon be up. The dust jacket declares that this is the `culmination of Castaneda's extraordinary initiation into the mysteries of sorcery.' At last, it declares, Castaneda completes his long journey into the world of magic and the books ends with a `deeply moving farewell'.  

In may ways Tales of Power - covering a period of a few days in 1971 - is more rewarding than the earlier Don Juan books because it attempts to present a philosophical theory about reality, in terms of two concepts which Don Juan calls the tonal and nagual. The tonal is `everything we are', while the nagual is pure potentiality. The tonal is the pair of Kantian spectacles through which we see the world and impose meaning on it; it consists mainly of linguistic concepts and preconceptions. These conceptions are illustrated with the usual tales of magical experiences: Don Juan shows him a squirrel wearing spectacles which swells and finds he has travelled one and a half miles. It was at this point, after publication of Tales of Power, that a teacher of psychology named Richard de Mille was persuaded by his niece to read all four Don Juan books one after the other. (`You have to take the whole trip.') The Teachings struck him as authentic and factual. A Separate Reality raised doubts; it was better written but somehow not so `factual'. And the character of Don Juan had changed; he seemed more `joky', while in the first book he had been grimly serious. Of course, Castaneda himself had already mentioned this. `He clowned during the truly crucial moments of the second cycle.' But when he came to Ixtlan, De Mille was puzzled to find that the Don Juan of the notes made as early as 1960 was as much of a humorist and a clown as the later Don Juan.  

Made suspicious by this inconsistency, he began to study the books more closely and soon found contradictions that confirmed his feeling that he was dealing with fiction rather than fact. A friend pointed out one obvious inconsistency: in October 1968, Castaneda leaves his car and walks for two days to the shack of Don Juan's fellow sorcerer Don Genaro but when they walk out of shack they climb straight into the car. De Mille discovered a single contradiction. In Ixtlan, Castaneda goes looking for a casertain bush on Don Juan's instructions and finds it has vanished; then Don Juan sees him to the far side of the hill, where he finds the bush he thought he had seen earlier on the other side. Later Don Juan tells him, `This moment you saw', giving the word special emphasis. Yet six years later, in which Castaneda is represented (in A Separate Reality) as asking Don Juan what is seeing and Don Juan tells him that in order to find the bush Castaneda must see for himself. He seems to have forgotten that Castaneda had an experience of seeing six years earlier. And while it is understandable that Don Juan should forget, it is quite incomprehensible that Castaneda should.  

These and may similar inconsistencies convinced De Mille that one of the two books had to be fiction, or that, more probably, the both were. He published his results in a book called Castaneda's Journey in 1976 and it led many anthropologists who had taken Don Juan seriously to change their views. Joseph K. Long felt `betrayed by Castaneda.; Marcello Truzzi, on the other hand, admitted that he felt aghast at the initial reactions of the scientific community on Castaneda's books and that he was equally outraged by the serious reaction now De Mille had exposed them as frauds.  

Castaneda's admirers were mostly infuriated. Their feeling was that even if Castaneda had invented Don Juan, the books were of genuine knowledge and wisdom, and should be gratefully accepted as works of genius. One lady wrote to De Mille saying she was convinced he didn't exist and asking him to prove it. De Mille had, in fact, accepted that the Don Juan books had a certain merit, both as literature and `occult teaching'. But, when, in 1980 he edited a large volume of papers on the `Castaneda hoax' called The Don Juan Papers his admiration had visibly dwindled.  

Some of the essays present an even more devastating exposure of Castaneda than De Mille's original volume. For example, Hans Sebald, an anthropologist who had spent a great deal of time in the southwestern desert, pointed out that it was so hot from May to September that no one with any sense ventures into it; dehydration and exhaustion follow within hours. Yet according to Castaneda, he and Don Juan wandered around the desert for days, engaging in conversation and ignoring the heat. Sebald goes on to describe Castaneda's animal lore: `Where . . . are the nine-inch centipedes and tarantulas big as saucers? Where are the king snakes, scarlet chuckawallas, horned toads, gila monsters. . .'  

