Did Carlos Make It All Up?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
61

Irishman wrote:

<<If sorcery is something outside the paradigm of science, then looking at known scientific explanations will rule them out.>>

<<If sorcery has a noticable effect in the physical world, you can test for that effect. Just like it is not possible to test for the existence of god, but it is possible to analyze particular claims about miracles and explain them.
[/quote]
>>

<<Nothing you’ve said since I made that comment has changed my opinion>>

O.K. That’s fine. But will you at least acknowledge that consciousness (like don Juan’s brand of sorcery) has a physical effect in/on the world but cannot be verified/validated (consciousness) by current scientific means?

Incidentally, don’t take me wrong. I am not entirely convinced of the don Juan paradigm. However, since around the early ‘80’s when I read the first 6 or so books, looked into other belief systems and such, I’ve had lots of time to ponder the salient points of the paradigm. I have to say, there’s a lot of logic to it from my perspective. For one, here was a non-scientific individual talking about how everything is energy, parallel universes, an energy and dreaming body, the world is a construct of agreements, etc. And this was in the early ‘60’s. My background is science and medicine and the more I read, the more I’m finding to back up his claims, from a scientific standpoint; or, at least add some credence to what he is purporting.

Then there are other individuals I have spoken with that have had similar experiences that CC described having.

And Irishman, you and Carlos have something in common, Atheism. It (the paradigm) doesn’t paint a rosy picture of the universe, that’s for sure.

Also, in the other thread on this site (that JRDelirious provided), a lot was said about where his books are found in stores. All 11 CC books I have on my bookshelf have the word “Non Fiction” on the binder. The non-fiction section of bookstores is where I bought all up to and thru “The Fire From Within”, published in 1984. After that I drifted away and didn’t rediscover his additional books until last year browsing the “New Age” section in Barnes and Nobles.

Also, in one of CC’s last books, in the foreward, he acknowledges that many believe he made it all up but categorically states that it all happened, for whatever that is worth. If you think about it, would UCLA grant a PhD for writing fiction?”

Below is a post from the SR forum that I’m enclosing. The Chronology is from his first wife’s book (which I have read). It’s here to give you a little more background.

<You doubters don’t believe any true and verifiable information written about don Juan’s lessons, but you blindly believe some supposed chronology about Carlos Castaneda as though it is the ‘Gospel Truth’, eh? Someone determined to debunk Castaneda provides a chronology to essentially ‘kick the corpse’ of Carlos Castaneda and the stagnant slug types swallow it up hook, line and sinker thus further justifying their poor, slug, stagnant ways.

Here is that supposedly ‘infallible and inerrant’ chronology of the life of Carlos Castaneda. I tell you this much: it doesn’t disprove the greatness of don Juan’s teachings one iota. If nothing else Carlos Castaneda was a genius of a masterful writer and no supposed chronology written by a jilted ex will ever change that. How about any of you provide us with a chronology of your life written by your bitter ex-wife or lover:
1948 – The Arana family moves to Lima, Peru. Castaneda graduates from the Colegio Nacional de Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe in Lima, and then enters Bellas Artes, the national fine arts school of Peru. (de Mille p. 362.) [Jose Bracamonte, one of Castaneda’s friends and fellow students at arts school, recalls his former friend Castaneda as “witty, imaginative, cheerful—a big liar and a real friend.” (Time Magazine March 5, 1973 cover story, p.44.)]

1950 – Castaneda rents an apartment with two fellow art students. Another fellow student, Victor Delfin, later describes Castaneda as follows to journalist Cesar Levano: “He was a wonderful liar [el tipo mas fabuloso para mentir]. A very capable fellow, likable and rather mysterious. A first-class seducer [un seductor de primera linea]. I remember the girls used to spend the morning waiting around for him at the Bellas Artes.” (de Mille, pp. 362-364.) His friend Bracamonte further describes him as “always thinking up unlikely stories—tremendous, beautiful things. . . . . He was always talking about Cajamarca, but oddly never talked about his parents.” (Id. P. 364.)

