Topic: Why debunking Carlos doesn't work

[Nick]

I enjoy reading the stories about what it was like for the people who met CC, esp. the ones who want to debunk him. It is one thing to feel the power in the stories he wrote...true or not, the stories are a genuine gateway to power, and other worlds... What gets me though, is how when I read things the debunkers say I am only more fascinated, more entranced. Is it just that I am so entranced, so indoctrinated? Perhaps...but what is really at the h eart is  that I took something from his works that spoke to me on a deep level, and nothing, NOTHING can shake that. What gets me excited is how the debunking stories actually make the flame of devotion to my path brighter. I leave those stories feeling energized almost as much as when I read CC's books, and sometimes more...

Perhaps these people have been permenantly imprinted by CC, by the legacy he left behind, and I can feel that connectiong. Which is not his legacy, and I almost wish he had actually kept himself out of the lime light, but perhaps the legacy would not have spread as well with out the intermixing of ego. Perhaps it is that these debunking stories actually keep his stories alive, does matter if they are for or against it is all the same.

Then it is amazing to ponder how the world was changed by the combination of CC's work and the 60's revolution in general.

These thoughts were inspired by reading this article:

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/

[erik]

As do Buddhists, so did Don Juan say that stories are merely stories. They must be examined critically, tested and tried to the extreme. What matters, is what one does. What one does.

[Jahn]

I enjoy reading the stories about what it was like for the people who met CC, esp. the ones who want to debunk him. It is one thing to feel the power in the stories he wrote...true or not, the stories are a genuine gateway to power, and other worlds... What gets me though, is how when I read things the debunkers say I am only more fascinated, more entranced. Is it just that I am so entranced, so indoctrinated? Perhaps...but what is really at the h eart is  that I took something from his works that spoke to me on a deep level, and nothing, NOTHING can shake that. What gets me excited is how the debunking stories actually make the flame of devotion to my path brighter. I leave those stories feeling energized almost as much as when I read CC's books, and sometimes more...

Perhaps these people have been permenantly imprinted by CC, by the legacy he left behind, and I can feel that connectiong. Which is not his legacy, and I almost wish he had actually kept himself out of the lime light, but perhaps the legacy would not have spread as well with out the intermixing of ego. Perhaps it is that these debunking stories actually keep his stories alive, does matter if they are for or against it is all the same.

Then it is amazing to ponder how the world was changed by the combination of CC's work and the 60's revolution in general.

These thoughts were inspired by reading this article:

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/

I have written a book about Castaneda. "In the Eyes of Carlos Castaneda - an Astrological portrait" - unfortunately it is written in Swedish. I wrote it to and from during a period of 20 years and I made much research. One of my most important sources was Richard de Mille and his book "The don Juan Papers, Further Castaneda controversies". (Ross-Juhanison publishers, Santa Barbara 1981).

De Mille did really go in the foot prints of Castaneda and he made a lot of interviews and compilation of other Castaneda critics. Despite that de Mille was critical to the way Castaneda had presented his teachings of Don Juan he admitted that there was a core of truth in Castanedas "stories". And de Mille let another expert tell the conclusion.

Quote from my book:

"De Mille is with some righteousness critical to Castanedas factual  information but he would admit some reliability to the content. It’s no use to get too deep into the discussion about the reliability in the works of Castaneda but some of it reflects back on the ”person” Castaneda and has in that sense some importance.

 We can initially notice that Castaneda was an eccentric in the academic world and for each new book he placed himself further out towards the area of fiction. Richard de Mille lets a, excuse me "real anthropologist" to comment on the work of Castaneda in the early 1970’s.

Professor Mary Douglas, University College, London:
Much has been said as to whether this is real antrophology or wether the pseudonym, don Juan, hides any one real person, or where precisely the elements of fiction and truth are found. The purpose of this article /The Authencity of Castaneda/ is to consider whether the latest campus cult deserves serious attention from antrophologists. The answer is obviously yes. In itself the philosophy of ascetic mysticism, so gradually put together, is enough evidence of truth in the tale. It would be flippant to dismiss it. (RdeM, pp. 25.)"

[Jahn]

One source to de Mille was Margaret Runyan and she claim tha she met Carlos on a regularly basis from June 1956 to 1966. And by that statement de Mille argues that it is proven that Castaneda had quite little time to spent in Mexico… but there is more to say about that statement later. Besides ordinary intellectuall conversation attending the movies was one favourite doing. Even castaneda mention that he is fond of attending the movies in the books. Well, Margaret Runyan marries with Castaneda and she has written an own book about her experiences with (The Magical Journey With Carlos Castaneda).

“Did you talk about mysticism and metaphysics?“ I (RdeM) asked her
“That was all we ever talked about“, she said - but meant she talked, he listened./.../ They used to got to Ingmar Bergman movies and discuss them afterwards.
“Did you see Seventh seal?“ I asked
“That‘s the one we talked about the most“ she said /.../
“What about Wild strawberries?“
“That one too“ she said (pp 366).

It is free to associate to the inluence that those films might have on Castaneda. In the Seventh seal there is for instance a part where the knight plays chess with the death. Margaret let us know that Castaneda could be very helpful but that occurred only on his own terms. When quite immediately after they got married the family life has a draw back since Castaneda has already been swallowed by the sorcerers dangerous and time consuming world, or whatever happened.? De Mille gives another background to what Castaneda did in 1960 except to meet don Juan on a Greyhound bus station.