A lengthy appendage on The Don Juan papers cites hundreds of parallel passages from the Castaneda books and from other works on anthropology and mysticism that bear a close resemblance. The book establishes, beyond all possible doubt, that the Castaneda books are a fraud. Richard De Mille's own research revealed that Carlos Arana was born in 1925 (not 1935, as he has told an interviewer) in Cajamarca, Peru, and came to San Francisco in 1951, leaving behind a Chinese-Peruvian wife who was pregnant. In 1955 he met Damon Runyan's distant cousin Margaret and married her in 1960; they separated after six months [their marriage lasted 13 years]. In 1959 he became an undergraduate at UCLA and the Don Juan story begins. . . Castaneda himself has proven to be an extremely elusive individual, as Time discovered when it sent a reporter to interview him in 1973.

In the light of De Mille's discoveries, this is easy to understand. Castaneda's career can be compared to that of the Shakespeare forger, William Ireland (see page 189), who began by forging a few Shakespeare signatures to gain his father's attention and found himself forced to continue until he had concocted a whole Shakespeare play, which brought about his discover and downfall. Castaneda presumably produced the original 'Teachings of Don Juan' as a mild form of hoax. The publication by Ballantine lauched him, whether he liked it or not, on the career of a trickster and confidence man. It would, perhaps, have been wiser to stop after Ixtlan, or possibly after Tales of Power.

But the demand for more Don Juan books has presumably overcome his caution. In fact, the fifth, The Second Ring of Power, reads so obviously as fiction that it raises the suspicion that Castaneda wanted to explode his own legend. But he shows caution in offering no dates, no doubt to escape De Mille's vigilant eye. Castaneda tells how he went back to Mexico looking for Don Juan and instead encountered one of his disciples, a sorceress named Madame Solitude. Last time he saw her she was fat and ugly and in her fifties; now she is young, slim and vital, and within a few pages, she has torn off her skirt and invited him to make love to her - an invitation he wisely resists. Then Castaneda somehow invokes his own double out of his head - not a mild-mannered scholar but a super-male authority figure who hits Madame Solitude on the head and almost kills her. Then four lady disciples arrive and make more assaults on Castaneda, which he overcomes, and after which they all encounter other-worldly beings. . .

In his sixth book, The Eagle's Gift, Castaneda returns to Mexico as 'a sorcerous leader and figure in his own right' (As the blurb says) and enters into a closer relationship with one of the female sorcerers of the previous books, La Gorda. The two of them develop the ability to dream in unison. It is clear that, since writing the earlier book, Castaneda has come across split-brain physiology and now we hear a great deal about the right and left sides of a human being, the left being the nagual and the right, the tonal. De Mille had pointed out that the Don Juan books seem to chart Castaneda's literary and philosophical discoveries over the years and this book confirms it. For those who read it with the certainty that the previous books were a hoax, it seems an insult to the intelligence. But it seems to demonstrate that Castaneda can continue indefinitely spinning fantasies for those who regard him as the greatest of modern gurus.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nagual]

Ok, everybody, just ignore my previous apathetic posts, it was just a knee-jerk reaction to the attack made against my idol Castaneda.
It is indeed all a hoax.
Go buy de Mille awesome book and burn all your Castaneda books now!
Thank you for showing me the light; I feel so much better now...

[Mustardseed]

You know something .....maybe you should consider the fact that this is not about you. It is about Castaneda. You got involved and have been showed to be in the wrong, by defending him and his experiences as "real". That is a very humbeling experience, but when that happens my friend, consider yourself in good company. True greatness and in a man is often meassured in his ability to say the 3 hardest words in the english language.....I was wrong. Instead of taking refuge in sarcasm, or attacking the one who brought you to this point, or yield to selfpity, embrace this viewpoint as a very good possibility and.....grow, and be .......nice about it. We are all wrong once in a while, noone is beyond that. Take courage in the fact that you will be wiser today than you were yesterday. This growth is a very important part of everyones life and determines your ability to accept other new truths as well. It is not a thing to be taken lightly, and while you are at it relax ...feelings come and go feelings are decieving.