Fall 1956 – Castaneda and Margaret Runyan are very much an item, spending nights in his apartment or the apartment she shared with her aunt. (Per A Magical Journey p. 56.) Castaneda is already inventing a new “personal history” too, telling Margaret that he was born in Italy on Christmas Day in 1931, the son of a 16-year-old girl attending finishing school in Switzerland and a professor who was on a world tour when he met the girl. He also claimed his mother’s sister came to Italy soon after he was born to bring him to live at the family farm near Sao Paulo, Brazil, where he allegedly attended schools until he was old enough to go to art school in Italy. He also claimed to have entered the U.S. in New York, and to have attended art schools in Montreal and New York. (A Magical Journey pp. 40-1.) He also bogusly asserted that he had served in the U.S. army in Spain, and claimed to have once traveled with a band of gypsies and to have married a gypsy girl. (Runyan’s article in Fate.)

Early 1957 – Castaneda invents a girlfriend, “Sue Childress,” to make Margaret jealous. (A Magical Journey pp. 46-7.)

Fall 1957 – Castaneda writes a term paper on Aldous Huxley for his second year English class at LACC, having become interested in occult topics after reading Huxley’s The Doors of Perception and its account of mescaline research. (A Magical Journey pp. 51-54.)

1958 – Castaneda works at the Mattel Toy Company plant on Rosecrans Ave. and Hawthorne. (A Magical Journey p. 69.) Castaneda moves into a boarding house on Adams Ave. He also starts writing poetry and short stories, with one of his poems winning first place in a writing contest sponsored by the school newspaper. He and Margaret attend a lot of movies. (A Magical Journey p. 70-71.)

June 19, 1959 – Castaneda graduates from LACC with an Associate of Arts degree in psychology.

Thanksgiving 1959 – Castaneda cooks for a small group of friends, including LACC students Allen Morrison (Castaneda’s best friend at the time) and Byron Deore. A discussion about religions supposedly prompts Margaret to suggest: “If I came to you and I told you that I’d found the ultimate way of life and that I could tell you exactly how to do it, it would be very hard for you to accept. But if I said to you that I’ve got a mysterious teacher who has let me in on some great mysteries, then it’s more interesting . . . It’s much easier to accept.” (A Magical Journey pp. 58-59.)

December 1959 – Castaneda and Margaret both read Andrija Pharich’s The Sacred Mushroom. (Per Margaret’s article in Fate.)

Late January - June 1960 – Castaneda takes a class on “Methods in Field Archaeology” taught by Profs. McCusick and Clement Meighan. [Gloria Garvin Sun, who later worked as Meighan’s editorial assistant, characterizes this as a class on shamanism, and Meighan as “something of a shaman himself.”] Margaret Runyan reports that Meighan promised students an “A” on their term paper if they actually interviewed an Indian for the project. (A Magical Journey p. 82.)

It is presumed that, early in their relationship, Joanie took Castaneda for a visit to the Morongo Indian Reservation, near her childhood home in Banning, California. Margaret notes that, at this time, “Carlos began leaving for hours at a time, and then days . . . . At first, I thought he had found another woman, but he denied that. Carlos said that he was making trips into the desert to study the use of medicinal plants by the Indians.” (A Magical Journey p. 81.) She also reports that, for his paper for Meighan, Castaneda “worked with a Cahuilla on a reservation near Palm Springs, and then went out on the Colorado River and worked with a few Indians there. . . . . Ultimately, he found one man who related a great deal of information about Jimson weed (Datura inoxia) and it was that information that served as the basis of Carlos’ undergraduate paper . . . .”
Meighan recalled, regarding this 1960 paper: “His informant knew a great deal about Datura, which was a drug used in initiating ceremonies by some California groups, but had presumed by me and I think most other anthropologists to have passed out of the picture 40 or 50 years ago. So he found an informant who still actually knew something about this and still had used it.” The paper includes references to the plant’s four heads, their different purposes, the significance of the roots, the cooking process and the ritual of preparation, all information that Castaneda supposedly later learns from don Juan on visits between August 23 and Sept. 10, 1961, as described in The Teachings of Don Juan. At the time, Meighan praised the paper (one of only three involving an Indian informant turned in by the large class) and suggested it added a great deal to the academic literature. (A Magical Journey pp. 83-85 and 91.)

