Hello everyone,
I have read all the books. I love them and find them super valuable in many ways. Deep respect for Castaneda... nobody else could have done what he did. I also love the practical applications explored on this sub. I'm a beginner but fascinated with darkroom in particular.
Something I've been thinking about (and maybe other beginners do too) is how literally should I take what is described in the books?
I don't think Castaneda is a fraud or even a liar. I for one think that the books are for the most part non-fiction but they are complicated works and I think this conversation is good to have especially for people reading about Castaneda's reputation.
An example of something that tripped me up a bit is in "The Power of Silence" a jaguar chases Carlos and Don Juan. From the little I know about jaguars, I know that they avoid humans and don't hunt them. They certainly attack humans in some rare cases but that part of the book made me wonder about whether or not this was a literal organic animal jaguar. I know it is possible that this could happen but it just seems very unlikely.
This is one example of something happening in the books where Castaneda describes an event that is seemingly physically occuring in ordinary reality but would be hard for some to believe.
Some things I've been thinking about and maybe you guys can chime in...
Did they encounter the jaguar because of magic? Was this encounter based on a movement of the assemblage point?
Was the jaguar an inorganic being?
Is it possible that Castaneda sometimes bent the truth in a literal sense in order to make a better story or teaching point?
Can we forgive him if his field notes or recollection wasn't always perfect?
Do things like this even matter when compared with the vast array of incredible feats described in the book?
Is it better for readers to focus on his main message (moving the assemblage point) and let little things like this go? Or should we go down the rabbit hole of how accurate the books are?
3 Comments
Yeah, you just wanna get started on the tensegrity. Pick some passes from the Magical Passes book and just do it, lol.
Like, I mean, do it for the hell of doing it and don't even think about it. Silence comes down subtly, like the colours will just be there someday if you keep doing it.
Removed for an unspecified reason. Further details may, or may not, be forthcoming from the mods.
Please report content in violation of any of this subreddit's rules to the mods to be evaluated. - This will make it publicly unviewable until it can be assessed.
I suppose that you posted with an alt before, but in case you didn't, here it is again:
This would be better asked in the Megathread, and will stay removed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/castaneda/comments/1ohs6wj/megathread_chat_channel_replacement/
But I agree with Don Juan, that it doesn't matter at all whether it is "true", you're trying to construct an inventory of whether it is true. If you obsess over a jaguar, then why shouldn't you obsess over how Carlos turned himself gigantic, or the Eagle? You can obsess all day over whether it is true, and not get one step further.
"Is all this true, don Juan?"
"To say yes or no to your question is doing. But since you are learning not-doing I have to tell you that it really doesn't matter whether or not all this is true. It is here that a warrior has a point of advantage over the average man. An average man cares that things are either true or false, but a warrior doesn't. An average man proceeds in a specific way with things that he knows are true, and in a different way with things that he knows are not true. If things are said to be true, he acts and believes in what he does. But if things are said to be untrue, he doesn't care to act, or he doesn't believe in what he does. A warrior, on the other hand, acts in both instances. If things are said to be true, he would act in order to do doing. If things are said to be untrue, he still would act in order to do not-doing. See what I mean?"