Carlos Castaneda

[frederica]

Al, already put one site up that give the PhD info.  Another site just for history is: http://sociologyeoscience.com/esoterica/castan.html.  frederica

[Moma_porcupine]

Re: Sustained Reaction
« Reply #10 on
Custodian   

Though Sustain Action still claims to be about the Legacy of Castaneda, it is now a website run by exclusively by small minded rednecks dedicated to advancing the idea that the human spirit is a myth and the spiritual ideals of mankind are all false in nature and that nothing mystical exists outside of the tiny phyisical reality of everyday life.

You know custodian , it can be really hard to prove something doesn't exist , beyond all doubt. How do you know you aren't a sheep sleeping in a pasture somewhere , dreaming you are human ? Can you prove it ? I bet you can't . Maybe theres an invisble planet right beside the earth . Can you prove it isn't there ? Bet you can't .

But there is a point when trying to rationalize repeated abusive behavior and contradictions becomes dangerous, and is  really a sign of mental illness . It looks to me there is more than enough evidence Castenada was a fraud for people who are mentally healthy to read the writing on the wall .

I mean , if you are a woman on a dark night , and a stranger grabs you and starts pawing you and smells like booze , maybe they were just out of mouth wash and gargled with whisky , and maybe there was a spider on your chest they are squashing it before it bites you . Maybe they want you to get in their car because they are trying to teach you to disassemble your negative expectations about drunk men ... But anyone who makes major life descions , by believing what they want to believe, and explaining away obvious warning signs, is going to be in trouble .

Often people who have been abused as children learn to use denial and magical thinking as a coping stratagy , and they repeat the pattern of accepting abuse long after they could make choices to prevent being hurt again . instead these people continue to use denial and magical thinking to try and make whats wrong , right. The more denial is used the more problems people have in their lives , and the more problems the more pain ,and the more pain the more denial.

Cult leaders know how to play on this dynamic .

I'm not at all saying there is no Sacredness and deep Mysteries within our ordinary lives , and most of us have had things happen in our lives that give us a deep feeling of wonder and reverence that there is something bigger going on , than our little personal fragile melodramas .

The thing that is most disgusting about cult leaders , is they are all to happy to take credit for peoples *gifts* that were given by something much more Sacred and profound then THEM , and they exploit and take over peoples experince of touching the Sacred and use it to make themselves important .
When people get mixed up with a Spiritual exploiter , after a while these prescious magical parts of our lives can be really hard to separate from these con artists egotisical and abusive garbage . A lot of people can't figure out how to do it , and it really hurts . Who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water ? So they cope by going deeper and deeper into denial and magical thinking .

As a general rule of thumb if someone is gaining attention and money by making claims that can't be proven to be true , AND there is contradicitons in what they are claiming AND you are attached to believing what that person is saying is true , you probably have a problem , and are vulnerable to being exploited by a cult leader.

[frederica]

You have that right MP. http://sociologyesoscience.com/esoterica/castan.html  frederica

[Laurel]

Castaneda again?  He was already an embarrassment when I was taking cultural anthro courses 20 years ago--or, rather, the one prof in the department who believed his stuff was.  "I KNOW Carlos."  Kinda like Bush looking into Putin's soul or whatever, she just KNEW that man would not lie about his head turning into a crow.  Sheeeeeeesh. 

[custodian]

Castaneda again?  He was already an embarrassment when I was taking cultural anthro courses 20 years ago--or, rather, the one prof in the department who believed his stuff was.  "I KNOW Carlos."  Kinda like Bush looking into Putin's soul or whatever, she just KNEW that man would not lie about his head turning into a crow.  Sheeeeeeesh. 

Amazing Laurel.

I need to ask you though, twenty year ago when you fiirst 'decided' that Carlos Castaneda was a fraud, outside of potentially succumbing to some growing general consensus at that time, did you have any actual evidence available to you then to draw such a conclusion?

[custodian]

I basicly agree with you , and i trust the power of simply telling the truth . However , this forum has to contend with a constant influx of new posters who have absolutely no intrest in telling the truth or in having the truth told about them .

Thank you for the response, Moma P.

I believe that when we think we know 'the truth' we must then abide it and speak it clearly.

I also believe that most 'truths' need to be discovered first before they can be spoken.

Lastly I believe that anyone who is always busy 'speaking the truth' will likely be too busy to actually discover 'the truth'.

In regards to Carlos Castaneda, I have been actively seeking to discover the truth of the matter for decades now.

I came here just yesterday and invited any interested parties to paricpate in my Castaneda research.

The first party to respond aggressively expressed their personal opinion that Castaneda was a fraud.

This person then tried to support that opinion with what proved out to be false statements that UCLA agreed with her and revoked the PHD granted to Castaneda.

Just as I was trying to bring this to the attention of the first poster, other posters intervened into the Castaneda inquiry and arbitrarily declared that regardless of the previous false statements about UCLA, Castaneda was nonetheless a known fraud  and that there must be something wrong with me for failing to agree with that opinion.

What is up here Moma P? Are some types of inquiry forbiden here at this website?

Are some types of truth unwelcome here?

[debbieredbear]

Custodian,

You want us to prove he was a fraud. How about you coming up with absolute, incontrovertable proof that he wasn't? I am not talking about links on the net etc. YOU come up with absolute proof that there was a Don Juan Matus. Birth certificates, pictures etc. Then you prove that he actually taught Castaneda. And that proof would need to be eye witnesses NOT enamored of Castaneda with "no dog in the fight". Meaning they are totally impartial. Prove that, and some of us might listen.