Summer 1960 – Castaneda supposedly meets don Juan in the Greyhound bus station in Nogales, Arizona. (See, e.g., The Teachings of Don Juan, A Separate Reality and The Active Side of Infinity.)

June 1961 – Castaneda allegedly begins to serve his “apprenticeship” with don Juan. On June 23, 1961, Castaneda asks don Juan to “teach me about peyote.” On June 25, 1961, don Juan instructs Castaneda to find a “power spot” on the floor of don Juan’s porch. (Per The Teachings of Don Juan.)
August 5-7, 1961 – Castaneda allegedly participates with don Juan in a peyote mitote. (Per The Teachings of Don Juan.)

August 17-23, 1961 – Castaneda has additional meetings with don Juan, who begins to teach him about datura [a subject Castaneda had already written a paper about over a year before] (Per The Teachings of Don Juan.)

(The poster’s commentary)
<MY COMMENTARY: Carlos Castaneda wrote in his book that when he supposedly met don Juan at the bus station he attempted to impress him by stating that he knew quite a bit about psychotropic plants. So Carlos wrote a paper about datura. So what??? That doesn’t mean he really knew what the hell he was actually writing about. Many are the charlatans who can write about things they actually do not know as much about as they pretend they do. If Carlos was expounding don Juanian philosophy long before he purportedly met the Yaqui shaman his detractors, jealous of his success, would have been screaming bloody charlatan hell on the university campus when Carlos’ book became a big commercial bestseller.>

He makes an interesting point. No one to-date has come forward to say that CC was spouting the don Juan model before he started writing.

Please. I do not wish to become the defender of the don Juan paradigm. But if you have thought provoking commentary or rebuttal, I’d like to hear it.

62

I understand the main issue at hand is to determine whether or not CC accurately reported his experiences - not whether or not the ideas he learned among the Y have any merit.

However, I was struck by the experiment. Certain posters seem to be arguing that we must accept the veracity of CC’s accounts if we cannot disprove his version of the cosmos. That’s not logical, and most of us know why. For those of use who don’t, I’ll show how the experiment fails to support the CC universe.

First, you cannot row a boat out in the middle of the ocean away from all light source. (Although you can row a boat into the middle of a dark lake on a dark night in the middle of nowhere and use your sense of direction and the shore sounds to find your way back.) I have been in complete dark, on the water, many times, and asked all those questions and there are a surprising number of answers available. First, it’s clear that, as we experience it, time is linear. I’m in a boat, boats are built by man, what we know about boat history shows that boats get better over time. I know, personally, that my ability to pilot boats, based in part on my natural instincts and in part on learning from others, improves. When you alone one dark water, even sober, such musings offer fruitful insights on age-old questions. When I stare up into the sky, I can explain what I see in a number of ways - I can empathize with stories and legends of pre-scientific people, I can kick myself for not doing better in the science side of astronomy class, I can wonder about what the stars look like from manned space-craft, and I can think about how we are all able to talk about our experiences of looking at the stars and wondering. I can reflect on the people who were not content to wonder and used their observations of the stars for science, all the way from predicting the seasons so they could hunt and gather at optimal times to sending unmanned space-craft beyond Jupiter. I can think about the years of human achievement that made it possible for me, in a big boat in the middle of dark water, to use a GPS to know exactly where I am and plot a course for where I want to go (with no worry about running aground, thanks to my depth finder.) And I can go back to shore and light my fire or go below and turn the lights on a write a letter to a friend, who will understand all that I say because we, as a species, have language that allows us to recognized the gifts of the past as we, sitting here in the present, consider the future. How big is infinity? Well, it’s bigger than finity. I’m sure of that. And my answer is at the very least as good as the Don Juan line.

Admittedly, when I’m alone in a boat on dark water, my thoughts eventually turn to food and I stop reflecting on history and the night sky and the nature of man and go find some cheese doodles, so maybe I’m just not as spiritual as CC.