Regards Mustardseed

[mustang]

Just thought I would add some more interesting links.

For a very interesting interview with Amy Wallace (daughter of the writer Irving Wallace), who perhaps knew better than anybody else about Carlos's inner circle in his twilight years. Says she reckons that 4 witches of his inner circle all may have committed suicide upon Carlos's death! There is fascinating stuff about Carlos here from his last girlfriend, that nobody else outside of Carlos's inner circle could have known.
http://www.magicalblend.com/library/cyberblend/AmyWallace.html

Also here is an interesting link re Florinda Donner and Carol Tiggs that I should have put up earlier, related by Wallace (who knew Florinda well) in her book.
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Wallace_Book/chapter_3_of_Sorcerers_Apprentice.htm

Also other exerpts from her book
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Wallace_Book/Chapter_4_Sorcerers_Apprentice.htm
and here
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Wallace_Book/Chapter_12_Sorcerers_Apprentice.htm

Other important links that I should have put up before:
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/early_book_inconsistencies.htm
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/a_night_with_the_real_don_Juan.htm
and
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/a_conversation_with_cleargreen.htm

I suggest to those seriously interested in the whole Castaneda controversy, to check out the whole sustainedaction website. The links I have put up are just the tip of the iceberg. It is important to note that sustainedaction was started by people who attended the Tensegrity workshops, as Castaneda devotees and came to know Castaneda personally (such as Corey Donovan and Richard Jennings). Only later did they become disillusioned and dismissive of Carlos's claims, coming to the conclusion that they had been conned.

[Nagual]

First, don't worry, this will be my last post.

I don't care about being proven wrong.  I am used to it.
What frustrate me is that people still think/pretend that I am "defending him and his experiences as "real""; that I am a blind Castenda fanboy...

I'm gonna quote (for the blind people) what I wrote before:
"It can be true, it can be a hoax. It may be a mix."
"I don't like Castaneda from what I read. But I like what he wrote."
"I am neither saying it is true, nor saying it is a hoax. Let's say that I am agnostic."
"I would love to know the truth behind Castaneda's story... but, as far as I am concerned, there is no way to know for sure."

quote:maybe you should consider the fact that this is not about you.

To label me as a blind Castaneda worshiper, while I keep repeating that I never said what he wrote was true (or a hoax), is a lame trick to dismiss my posts and I do take it as a personal attack...

[Mustardseed]

Dear Nagual

I have read all your posts with care and I do have a comment if you don't mind!

My question is this. If you say that it does not matter to you what the truth is, if Carlos is a liar or not a trikster or a truthful person. What IS your standard of living? Do you care if Frank or Robert Bruce or anyone else is telling you a bunch of fiction, or does that also not matter.? Is there any standard by which you live your life? If so what is it?

If you do not care then the next question is....do YOU tell the truth or do you fabricate and make things up and spin long tales?

It is my opinion that if you believe that TRUTH is worth looking for and that lying and covering up is a bad thing, you will have a personal standard that will lead you along a plain path in life and if you do not care you will be led astray believing things out of convinience and fancy.

Is there any truth in YOUR universe?

Regards Mustardseed

[Nagual]

quote:If you say that it does not matter to you what the truth is, bla bla bla...

Here we go again!  Just look at the way you are implying that I don't care about the truth...  I said that IMHO there is no way to know the truth.

1. "it does not matter ... what the truth is"
2. there is no way to know the truth

I am number 2.  Do you get the difference?

If you want to go for half truths, go for it.  Personaly, I will abstain.
And feel free to keep deforming everything I say; but it won't help much...

[Kalonek]

I agree with Nagual [] Which mean that i find this topic interesting and with good links to find information on the controversy around Castaneda, but that i stay also critical about these new piece of information too (as well as on Castaneda's books).

My 2 cents.