[custodian]

You want us to prove he was a fraud. How about you coming up with absolute, incontrovertable proof that he wasn't?

Though I do seek evidence either proving Castaneda to be a fraud or a sincere teacher, in the interrim I refuse to adopt either position and close my mind to either possibility.

I strongly advise anyone lacking actual evidence of any particuar thing being true or false to maintain an open mind about that thing and believe nothing.

If I gain evidence regarding Castaneda, I will share it, of course.

[debbieredbear]

Custodian,

You are not being honest here. You ask our opinion. My opinion is and always has been that Castaneda is as phoney as it gets. You did not ask people to join in research. You asked what we thought. Further more, you have little interest in finding out that he is a fraud, you want to prove that he wasn't. I doubt few on this board want to join you in proving castaneda was real. As I told you in the other thread: Prove Don Juan was real. Use birth certificates, baptismal records etc. Prove that he taught Castenada using impartial eye witnesses. And stop trying to force your belief that he was real and not a fraud on those of us who aren't going but it.

[Laurel]

"[...]did you have any actual evidence available to you then to draw such a conclusion?"

Not hard evidence as in a signed statement saying 'I made it up,' no.  The opinion of the vast majority of those in the field he got his doctorate in and some reading I did helped me decide.  Later, after I got on the internet I did some reading on-line and in academic databases that confirmed that for me.     

Twenty years ago I really wanted to believe in that stuff BTW. 

[Moma_porcupine]

Educated Indian    
Re: Carlos Castaneda
« Reply #11

Or the most obvious facts of all (ones that even many anthros overlooked) that nothing in his falsehoods had the slightest resemblance to Yaqui, Mayan, or Toltec beliefs, or any Native beliefs, for that matter.

Ghost Dog

"some feel you're a tad presumptuous to be judging anybody as a fraud..."

Educated Indian

That's amusing, coming from people who actually thought "recapitulation" and "Tensegrity" actually had anything to do with any Native beliefs.

Custodian

What is up here Moma P? Are some types of inquiry forbiden here at this website?

Are some types of truth unwelcome here?

Repeated stupid inquiries that refuse to accept the obvious aren't welcome here . All the evidence is Castenada was a fraud . If you can show some proof he wasn't , fine , but endless arguing the finer points and remote possibilities , while ignoring the basic facts which clearly discredit him , is just a waste of everyones time . If you need to believe a fantasy for some reason , that is your problem . Don't expect people here to support it .

[educatedindian]

C, you must be either kidding (perhaps even kidding yourself). Anyone can see you are a devoted Castaneda follower, even to the point of deliberately choosing to not see or deal with piles of evidence right in front of you.

You tell me which is more likely:

That millions of Mayans and Yaquis actually know their own culture, and so do Natives and academics and historians and the thousands of written sources besides the GWL on these cultures...

...Or that a guy tripping on psychedelics whose been debunked endlessly for forty years somehow is still right and everybody else is wrong?

Again, even HE admitted he was a fraud by the late 70s, and gleefully mocked his own followers who continued to believe in him no matter much he lied or treated them with obvious contempt.

When you're ready to show us you have an inquiring mind that actually looks at the facts, rather than just fanatical devotion to Castaneda's racist fantasies, let us know. 

[educatedindian]

C, you continue to harp on Debbie's very minor mistake as if it somehow proves anything about your Great Wise Leader.

All that it proves is that one particular white anthropologist who wrote the intro for a Castaneda book is lacking in ethics, and that the UCLA Anthro Dept decided to cover their own behinds rather than admit being wrong.

And what you hear is not "aggression." It's frustration at having to repeat ourselves, just because you won't listen.

Can't you see youre practicing a double standard? You're not applying any rigor to your GWL, but you are to a ludicrous extent to eveything else.

You know, most people don't give drug users' hallucinations much credence. Why should this one be any different?

And now, because you're hijacking this thread about SR and making it all about the GWL, I'm moving all these posts over to the Castaneda thread where they belong. Let's try to stay on topic.

[weheli]

 I have been reading these threads as well as SR threads ,as I read that NAFPS was being discussed there. I have not commented as this topic has been discussed on this forum before. I couldn't help but notice a poster on Sr going by the name of Medicine Man. He is quite opinionated about NAFPS on that site and has even been told by other posters there to post here, but I have noticed he is "not up to it".
Medicine Man why do you hide like a child behind thier mommas skirt? You will not be chased away with a broomstick or thumped on the head. Just speak the truth of it all. I would like a chat with you.
                                                                       Wado Weheli

[ra6as]

Hello weheli, I would be glad to converse here,

I have one request: if what I say is unacceptable, please do not delete just part of my message ~ please delete the whole message, and either leave it to me to figure out how I transgressed, or, if appropriate, leave a short note in its place explaining in general terms what you feel I ought to know.

If there is anything I've said (here or at SR) about NAFPS which you object to, please say so and if appropriate I will either defend or retract.

Just so you know where I stand: I am an Asian European, I never met Castaneda nor (as far as I know) any of his students;  I am interested in him because I enjoyed his books greatly, because they resonate deeply, and because I can't account for the intensity of the emotional antagonism against him at SR.

As you have quite a focussed mission here, you might well not be interested in talking about all that, in which case we could just talk about the criticisms of NAFPS at SR.
 
[Barnaby's note] ra6as is known as b2bhutan on the Sustained Reaction forum, and is not one of the handful acting like kids who've had their toys taken away over there.