63

<<First, you cannot row a boat out in the middle of the ocean away from all light source. >>

Semantics. You know what I meant

<<First, it’s clear that, as we experience it, time is linear.>>

I’ll agree it is, as you say, as “we” experience it. What I’m saying, and I challenge anyone to logically disprove it (and I’ll accept reasonable arguments), is that what we, as puny human beings, relying on laughable organic and inorganic rocket fuels and hydrocarbon fuels on earth, only experience a fraction of a fraction of the totality of the universe and that time is anything but linear. I believe space-time theory and black holes supports that statement

Let’s consider, again, infinity and throw in singularity. How can the two coexist? If the universe was once condensed into a single point of unimaginable mass, where did infinity go? And what was before singularity if infinity was still around. You and others bandy these concepts around like you understand them and what they imply. To me, they imply that the universe is an incomprehensible place (as don Juan said) full of mysteries we will never grasp. If people accept those two “scientific” concepts how can they reject the salient points of don Juanism (no, not the supposed personal shortcomings of Castanada)? This is difficult for the readers I’ve thus encountered on this thread to understand because no one seems to have read the books.

I read a Times article in Barnes and Noble yesterday. New calculations based on Hubble photos says that there’s something like 74% of the universe consists of dark matter (we can’t see it but we know it’s there) and 90% dark energy (we don’t know where it’s coming from!). That the Big Bang occurred about 200 billion years ago. Now what the ‘effin hell does that mean? Again, what was before the Big Bang and singularity? Can anyone answer that rationally?

<<I’m in a boat, boats are built by man, what we know about boat history shows that boats get better over time. I know, personally, that my ability to pilot boats, based in part on my natural instincts and in part on learning from others, improves. When you alone one dark water, even sober, such musings offer fruitful insights on age-old questions. When I stare up into the sky, I can explain what I see in a number of ways - I can empathize with stories and legends of pre-scientific people, I can kick myself for not doing better in the science side of astronomy class, I can wonder about what the stars look like from manned space-craft, and I can think about how we are all able to talk about our experiences of looking at the stars and wondering. I can reflect on the people who were not content to wonder and used their observations of the stars for science, all the way from predicting the seasons so they could hunt and gather at optimal times to sending unmanned space-craft beyond Jupiter. I can think about the years of human achievement that made it possible for me, in a big boat in the middle of dark water, to use a GPS to know exactly where I am and plot a course for where I want to go (with no worry about running aground, thanks to my depth finder.) And I can go back to shore and light my fire or go below and turn the lights on a write a letter to a friend, who will understand all that I say because we, as a species, have language that allows us to recognized the gifts of the past as we, sitting here in the present, consider the future.>>

It’s really not clear what your point is. But I’m not denying that our science has explained a lot of what our ancestors couldn’t explain and thus spawned religions. I’m just saying that science will never be able to explain everything.

<<How big is infinity? Well, it’s bigger than finity. I’m sure of that.>>

See. Even you are at a loss for an explanation.

<<And my answer is at the very least as good as the Don Juan line.>>

There is absolutely NOTHING contradictory between infinity/singularity and don Juanism.

64

<< I’m just saying that science will never be able to explain everything. >>

This is certainly debatable, and depends on how you define “everything”, but since human beings can make irrational and inexplicable decisions, let’s concede that you are correct, that science will never be able to explain everything.

That doesn’t mean that there are “explainable things” that are beyond science. It means that are some things that will be always unexplainable. In short, just because science may not “explain everything” doesn’t mean that there is some non-science mumbo jumbo – be it religion or ESP or hallucinatory drugs – that WILL explain those things that science can’t.

65

Hey! No witnessing from the atheist side either, if you please.

66

I had written:

< I¡¦m just saying that science will never be able to explain everything. >

Dexter Haven replied with:

<<This is certainly debatable, and depends on how you define “everything”, but since human beings can make irrational and inexplicable decisions, let’s concede that you are correct, that science will never be able to explain everything.>>
Look. This should really be a no brainer. I don¡¦t mean this disrespectful and get all philosophical, but, please, climb outside of your box and let the mind expand. Are you telling me that you think we have the mental capacity to actually fathom life and the totality of the universe? That you grasp and fully comprehend concepts such as infinity and singularity? That 74% of the space we are aware of consists of ¡§dark matter¡¨ (we can¡¦t see it but know it¡¦s there) and 90% of detectable energy is ¡§dark energy¡¨ (we have no clue where it is coming from. That the matter we can detect accounts for only 10% of the energy we can measure). That, you can digest their ramifications while casually smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer?