“Learning and the love of learning were the bonds between us,“ Margaret wrote. “We are married spiritually and always will be.“

The spiritual marriage has taken some rather hard knocks. After four years of friendship they were married in Tijuana on 27 January 1960. Six months later Castaneda moved out of Margarets‘s apartment. The explanation was that Carlos had met don Juan and must spend weeks at time studying with him“. The separation lasted for 13 years; Margaret filed for divorce in 1973. /De Mille continues/

[Jahn]

One support for that Castaneda had an ascetic vein is given Barbara Meyerhoff. You'll find this qoute in my chapter about Mars in Scorpio, which CC had.

Richard De Mille interview (pp 352-53):

"Barbara M: Did you know he lived in San Diego?
RdeM: He did?
Barbara M: For a while in a basement room.
RdeM: He told you this?
Barbara M: Yes. In a friend‘s house. I thought it was rather a long commute to UCLA, but those things never seemed to bother him.
RdeM: Not when he could go back to Mexiko in the blink of an eye.

Barbara M: Maybe that‘s it. Anyway, he said he gradually emptied the room out. First he got rid of the bed. Then he got rid of the books. Until there was nothing left but him and the typewriter./.../ he overcame it by giving up all his normal habits. He gave up food. He gave up sleeping. Honing himself, so to speak. And I thought it was all rather shocking. But he was training himself in ascetism. He was a profound ascetic streak. If I had to give you a psychological intepretation, I might say he´s a tragically isolated man, struggling for discipline, dominated by his will, animus-possesed, anima-terrified, seeking impeccability, seeking passion with control. Willful ascetism. He was merciless with himself. Though he indulged himself by not giving in to the system, at the same time he sternly made himself give up personal relationships. Maybe he really wanted to give them up, but I felt it was a struggle. Made himself give up that little boy. Made himself be there in the library every single day, perfectly dressed in the dark suit, with the briefcase, everything in order, a narrow, determined quality. I suspect it‘s getting fiercer and deeper as he gets older."

"He was merciless with himself," ....

[Nichi]

You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.

(Just an aside.)

[Jahn]

You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.

(Just an aside.)

That position of his horoscope would not surprise me much.
Mars in Scorpio is in a crucial position for people with physical body first. They can endure, they can try the ascetism an the like.  In low .vibration outcome - people with Mars in Scorpio is overly violent and can come into situations as assault, rape and sexual fixation.
 

[Michael]

Yes I have Mars in Scorpio, for whatever good or bad it does me.

I never could understand de Mille, not that I could be bothered reading his books. Why are these people so obsessed with the mechanics? Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?

[erik]

Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?

Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair.

[Jahn]

Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair.

It doesn't work that way.
Scorpios goes in with all or nothing and if we takes it all - the man has to be real.

[erik]

It doesn't work that way.
Scorpios goes in with all or nothing and if we takes it all - the man has to be real.

Astrology is like looking at canned meat - in both cases one makes judgement on the basis of manufacturing date.

[Jahn]

Astrology is like looking at canned meat - in both cases one makes judgement on the basis of manufacturing date.

Canned meat?
Judgement?

Astrolgy is one thing - to cast horoscopes is another.

Lions are proud and they guard their children.

Virgos like to serve others and are interested in diets.

Libras do best with a partner and "must find" harmony in their life.

Scorpios have secrets and are passionate beyond their own imagination.

Sagittarius are easy to deal with but they usually have no real backbone.

Capricorns have a real backbone, they are old when young and young when old and they are stubborn by nature.

Aquarius I do not know that much about, maybe they are the real adopters of all new IT-technology, Facebook, I-Phones and apps!?

Pisces lives in the dark ocean and chaos with momentary insights and light upon their souls (except gurus from down under). In fact the Pisces is the ultimate sign for a true seeker and warrior. It is the number twelve in the Zodiac and thereby the completion of man is herited in the Pisces. Then it starts all over with a new seed with in the Aries.

Aries likes to start new projects - for others to complete.

The Taurus has his/her purse (of gold) - he/she know what to do in this life and they let the things that they want come to him/her.

The Gemini is a kind of less educated Sagittaurus that like to talk about everything, communication is the keyword. Writer, journalist, working with TV or any media is their place. But they lack a backbone unless other positions support that.

The Cancer have friends - but they are few, the cancer build his family and nourish it.
 

[Nick]

Indeed, and it would be the only completely undebunkable part of the whole affair.

I doubt there is anything that is undebunkable if someone wants to debunk it.

Why debunking Carlos doesn't work, relates to the systemic effect. For various reasons, relating to reinforcing, and feedback cycles anything done to debunk a story like Carlos's will only feed the fire, and keep it going.

[Nick]

Why are these people so obsessed with the mechanics? Why don't they just take the obvious things from Carlos that are good, and get on with the job of transforming self?

Each learns in their own way....but the question you ask is much more grand than that.

[erik]

I doubt there is anything that is undebunkable if someone wants to debunk it.

Why debunking Carlos doesn't work, relates to the systemic effect. For various reasons, relating to reinforcing, and feedback cycles anything done to debunk a story like Carlos's will only feed the fire, and keep it going.

You are missing the point here. The path of spiritual evolution is personal and experiential. Intellect plays an assisting role there. Now, how can anyone debunk my experience gained through practicing techniques described by Carlos?

Mind you, that that experience has nothing to do with how, where and why Carlos lived and ended his life. Moreover, that experience is completely indifferent regarding the success or failure of Carlos as a nagual/warrior.

It only has to do with whether things he described work. The question of Castaneda doing what he preached is a matter of faith and belief - hence secondary to the matter of one's very personal spiritual aspirations.