The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#2Interesting read, thanks! Btw I did enjoy his books when I was a teenager, but never fought they where real...
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#3Peter Coyote narration of his main book is pretty good. I credit it with getting me into audiobooks.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#4Interesting read, thanks! Btw I did enjoy his books when I was a teenager, but never fought they where real...
You were in excellent company, then! I've read other anthropological books from the period that took Castaneda more or less at face value...
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#5I find it curious that Richard de Mille, the person who helped permanently mar Castaneda's reputation, was a top Scientologist. Though this is pure speculation, I believe de Mille, being L. Ron Hubbard's personal assistant, would have been instructed to take down Castaneda. As an up and coming spiritual belief system/religion, Scientologists might have seen Castaneda's popularity with those on a spiritual path, as a threat.
I read a few books by Castaneda when I was younger, and enjoyed them immensely. So when I later found out that his research was "proven" to be a hoax it made me quite sad, and diminished in my eyes, one of the literary and spiritual heroes of my youth. But when I read up on de Mille's aforementioned involvement in a shady religion, one that spouts the most absurd things as gospel, it gave me a bit of comfort. Though it doesn't falsely de Mille's research, it definitely is a conflict of interest, or rather, it shows a blatant hypocrisy, and makes me wonder if he had an ulterior motive. How can a researcher, with a straight face, claim someone has promulgated made up information, when they themselves do so as well? Do I really need to give an example? Okay: Xenu.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#6I took Castaneda's experiences as reflecting his impressions of reality under the influence of both a powerful personality (Don Juan) and drugs not as a description of scientific reality itself. His books offered considerable philosophical truth as well an understanding of how others might experience reality. I consider them worth reading.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#7I find it curious that Richard de Mille, the person who helped permanently mar Castaneda's reputation, was a top Scientologist. Though this is pure speculation, I believe de Mille, being L. Ron Hubbard's personal assistant, would have been instructed to take down Castaneda. As an up and coming spiritual belief system/religion, Scientologists might have seen Castaneda's popularity with those on a spiritual path, as a…
It isn't new. E.g. islamic "miracles" are debunked mostly by "christian sciencists" and vice versa, and between various flows of one, and these camps do not hesitate to produce a mass of papers that actually have some science and analysis underneath (like linguistics, history, astronomy and so on). So come on, no one except opposing fanatics will do that while in sober mind.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#8I find it curious that Richard de Mille, the person who helped permanently mar Castaneda's reputation, was a top Scientologist. Though this is pure speculation, I believe de Mille, being L. Ron Hubbard's personal assistant, would have been instructed to take down Castaneda. As an up and coming spiritual belief system/religion, Scientologists might have seen Castaneda's popularity with those on a spiritual path, as a…
I know of very close people who followed Castaneda's teachings. Although they won't tell me exactly, but as I understand, it "did" work. And without a teacher to guide them, it was taking an uncontrollable trajectory. Hence they quit.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#9Was it Josephus who called Christians "literal minded fools" for believing in the literal truth of the same foundational myth of so many other religions at that time? To take a myth literally does it disservice; there is value in the basic myth of a dead, dying, and reborn god. If you don't think so, then you are incapable of understanding and appreciating "American Gods" properly as well as any other aspect of religion / spirituality - and I feel sorry for you.
Anyhow, America in 1965-1970s was just as naive, from this later vantage point in time. Carlos was a trickster and to write up a fable that repackaged all the info he acquired in his extensive research as a real world anthropology study makes perfect sense. His early books has literary value, and for those who can see below the surface of it, some more value. You just have to be open to it, and that is how a trickster operates.
A friend of mine who has Native American ancestry was livid when I gave her the first book to read - there were things in there "not for the white man to know". I understand what she meant these days. White people are idiots.
I have heard of de Mille, have his book somewhere, but had no idea he was a Scientologist. That explains _everything_. Big upvote for sunsbelly. A few people I know who lived the "60s" are rather down on Castaneda. They understand what he was trying to do, but they had friends who were too literal minded and so got lost in the bullshit. It was a chaotic era. But there is always going to be a large number of people who get lost in the bullshit, the current bullshit being around ayahuasca these days.
Re: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda (2007)
#10I find it curious that Richard de Mille, the person who helped permanently mar Castaneda's reputation, was a top Scientologist. Though this is pure speculation, I believe de Mille, being L. Ron Hubbard's personal assistant, would have been instructed to take down Castaneda. As an up and coming spiritual belief system/religion, Scientologists might have seen Castaneda's popularity with those on a spiritual path, as a…
De Mille left scientology around '54 because he got skeptical. Castaneda's first book was published in '68. De Mille published his takedown of Castaneda in '76.
This interview with him is beautifully clear, probably because he's heard so much bullshit wrapped with fancy words in his life: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/d...