And let¡¦s not even open the can of worms called life. You know, quirks, quarks, electrons, atoms, molecules, cells, plants, animals, man, consciousness/awareness. You think ¡§something¡¨ sat down on a drawing board and mapped all this out? Or do you think it all sprang out of vacuum from organized randomness? Go ahead, state your position, defend it, and don’t be vague.

No, my friend, it is no small leap of speculation for me to say that science will never be able to explain everything.

<<That doesn’t mean that there are “explainable things” that are beyond science. It means that are some things that will be always unexplainable. In short, just because science may not “explain everything” doesn’t mean that there is some non-science mumbo jumbo – be it religion or ESP or hallucinatory drugs – that WILL explain those things that science can’t.>>

Are you ¡§ruling out¡¨ the possibility that there are explainable things beyond science? Are you saying that science has the ¡§final¡¨ word on what is explainable and unexplainable?

Just what are some examples of ¡§non-science mumbo jumbo¡¨; specifically, contained within the don Juan paradigm? Are some examples you could cite (had you read the books) be:

„h The universe is like an onion, with worlds layered upon worlds. That the world we perceive right now is only a sliver of the totality of the universe; which, in itself, is unfathomable.

„h That everything is energy. Our sole purpose is to garner and save energy so that when we die we retain our awareness.

„h That there is no such a thing as life after death, reincarnation, heaven/hell, etc.

„h There is no god

I have noticed that while posters here seem to enjoy trying to poke holes in my theories/quasi-beliefs, in turn, they do not appear to have the cajones to step up to the plate and reciprocate. Sure. I started the thread and it¡¦s topic. But, let¡¦s just see how ridiculous your (JWK? Bonzer? Irishman? Dexter Haven?) beliefs might appear once dissected. IMO, my theories haven¡¦t been logically refuted because they are very difficult to assault.

67

Speaking personally, I haven’t really commented on your theories/quasi-beliefs at all. Though I have certainly commented on your apparent enthusiasm for a discredited source (Holy Blood and Holy Grail).
That said, I think there’s a misunderstanding here. The issue isn’t about my beliefs nor anybody else’s. Including your’s. After all, Cecil’s column isn’t about science and spirituality. It’s about a specific historical issue. In somewhat extreme terms, was Carlos a faithful reporter of things or wasn’t he ? One’s opinion on this historical question clearly can have an impact on one’s beliefs about spirituality. But, for the most part, proving or disproving anything about the latter doesn’t imply anything about the reliability of his account. Any number of things normally regarded as outside the realm of science could be proven, but it wouldn’t change this historical question. True, if his more specific claims were independently found to be true, his credibility would increase. But liars can be correct sometimes and people can be sincere, yet wrong. Just as the honest can be incorrect and the insincere right. And, in this event, he’d largely be of historical interest anyway. Why confirm at secondhand through a book what can be verified firsthand ?
Cecil’s bias on the grander spiritual issues is very evident in the column, but note that his answer to the historical question is largely “we’ll never know for certain”.

In line with the above, I think this is already OT for the question Cecil was answering. But a well-fashioned query in General Questions asking someone to explain this kind of thing stands a fair chance of getting a rational answer. After all, there certainly appear to be a number of SMDB posters who at least pretend to understand that sort of stuff.

[Admitedly, the most recent thread on “what was before the Big Bang” - which I have looked for, but can’t find - was a bit of a trainwreck. It’s the sort of question everybody is, naturally, interested in and opinionated about, but I got the impression that some of the contributors had little idea what was after it.]

68

If the universe is like an onion, does that mean it wouldn’t go well with ice cream?

69

No-I think it means that, unless we peel it underwater, there’s going to be tears aplenty.

70

And, if not underwater, could we at least peel it in another forum? Even Baby Jesus is starting to cry in this one. :wink:

71

Bonzer: (<< >>)

<<Speaking personally, I haven’t really commented on your theories/quasi-beliefs at all. Though I have certainly commented on your apparent enthusiasm for a discredited source (Holy Blood and Holy Grail).>>

That is not an accurate statement. Only the first half of the book has apparently been discredited. “The Priest King who never Lived” and onward has not and IMO never will be disproved; or proved, for that matter as being true. People interpret what went on back then through their own filters and arrive at different conclusions.

<<That said, I think there’s a misunderstanding here. The issue isn’t about my beliefs nor anybody else’s. Including your’s. After all, Cecil’s column isn’t about science and spirituality. It’s about a specific historical issue. In somewhat extreme terms, was Carlos a faithful reporter of things or wasn’t he ? One’s opinion on this historical question clearly can have an impact on one’s beliefs about spirituality. But, for the most part, proving or disproving anything about the latter doesn’t imply anything about the reliability of his account.>>

I repeat: I have noticed that while posters here seem to enjoy trying to poke holes in my theories/quasi-beliefs, in turn, they do not appear to have the cajones to step up to the plate and reciprocate. But, to address your statement…

Well, I don’t see it that way. The subject, or issue, of this thread is “Did Carlos Make it all up?” which would include not only whether timelines he reported or descriptions of the Sonoran desert jive as well as whether the salient points of his paradigm make any sense. Cecil based his opinion solely on the former and I am including the latter.

As to whether proving/disproving anything about spirituality imparting any sort of reliability regarding this subject, I would also tend to see it differently. First of all, I’m not quite sure this is a matter of spirituality even though the paradigm says there is no god. But, let’s say it is for arguments sake. If the paradigm of spirituality reads like the rantings of a raving lunatic but the “reliability of reporting” has no contradictions, then there is definitely a cloud of suspicion hanging over it (case in point, IMO, is the L. Ron Hubbard paradigm). Don’t get me wrong, there already IS a cloud of suspicion which is why there is so much debate and even I am not entirely convinced.

My “opinion on this historical question” of Carlos’s being a faithful reporter or not is heavily swayed by the paradigm itself and not whether or not Carlos and don Juan went on exhaustive hikes at 12 noon during the month of August in the Sonoran desert. IMO, I tend to feel he had a teacher and Carlos wove around it (the teachings) many things to make a good read and to protect sources and places.
<<Any number of things normally regarded as outside the realm of science could be proven, but it wouldn’t change this historical question.>>

I’m not sure how one would go about proving such non-scientific things since that, I think, is the only way to prove something like what we are discussing even though it is “unprovable” by science (I hope that made sense) to-date.

I really feel people get too wrapped up in the particulars. I really wish I didn’t see a lot of logic in the paradigm because it doesn’t make me feel comfortable. I’d much rather believe I get to be reincarnated. But, as Carlos was once quoted saying: “What? You’re too good to just die?”

The same view is applicable to the Bible. Once you start scrutinizing the historical details and “miracles” it all starts to unravel. But it still has its followers because of the message.

<<True, if his more specific claims were independently found to be true, his credibility would increase. But liars can be correct sometimes and people can be sincere, yet wrong. Just as the honest can be incorrect and the insincere right. And, in this event, he’d largely be of historical interest anyway.>>

Yes, I agree. However, there is never going to be anyway for it to be independently verified by anyone other than a successful practitioner of the paradigm (trust me, if you’ve read the books you agree), AND, that person will not be posting on any forum, publishing an article on it, or granting interviews.

<<Why confirm at secondhand through a book what can be verified firsthand ?>>

It ain’t that easy. Why don’t I just become a world-class top ten tennis champion at age 50?

<<Cecil’s bias on the grander spiritual issues is very evident in the column, but note that his answer to the historical question is largely "we’ll never know for certain>>

We agree here

72

carlos was a liar (re: full of shit)
i happen to live here in the lands that he was to have supposedly ‘studied’ in. i know many yaquis have been a student and friend/participant of their culture for quite few years. iam a native here from this land ( one of the original inhabitants, we are the only ‘aboriginal peoples’ here in the southern half of what is now Arizona, USA.(get a map, to see what i mean))
<<The yaquis themselves are not aboriginal to Arizona or the northern half of Sonora, Mexico.>>
they have been here in the U.S. only since 1910 as a result of the land reclamation policies of the Mexican gov’mt of the 1880’s to early 1900’s.
the only ‘home lands’ the yaquis can claim are in the southern edges of the state of Sonora, Mex.( the lower reaches of the Rio Yaqui.)
As a result the yaquis in Arizona are a very disposesed and sumarily confused lot.
the refugees that came north in the early 1900’s to escape the wars and loss of land have now been established as a “federally recognized indian tribe”. Only after much debate and inquiry did the Yaqui barely, BY JUST A HAIR, gain recognition here inthe USA.

NO tribe in the US could or would support the claims of the YAqui to have that status of being a “recognized tribe, indigenous to the United states of America.”( most tribes and historians will only know them as refugees, or in the modern American border parlance “wet-backs"and 'squatters”( i myself do not believe using those terms,’ brand-new folks’ suits me))
The only way this occured was by hocus-pocus and a lot of smoke and mirrors( probly a few greased hands of anthros too,)

Be that as it may, they are now doing quite well here.
The sad part is that being a dispossed people they have lost a grip on much of their aboriginal culture. They now have bought into that distorted report of castenedas to represent their identity! imagine that !! a ready made expose’ of your culture, in paperback!!
Instant indian identity, just add ignorance of history!!!
It comes now that the truly knowledgable yaqui practitioners are on the outside looking in (cuturally speaking). While castenedas follwers are in the forefront as great exponents of Yaqui cuture!

I had read the books about 7 years ago. great reading, full of drama and suspense. (he should have added a few car-chases, a few sex-scenes)
but to have it shoved down your throat as ‘culturally correct’? culturally accurate???
what nonsense!!!
its a sad day when you need carlos casteneda to validate your culture…<:(>:smack: :smack: :smack:

73

again.
carlos cateneda was a liar , i dont believe that he probly ever even met a real yaqui.
to me it sound s like he skimed a few books and smoked smoked some dobies and stewed up a lot of eclectic sources to cook up the ‘rings of power’ story line ( frodo are you listening ??)
none of the references to the yaqui culture ring with any sort of truth or revelence.
the yaquis now in the post-casteneda era, have bought the books as a actual guide book to their culture.
the real yaqui elders are vocal on that point.(casteneda does not represent thier culture)
i think that it says more about the loss and desire of identity and land base than anything else.
its much easier to go along with a larger lie than to seek out the truth about culture.
being reenforced by newagers and wanna be indian types and the confused indians themselves gives the whole complex much more credibilty than it would have deserved otherwise.
a whole wealth of references are available to any one who cares to write a big seller about natives. this has been done time and time again. ( past lives are a big thing; my former life was an indian chief, a princess, a shaman, etc. etc.)

it is not to say that it is wrong, this wealth(the recording and anthropological study, co-writing w/natives, the current state of our cultures availble in current media) i speak about is there for a reason.
to remind us, the human race, that we are not apart from this earth.
that we are RESPONSIBLE to this planet, for its continued operation.

the degradation of the earth is the degradation of our future and our childrens future( did somebody say iraq? acid rain? the depletion of the ozone? endangered species? global warming??? etc.etc.???))

the thoughts and words of our aboriginal people( i am one of many) are a vision of what had been, and of what still could be.
casteneda efforts are good as he tried, to cause that thought to emerge from a closed space.

but that was then, i believe we can stand on truth and leave the fantasies where they belong, in the fiction section.
his work should not be taken as anything other than wishful fantasy.

our story is much more facinating than that.
my thing is that if you had been touched by his writting, then perhaps you will seek out the truth about my native people, it is everywhere (books, any source, forget casteneda, find a real native)( or like my people say it is written in every stone, every breeze, if you would only stop and listen, it will be made seen)
i hope i have not offended anyone, i only grow tired of lies, i think that we can move forward in the efforts of humanity to live responsibly on this planet, in this life as one people.
this has been our word from the begining.
i wish you all well:cool:

74

well …? any takers?

75

:stuck_out_tongue: