Sustained Reaction


Sustained Reaction Archive - Page 2

Archive Message Index

Allegations - From: Flyboy - Date: 10/25/99
Final word - From: Flyboy - Date: 10/25/99
Re: Allegations - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/25/99
Example of "warrior's sobriety" over on Tigre - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Allegations - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Final word - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/26/99
What Carlos was REALLY doing! - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Death defier's eye - Rich Jennings - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/26/99
Whatever - From: nobody - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Whatever - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Allegations - From: Flyboy - Date: 10/26/99
Some Questions... Mr Lawton ? - From: J. Stender - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Allegations - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/26/99
Analysis - From: Point - Date: 10/26/99
Re: What Carlos was REALLY doing! - From: Anaid - Date: 10/26/99
The Guru Papers - From: Logan - Date: 10/26/99
Re: What Carlos was REALLY doing! - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/26/99
Re: Death defier's eye - Rich Jennings - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/27/99
Re: Some Questions... Mr Lawton ? - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/27/99
Re: Analysis - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/27/99
Re: The Guru Papers - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/27/99
Re: The Guru Papers - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/27/99
Re: You're too much... - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/27/99
For the love of God... - From: Kevin Peterson - Date: 10/27/99
Re: For the love of what? - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/27/99
More Analysis - From: Point - Date: 10/27/99
Re: More Analysis - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/28/99
Carlos succeeded where Leary failed? - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/28/99
too close... for Dan et al. - From: eidolon - Date: 10/28/99
Re: More Analysis - From: Truth or Consequences? - Date: 10/28/99
Re: too close... for Dan et al. - From: Corey Donovan - Date: 10/28/99
Re: too close... for Dan et al. - From: Daniel Lawton - Date: 10/29/99
Re: Flyboy - From: Calixto - Date: 10/30/99

-----
Allegations
From: Flyboy
Date: 10/25/99

Cleargreen needs to publicly, officially and completely address

1. The situation with Carol Tiggs.

2. The situation with Nury Alexander.

As far as the sex allegations go, if sexual harassment has occurred, then of course Cleargreen is legally liable. But if sex has occurred between consenting adults, then there isn't much anyone ought to say about it.

I don't know who Victoria and Virginia are. I don't know which Trackers or which Cleargreen employees Castaneda supposedly had sex with. If these people have a story to tell, I want them to tell it. I don't want it coming out in the form of vague and bitter innuendos from third or fourth parties who are failed sorcerers venting on this message board.

As far as the attacks on Castaneda go, I'll say this: He commanded such loyalty from the women of his party that they actually went to the lengths of living in this alleged charlatan's house for many years, while remaining anonymous to the general public. Apparently Florinda was connected with him for 10 years before writing a book and publicly corroborating his story, Nury was associated with him for about 15 years before going public, Taisha for 20 years and Joanie for perhaps more than 30 years. (The situation with Carol, of course, I'm less clear about.) The people who have created this web site have offered no theory to account for this behavior. Why did NOT ONE of these women ever walk away?

What were they gaining from their association with Castaneda, since before the creation of Cleargreen there seemed to be little or no financial motivation for them to remain with him?

-----
Final word
From: Flyboy
Date: 10/25/99

I would like to continue this discussion, but it so happens that I'm leaving this afternoon for what you might call a three-month stalking maneuver, and I won't be on-line during that time.

I'd like to sign off by making what I think is a most vital point about all this:

If you are meant to become a seer, then intent will FORCE you to become one. It will drive you into such a corner that becoming a seer is the only way you can continue your life.

If, on the other hand, you CHOOSE to become a seer, then you will fail in your effort, because you have an agenda that will prohibit your obliterating your individual self, and because you won't be willing to go to the extremes that becoming a seer requires.

This isn't for everybody. In fact, it's for VERY FEW people indeed. Anyone who is even remotely satisfied with his or her life and who can psychologically survive in the world of men will not be able to do this, and in many ways should count himself or herself lucky.

-----
Re: Allegations
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/25/99

Flyboy says: >>>>I would like to continue this discussion, but it so happens that I'm leaving this afternoon for what you might call a three-month stalking maneuver, and I won't be on-line during that time.<<<<

Wow, that's rather convenient and not a little arrogant, isn't it? Over a few days you seem to be trying to respond to issues raised on this site (well, primarily by minimizing and explaining away inconvenient facts, but at least you've read the material). As soon as you complete your statement, however, you claim that you will not be online to continue the discussion for three months. Are you sure you're not on staff at Cleargreen? ;-)

Flyboy: >>>>I don't know who Victoria and Virginia are. I don't know which Trackers or which Cleargreen employees Castaneda supposedly had sex with. If these people have a story to tell, I want them to tell it. I don't want it coming out in the form of vague and bitter innuendos from third or fourth parties who are failed sorcerers venting on this message board. <<<<

"Failed sorcerers"? The only "failed sorcerers" around here are the ones who write a dozen books setting themselves up as the unique "three-pronged" nagual charged with "closing this lineage with a golden clasp," who constantly claims to be in exceptional health for his advanced age because of Tensegrity and sorceric practices, but who ups and dies of a degenerative liver disease at the age of 72.

Flyboy again: >>>>As far as the attacks on Castaneda go, I'll say this: He commanded such loyalty from the women of his party that they actually went to the lengths of living in this alleged charlatan's house for many years, while remaining anonymous to the general public. Apparently Florinda was connected with him for 10 years before writing a book and publicly corroborating his story, Nury was associated with him for about 15 years before going public, Taisha for 20 years and Joanie for perhaps more than 30 years. (The situation with Carol, of course, I'm less clear about.) The people who have created this web site have offered no theory to account for this behavior. Why did NOT ONE of these women ever walk away?<<<<

How closely have you been reading this material? A number of Castaneda's women *did* walk away, and others were sent away (usually after being required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, in return for some kind of payment). The ones who stayed probably were psychologically drawn to act out roles in the drama of a charismatic, grandiose narcissist (not to mention the fact that they were supported financially by Castaneda, who in the case of Nury, for example, not only paid her tuition and housing, but also covered her frequent shopping sprees). Did you read the material here from *The Guru Papers* or *Prophetic Charisma,* both of which present rather strong theories to "account for this behavior," behavior which, BTW, is not at all unique in the annals of charismatic, authoritarian guru types? Moreover, some of them were allowed to have other lovers--didn't you read the part about Carol marrying Bruce Wagner and Florinda marrying Tracy Kramer?

Flyboy: >>>>What were they gaining from their association with Castaneda, since before the creation of Cleargreen there seemed to be little or no financial motivation for them to remain with him?<<<<

Little or no financial motivation for them to remain with him? Having one's housing, expenses, cars, tuition and the like paid for may be minor financial motivation for you, but wouldn't be minor for most people. And the ego benefits of being written into Castaneda's story, or being allowed to write their own books claiming to be sorceresses (which, conveniently, corroborate Castaneda's claims, after they had been roundly written off by the anthropology community and other pertinent experts)? And the psychological benefits of being able to act out their own narcissism and make up grandiose stories about themselves with abandon, all in the name of "sorcery"?

Sorry we won't be hearing anything more from you due to your three-month "stalking trip." Bon voyage!

-----
Example of "warrior's sobriety" over on Tigre
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/26/99

Over on Tigre there was a discussion about the Cleargreen statement, and someone piped in that they didn't care that, "I HAVE TO BELIEVE".

I found it a little embarassing because I used to barf up Castaneda concepts like that.

But examine the statement. It's being applied only half way. It's another case of lack of sobriety in practicioners and a willingness to toss out parts of Carlos' system in order to preserve the whole.

The story went that Carlos was only comparing himself to the cat that ran for freedom. Don Juan dressed him down because a warrior had to consider all possibilities. What about the other cat?

So following that piece of Castaneda wisdom absolutely requires looking at all the facts, then making up your mind. In that particular Tigre discussion all anyone could talk about was if it made sense that Carol could come back. Ignored was all the other information, such as the fact that she couldn't have met don Juan as described in Carlos' books, since she was only 12.

So whoever made that statement didn't really HAVE to believe, they WANTED to believe, which is not the same thing.

And according to Carlos himself, in order to judge the system you have to look at the man, after his working hours, when he's living his real life.

So a full sober look at this situation requires taking into account all the info, and even looking at those "unsubstantiated rumours", which cleargreen didn't actually deny.

-----
Re: Allegations
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/26/99

I've heard about at least 5 that walked away, I'm sure that's only a fraction. The ones you see are just the survivors. Some of the walk aways are readily available, try talking with them.

-----
Re: Final word
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/26/99

Anyone can learn to see. It's an inherent human ability. You do it by learning to get silent, which takes a lot of effort and time, but really isn't that difficult. Just sit and be silent until you get it right.

Then you'll see, without the crap and exageration and need to wait for your energy to rise.

What it's good for I haven't a clue. Maybe for art.

The fact is, everyone sees already, they just don't remember it for very long.

-----
What Carlos was REALLY doing!
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/26/99

Someone in another discussion group stated very concisely exactly what I've been realizing for years now (after having been to over 100 private classes with Carlos). Here it is (minus the credits) with my less eloquant reply:

>I believe that Carlos began by making up stories and believed that by dreaming them, he would make them reality, and MORE importantly convincing OTHERS to believe, would make them reality. The act of belief is giving energy to what you believe. But powering an illusion is like feeding yourself to a black hole.

The dangerous part is that it's probably possible to force yourself into mental illness, which is probably what the cleargreen people are doing. I know for a fact that I could force myself to live the "sorcerers life" in a pretty darned good duplicate of how Carlos described it. I could learn to do incredible things in dreaming, all the time, and I could learn to extend the little seeing I do to be anytime. But it would be minus any reality, no physicality. Oddly enough, that's exactly how Carlos' world was. So to me, you're right on. Carlos actually believed he could create and power a new system, and he's convinced cleargreen so too. Maybe some of them they don't really even believe there was a don Juan but think they've created something wonderful anyway. And that wouldn't be so wrong, as long as they let everyone know that was what was going on.

-----
Re: Death defier's eye - Rich Jennings
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/26/99

Eidolon asks rhetorically: "Do you have forgotten the death defier's eye at Westwood, Rich? I have seen you laying down immobile before Carol called you back to life.... Do you 'explain' it now away like everything else your body knows? I wonder...."

I don't believe I ever saw the "death defier's eye." I certainly wanted to see something in Carol's eye at that workshop, and the suggestive set up of the situation and my desire to see something did trigger some strong "dreaming" that night. But that whole thing with the riding crop and the suggestive set up and Carol's black contact lenses ultimately appear to be a parlor trick. So, no, I'm not terribly impressed in hindsight with what was supposed to be the "Death Defier's Eye."

-----
Whatever
From: nobody
Date: 10/26/99

Was he for real or not? I really don't care.

I have read his books, they were an inspiration for me. Without them I wouldn't be where I am now, exploring realms that are - I suppose - outside of the conceptual system of our time.

Let me tell you one thing: reality is always a bit more than what one thinks it is. Many see reality simply as physical interactions in linear time. Certainly it is a practical view, but then it does not leave much room for <I>dreaming</I>, which is an inherent ability in man.

Was he for real or not? I really don't care.

Why should any of you?

If you think someone wastes his/her precious life doing - or believing in - something that may be pointless, you're putting yourself into god's position. Is that wrong? I don't know. Who has the rule book of life? But I can say life is more than an ego game.

Putting it bluntly, get a life.

Regards,

nobody

-----
Re: Whatever
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/26/99

"Nobody" queried: >>>>Was he for real or not? I really don't care. Why should any of you?<<<<

Nobody then commented: >>>>If you think someone wastes his/her precious life doing - or believing in - something that may be pointless, you're putting yourself into god's position. Is that wrong? I don't know. Who has the rule book of life? But I can say life is more than an ego game. Putting it bluntly, get a life. <<<<

Nobody, you're more than welcome to waste your precious life doing whatever you like as far as I'm concerned. It seems that you've wasted part of it visiting a website that is an inquiry into Castaneda's legacy. Those of us conducting this inquiry *do* care whether don Juan and/or Castaneda were "for real." And, BTW, Castaneda adamantly insisted throughout his life that everything he'd written about was "real." So why was Castaneda so concerned about whether we thought it was real or not? It may not be important to you, but it seemed important to Castaneda, and it is arguably important to those who must decide whether to stake their lives on the path Castaneda described.

As a refresher, here are key statements Castaneda made over the years regarding whether don Juan and his other characters were real:

1972 - Psychology Today interview with Sam Keen:

SK: "As I followed don Juan through your three books, I suspected, at times, that he was the creation of Carlos Castaneda. He is almost to good to be true-a wise old Indian whose knowledge of human nature is superior to almost everybody's.

CC: "The idea that I concocted a person like don Juan is inconceivable. He is hardly the kind of figure my European intellectual tradition would have led me to invent. The truth is much stranger. I wasn't even prepared to make the changes in my life that my association with don Juan involved."

March 5, 1973 - Time Magazine cover story

Castaneda tells Time correspondent Sandra Burton, "I have not lied or contrived. To contrive would be to pull back and not say anything or give the assurances that everybody seeks."

March 1994 - Details Magazine contains Bruce Wagner's "The Secret Life of Carlos Castaneda: You Only Live Twice."

Quotes, of couse, Castaneda's infamous statement: "I do not lead a double life. I live this life: There is no gap between what I say and what I do." (Bruce also characterizes Florinda and Taisha's books as "bona fide chronicles of their initiation and training.")

March/April 1994 - New Age Journal contains Keith Thompson's "An Interview with Carlos: Portrait of a Sorcerer."

Castaneda: "To deliberately alter don Juan in my books so he would appear consistent and meet the expectations of this or that audience would bring 'subjectivity' to my work, a demon that, according to my best critics, has no place in ethnographic writing." He also claims: "My books are . . . a chronicle of specific experiences and observations in a particular context, reported to the best of my ability. But I do plead guilty to knowingly committing willful acts of ethnography, which is none other than translating cultural experience into writing. . . . . The main thing is, I stand by my work."

December 26, 1995 - L.A. Times Interview with Castaneda by Benjamin Epstein and article about the Chacmools and Tensegrity and the Anaheim workshop.

Q: "Some of your biggest fans will say you've contributed great literature, even great anthropology, but would never call it nonfiction. Others would say you're laughing all the way to the bank."

A: "I invented nothing. Somebody once told me, 'I know Carlos Castaneda. . . .' I said, 'You met Carlos?' He said, 'No, but I saw him in the distance all the time. You know he admitted he made up all that in an interview.' I said, 'Really? What interview, you remember?' He said, 'I read it, I read it. . . .'"

March 1-3, 1996 - Castaneda at the Women's Workshop at UCLA

Carlos said, " People used to say I made Don Juan up!" Then, sweeping his arm, pointing to the first row where the witches were sitting, he said, smiling and looking aghast at the same time, "Well, I couldn't make up these creatures! Make up Carol Tiggs!! I'm scared to death of her!"

February 1997 - Interview with Castaneda published in Uno Mismo (in Chile and Argentina), "El Mundo de don Juan al Alcance de Todos," by Daniel Trujillo Rivas

Castaneda: "We live according to the premises proposed by don Juan and we never deviate from them. Don Juan Matus gave us the formidable example of a man who lived according to what he said." He also responded to a question that mentioned "[t]he belief that your work is merely the product of our literary talent," by claiming, "For thirty years, people have accused Carlos Castaneda of creating a literary character simply because what I report to them does not concur with the anthropological 'a prior,' the ideas established in the lecture halls or in the anthropological field work. . . . . I've been working for more than thirty years in the cognitive world of the shamans of ancient Mexico . . . ."

-----
Re: Allegations
From: Flyboy
Date: 10/26/99

I have access to the internet for one more day,so I thought I'd respond.

Thanks, Daniel, for those well-considered thoughts. "Corey," on the other hand, I seem to have riled a bit. I don't find his explanation of why these women lived with CC convincing at all, especilly the bits about their work being rejectedin academia (this happened only to FD, and years after she met CC), and the opportunity topublish books (FD and TA wrote books MANY YEARS after meeting CC, and CT and Joaniehaven't written one to this day. And as to the free room and board -- that might keep someone around and from not getting their own life for a while, but not for 25 years..

And I noticed that "Corey" didn't deny being a volunteer.

I'll say this: Cleargreen needs to answer for the problems with Carol Tiggs and Nury Alexander. At this point, though, the sex business is simply RUMORS spread ANONYMOUSLY by THIRD PARTIES on the internet whoclearly have an ax to grind, and they should be viewed that way.

You're right. Anyone who is attracted to this stuff hasto be whacked I would NEVER have had anything to do with it if I hadn't been forced. And I think that accounts for whatever success I've had..

-----
Some Questions... Mr Lawton ?
From: J. Stender
Date: 10/26/99

For some reason I am not the least concerned about whether Carlos was a fake. Basically I believe that the system he presented is far too complex and consistent to be the product of his imagination. Besides, I have been into the inner martial arts for all the time Carlos was on my mind (some 14 years) and for several years I suspected that a movement system was underlying the teachings of don Juan. This proved right. But Carlos appearantly went the wrong way and I wonder whether, and in case how much of, his moving system is inflamed, so to speak. In this context I like to ask you something. For the one year I have done Tensegrity movements I have gotten a remarkable persistent discomfort in the area below the ribs. The martial arts has hardened my body and I am used to having a high level of energy. So why this discomfort ?

Another thing. Very many thanks to Mr Lawton for his articles on dreaming and seeing techniques. Good stuff. At the present time I, being a natural dreamer and sort of hermit, are at the point in the systematic approach where I can change dreams. Several times I have isolated scouts and these now start to confront me also in the more normal dreams. I would appreaciate some points of view on the scouts and the role they should have. In particular, what I donīt understand is that now that I have desocialized almost completely, why then get entangled with any being Inorganic beings do not provide company during death and whatever happens after. So what is the rationale for dealing with them (except itīs intereating, but organic women are certainly more so).

The statements that dreaming has no practical use does not fit my experience. I made my inovative masters while sleeping. Every single place I have lived I have dreamt of, in detail, years before going there. During dreamlike conditions I have several times made unambigious war on bacillae, wars that I have won in the span of hours instead of the conventional days.

Another something I wish you would comment on is sexuality. Now that is an endless subject with futile questions and endless speculations. Maybe the clear language of Mr Lawton can cast some light on how to avoid sex thirst in dreams. I donīt mind really, it is actually very comfortable to empty out every now and then but it does break off the dreaming. Though dream women can be really nice they satisfy the most primitive aspect of ones nature, horniness. A real woman would in many ways be a far more valuable partner, although more troublesome. So what I am wondering about is probably the nature of horniness. Is sexual energy mostly released during ejaculation or is it rather the time and emotional engagements that sap the energy ?

Regards Jakob

PS If this letter is not within the frame of topics meant to be discussed here just let me know !

-----
Re: Allegations
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/26/99

Flyboy reiterated: >>>> "Corey," on the other hand, I seem to have riled a bit. I don't find his explanation of why these women lived with CC convincing at all, especilly the bits about their work being rejected in academia (this happened only to FD, and years after she met CC), and the opportunity to publish books (FD and TA wrote books MANY YEARS after meeting CC, and CT and Joanie haven't written one to this day. And as to the free room and board -- that might keep someone around and from not getting their own life for a while, but not for 25 years.<<<<.

So what is it about the psychological explanations referred to in my prior post that you don't understand and therefore refuse to address? If you read my response as saying the main reason they were with Castaneda was the opportunity to write books, you are greatly misinterpreting my prior comments. And you don't think the central female figures in this drama each made out with enough money from Castaneda's estate so that they don't have to work for the rest of their lives? Again, this may not have motivated you to stay with someone who, by most accounts, was a good lover, certainly a good provider and a charismatic, fun person to be around, but for some it would be enough (although for others it wasn't, and they left, as Dan and I have indicated).

Flyboy again: >>>>And I noticed that "Corey" didn't deny being a volunteer. . . . . You're right. Anyone who is attracted to this stuff hasto be whacked I would NEVER have had anything to do with it if I hadn't been forced. And I think that accounts for whatever success I've had.<<<<

This "volunteer vs. forced" construct is your own hang up, based on your insistence on one of the many inconsistent aspects of the books. In what way were *you* "forced" into this path? Did members of Castaneda's party come to your house and remove you, like the stories in the books of members of warriors' parties being recruited? Or were you just compelled by what you read? I was, since it echoed dreaming and other experiences that I'd never seen described anywhere else. (BTW, your denial that you are "whacked" isn't very convincing.)

Flyboy again: >>>>I'll say this: Cleargreen needs to answer for the problems with Carol Tiggs and Nury Alexander.<<<<

Well, they attempted an answer about Carol (over a year after I raised the issue), and it doesn't add up for most of us. Why is it so important for Cleargreen to "answer these questions" when their new answers are likely to be just as self-serving and misleading as their prior answers?

Flyboy finally opines: >>>> At this point, though, the sex business is simply RUMORS spread ANONYMOUSLY by THIRD PARTIES on the internet who clearly have an ax to grind, and they should be viewed that way. <<<<

And what would that "ax" be? The fact that some people are looking for a path with integrity as well as "heart"? The fact that people have begun to share information on these subjects in order to engage other interested people in figuring out what it all meant? What a terrible "ax." ;-)

-----
Analysis
From: Point
Date: 10/26/99

The continuing forensic analysis of the CC and group's activities, inconsistency's, sexual practices and strange behaviour will never resolve the feelings of anger that the SA group is experiencing. It is just more entertainment and a way of distracting you from the pain of the monumental disappointment you feel that CC was not what you hoped.

Why don't you do what you say you want to do and just walk away? Disband this website and let it all dissolve into space. No one with this many unresolved resentments is doing this for anybody but themselves. You don't have to be a Cleargreen practioner to see that. The fact that you mouth these platitudes about honesty and getting to the bottom of things could be just as self serving as you say Cleargreen is.

Cleargreen appeals to the warriorship in people who are open to it and keeps them going in a somewhat uplifted way. The fact that it may or will disappoint is totally a personal issue, not a social one nor one for a campaign. It what they are saying won't work, it will fade. But if Cleargreen is responsible for disillusionment it is because people experimented with it and decided is wasn't suitable. No one should take either your word or Cleargreen's word for anything. If you really feel their whole thing is bogus, encourage people to see for themselves. That is the only way any individual can truly decide how genuine they are.

The SA people have something to offer because of what they have experienced which is why I even read and respond to this site. Recapitulate your experiences with CC and utlimately you actually may have something beneficial to contribute to the development of the direct perception of reality. Now you are just blowing off steam.

-----
Re: What Carlos was REALLY doing!
From: Anaid
Date: 10/26/99

Well I guess you don't feel like explaining right now. When you say that the dreaming and seeing were not real or didn't have any physicality, and in another post you say but seeing and dreaming are a blast and then I think it was you that said that maybe the way society has worked things out is the best way after all...love, relationships, family society's way -- it makes me wonder why you think this path was called the Warrior's way...not the have a nice day way, not the frat boy's way, but the warriors way. Coming to the path as a "volunteer" it seems to me means that someone looks to the warriors way as a way to enhance their daily life, to learn some spiffy tricks that they can use to talk about at dinner or to have members of the opposite sex think that they are mysterious and interesting...I realize I'm kinda all over the place here, but I just don't understand how you can say that dreaming is not real after...well the second book was called a seperate REALITY not a second dream...don't you get the part about the sorcerer's explanation? About how the nagual Elias was in two places at once...as don Juan could be...as Genaro could be...as Carlos was on the cliff...I mean you are sitting there...in a "body", on the surface of a ball spinning thru space, you can't really KNOW even how you or how I got here or what we are doing here or what is going to happen after somehow some part of us leaves and our bodies begin to rot back into the earth maybe...in the sorcerer's explanation don Juan says that all along he was trying to make Carlos feel that there was a little safe corner where he could feel reasonably comfortable and assume that he knew what was going on, that corner being the tonal. Don Juan made out that it was only the nagual that was terrifying and unpredictable...but that too was a trick, for there is also no way for us to KNOW what the hell the TONAL is. Is it the solid predictable REAL PHYSICAL THING you feel pretty certain could NEVER REALLY BE in two places at once...that must be metaphor, right? And "dreaming"...it's not REAL...no "physicality"...but it's a "blast", a fun way to pass an evening...but maybe I misunderstood you. So I'll ask you again, what did you mean when you said those things...and when did you lose your awe?

-----
The Guru Papers
From: Logan
Date: 10/26/99

Corey rights: Did you read the material here from *The Guru Papers* or *Prophetic Charisma,* both of which present rather strong theories to "account for this behavior," behavior which, BTW, is not at all unique in the annals of charismatic, authoritarian guru types?<<<

Your presentation of the "Guru Papers" fails to make an analytical comparison to Castaneda. You introduce the material with your own thoughts then the rest is just quotes as if you are letting the author speak for yourself. For myself, a reader who never rubbed shoulders with Castaneda, "The Guru Papers" is meaningless. You don't present a situation in which Castaneda behaved as a guru along with "The Guru Papers" in support of your observations. Elsewhere, in other articles, you and other authors make a point of recounting certain situations in which you observed Castaneda acting as a Guru but almost no one puts their observations or own thoughts along with their chosen "excerpts." I have read that some authors on this site that post pages and pages of "excerpts" from books that support their theories do so because they want the reader to draw their own conclusions. But how is the reader supposed to do that? The observations are in one area the "excerpts" in another.

CalixtoM (David Worrel) does a good job of showing us his twisted thought process as he dissects Cleargreens comments & Castaneda's theories. Some others do as well. But a large majority of writers here at SA just introduce their excerpts by saying " I believe that this is how Castaneda was -excerpt-excerpt-excerpt." This is tantamount to saying "Castaneda acted Just as this author says." Where's the critical thinking skills here? Why the need to turn over all your thoughts, observations and feelings over to yet another author?

Anyone could easily take excerpts from your posted "Guru Papers" and make a very convincing argument that the Sustained Action members have deep psychological problems that make them turn to anyone they deem to be in an authoritative position and turn their thoughts, feelings and observations over to them just for a sense of personal satisfaction. SA members say that this is what happens in a Guru situation and this is what happened to them with Castaneda. (And it seems to be what is happening all over again with page after page of "excerpts" that imply that "This author says exactly what I see and say and feel about the whole situation I was involved in.")

A reading of the "Guru Papers" shows that the "followers" of a "Guru" are just as screwed up as the "Guru" is! But we don't see any confessions from any SA members explaining their deep psychological problems that led them to create and need a "guru" father figure. And we don't see anyone trying to understand what led them to being pulled into the "Guru's" clutches. I mean personally not the same ole story of the Guru's "winning charisma." What is it in yourselves that led to a "Guru + Follower" relationship. After all the SA members are as much to blame as the "Guru." All the Sustained Action fingers are pointing to the "guru" and none are pointing back at themselves. They say it takes 2toTango and the same is true for the Creation of A Guru.

Logan

-----
Re: What Carlos was REALLY doing!
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/26/99

In Carlos' books see was a way of gaining more information about things. For instance you could "see" a plant and find out what it's uses were. Or you could "see" a man and learn new information about him. And Carlos described a whole taxonomy about energy bodies and containers, making it more and more elaborate in his sunday class. It all had applicable value.

And dreaming had physicality. You could transport yourself thousands of miles through dreaming, and wake up at the new location. You could get stuck in another real world and disappear for 10 years. You could travel and observe the real world at a distance.

I've found dreaming to match a lot of Carlos' descriptions. But it never has any physicality. I've never transported anywhere, despite learning to hold dreams remarkable well, to change them, to dream of my room, and even to do dreaming while fully awake. It's always just a very exciting vivid dream.

That's how it is in cleargreen too, I've talked at length with people who were there for 20 years. And it seems to be the case with Carlos' and Carol Tiggs. As I had more and more contact with him I always found out that when he said "I'm not here" or talked about being gone in dreaming, someone else would give a perfectly ordinary account of the situation. Usually, he'd be sitting on a couch at home.

Now you can find a couple of crack pots on the internet who'll tell you they transported themselves, but they're typically desperate people. Get to know them, it'll stand out in seconds. People typically avoid them.

And Stepher LaBerge did a ton of research trying to find someone that could really do remote viewing. He couldn't. People thought they were really good at it, but they could never bring back any true information.

As for seeing, I've absolutely positively learned to see energy, just as Carlos described. That's not open to debate. I wouldn't say it if it were not true.

But it has no use. For instance, I was once practicing a tensegrity technique in a "secret" class with cleargreen, and in the middle of the technique I suddenly found myself looking at a cloud of energy fibers. There was a buzzing or vibration going on inside the cloud and a voice was telling me that this was a particular tensegrity technique. I was looking at the "abstract core" of it. As I watched I began to interpret and saw arms, feet, movements. At that point I understood absolutely what the "abstract core" of the techniques was.

And I have to say, it's true. Any movement generates and abstract result on our beings.

Replica Watches  Replica Watches

But what use is that? I don't know exactly how to explain this, except by analogy. Anyone who's seen energy I can explain it to, because they've suspected the same thing, that it's inapplicable to anything other than seeing.

So a good analogy is drug usage. If you ever smoked marijuana you'd know about "peeking" or those brief periods when you get a huge rush. You find yourself in a hallucanitory vision, and what you're seeing feels absolutely true. Sometimes you come out with "deep insights" into the nature of people. I once had to sit at work and listen to one of my artists tell me she'd taken LSD the night before and realized that all people do is "try to amuse themselves".

For her, that boiled down all of human behavior. It might even be true. But what use is it?

Carlos on the other hand implied this hugely useful alternative way of seeing things. And then he applied it to using people. Cleargreen follows suit to this day. For instance, in their "reply" they mentioned the warm ooze of socialization. That's seeing! No doubt. Someone saw that at one time. But look at the use they put it to. Shaming the believers back into submission with a threat. You don't want to be like the nasty people trapped in the ooze of gossip.

Seeing is personal. I expect the only use is to provide access to unused portions of the brain. I believe that any new information you get from seeing is only what was lying dormant in the brain and just out of reach.

-----
Re: Death defier's eye - Rich Jennings
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/27/99

I had the death defier eye trick done to me twice. Of course people fall back. You're told to and given a little push. People fall back in christian healing sessions too.

Joseph Mesmer (whom Carlos said "almost had the right idea") used to make people fall into fully hallucinatory worlds of indescrible pleasure. He had hundreds swooning from the look of his eye, and all would swear it was magic.

People are just flakey, mentally unstable. Our lives are so protected we don't realize how unstable we are.

-----
Re: Some Questions... Mr Lawton ?
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/27/99

>For the one year I have done Tensegrity movements I have gotten a remarkable persistent discomfort in the area below the ribs. The martial arts has hardened my body and I am used to having a high level of energy. So why this discomfort ?

My lower ribs were damaged when I first started, primarily due to the emphasis on shock. I also did a lot of martial arts. But I don't think it has anything to do with energy. Tensegrity is new, and conceived of and created by Carlos. He even started to modify it later on due to injuries. For instance, do those cat paw movements he taught at the first culver city workshop REALLY hard. They're just going to damage your ribs, no 2 ways about it.

>I would appreaciate some points of view on the scouts and the role they should have.

I'm fascinated by them too. They seem to be dreaming entities that can follow you across dream changes and who make the dream more stable by their presense. They give off the essense of profound abstraction, in a personal way that is beautiful and intriguing, without thought. Sometimes it's like vomiting up complete sensations of new worlds.

I believe they're personal subconscious manifestations, not real entities, but I still treat them like they were independant beings. It's not a bad deal to be able to spit into 2 or 3 parts and ask the other parts of yourself to solve a question for you while you relax.

I can't tell you anything about them either, except that they are the most enjoyable part of dreaming for me. And remarkably consistant.

>So what is the rationale for dealing with them (except itīs intereating, but organic women are certainly more so).

They prolong the dream and give off incredible sensations. In that sense, they are a source of dreaming energy, real or not.

>Every single place I have lived I have dreamt of, in detail, years before going there. During dreamlike conditions I have several times made unambigious war on bacillae, wars that I have won in the span of hours instead of the conventional days.

Good to hear, but nothing physical like this has ever happened to me, except maybe the war on bacillae, which is a pretty common dream/nightmare when sick. Lots of healers use this technique, so I guess it's pretty valid. Yogi's recommend focusing your attention on hurt in the body instead of ignoring it, they say that triggers the body to fix it. Dreaming is a good way to do that.

>Another something I wish you would comment on is sexuality.

All I found is that when you're horny you have greater concentration and your sleep is disturbed. It deffinately helps dreaming. On the other hand, if you do lots and lots of dreaming it eventually makes no difference, it gets so easy to get into dreaming. I can't remember what difference it makes at this point.

>Is sexual energy mostly released during ejaculation or is it rather the time and emotional engagements that sap the energy ?

Too much sperm equals greater concentration and disturbed sleep, a plus. Too much entanglement with anything at all causes disipated attention and less time to spend trying to get dreaming. I don't think there's any magic there. I used to spend several hours a night learning to get in to dreaming. I couldn't have done that if I had someone living with me, or even if I had to date someone regularly.

Carlos and Carol Tiggs went into detail on these points about sexual energy at various times, but I don't want to quote them as experts because I don't believe they've really done the things they say. They always described things in terms of "energy" without bothering to explain it in perfectly ordinary terms, like how you use up all your time by dating. Substitute the word "time" for "energy" in a lot of their explanations and I believe you'll be closer to the truth.

Hey, let me know about those scouts. It's too fascinating, I'm hoping there's something real there.

-----
Re: Analysis
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/27/99

I think you're excusing them because it's an esoteric matter. If it were something really simple, like contract workers that don't do the work and take the money and run, you wouldn't wonder why people took the time to put up a web page exposing them. So is money more important than people's lives and time?

Besides, once you stop believing that the warrior mentality is an ultimate goal, there's nothing wrong with pursuing a little justice. Cleargreen may want to be left alone, but it isn't the right thing to do.

Maybe we'll get lazy and give up, but not right now. Besides, I want to hear all the personal details that only former cleargreen members could reveal. Wouldn't you like to know that too?

-----
Re: The Guru Papers
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/27/99

>Your presentation of the "Guru Papers" fails to make an analytical comparison to Castaneda. You introduce the material with your own thoughts then the rest is just quotes as if you are letting the author speak for yourself. For myself, a reader who never rubbed shoulders with Castaneda, "The Guru Papers" is meaningless. You don't present a situation in which Castaneda behaved as a guru along with "The Guru Papers" in support of your observations.

It's as you said, you didn't rub shoulders with the man. Corey's article is for people that did, mainly for the sunday class people and also for people inside cleargreen. They will all see the comparison instantly, and feel genuine embarassment for not realizing it. I actually blushed reading some of that.

-----
Re: The Guru Papers
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/27/99

>>>>Corey rights [sic]: Did you read the material here from *The Guru Papers* or *Prophetic Charisma,* both of which present rather strong theories to "account for this behavior," behavior which, BTW, is not at all unique in the annals of charismatic, authoritarian guru types?<<<

Logan responds: >>>>Your presentation of the "Guru Papers" fails to make an analytical comparison to Castaneda. You introduce the material with your own thoughts then the rest is just quotes as if you are letting the author speak for yourself. For myself, a reader who never rubbed shoulders with Castaneda, "The Guru Papers" is meaningless. You don't present a situation in which Castaneda behaved as a guru along with "The Guru Papers" in support of your observations. Elsewhere, in other articles, you and authors make a point of recounting certain situations in which you observed Castaneda acting as a Guru but almost no one puts their observations or own thoughts along with their chosen "excerpts." I have read that some authors on this site that post pages and pages of "excerpts" from books that support their theories do so because they want the reader to draw their own conclusions. But how is the reader supposed to do that? The observations are in one area the "excerpts" in another.<<<<

I think you make some valid points here. I'm glad that you've looked at this material--you seem to be the first responder on the Discussions page who has. My tendency has been to try to present material without drawing a lot of conclusions, so the reader can do this him or herself (because that's what I appreciate in other writers), but I can see that for those who didn't have much first-hand experience of Castaneda, the excerpts from *The Guru Papers* posted to date are probably not enough to show how descriptive they are of Castaneda and his group. You are also right that there are examples of his authoritarian and sometimes abusive behavior in, for example, the Sunday notes section, but they have not been brought together with the more theoretical material. Actually, that would be a very large task, and probably more appropriate for a book or major article than for posts on a webpage. (Keep in mind, too, that this site is a work-in-progress, and that the definitive material on Castaneda and what he was really up to has yet to be written. We're all kind of "writing it together" here, perhaps.)

>>>>CalixtoM (David Worrel) does a good job of showing us his twisted thought process as he dissects Cleargreens comments & Castaneda's theories. Some others do as well. But a large majority of writers here at SA just introduce their excerpts by saying " I believe that this is how Castaneda was -excerpt-excerpt-excerpt." This is tantamount to saying "Castaneda acted Just as this author says." Where's the critical thinking skills here? Why the need to turn over all your thoughts, observations and feelings over to yet another author?<<<<

The "critical thinking skills" might be in the selection and juxtaposition of the material, but I get your point that for those who had little contact with CC and Co., more explanation and examples of behavior are needed. We can work on more material that fits that bill.

>>>>A reading of the "Guru Papers" shows that the "followers" of a "Guru" are just as screwed up as the "Guru" is! But we don't see any confessions from any SA members explaining their deep psychological problems that led them to create and need a "guru" father figure. And we don't see anyone trying to understand what led them to being pulled into the "Guru's" clutches. I mean personally not the same ole story of the Guru's "winning charisma." What is it in yourselves that led to a "Guru + Follower" relationship. After all the SA members are as much to blame as the "Guru." All the Sustained Action fingers are pointing to the "guru" and none are pointing back at themselves. They say it takes 2toTango and the same is true for the Creation of A Guru. <<<<

I posted a lot more from *Prophetic Charisma* on the Sustained Action mailing list that had to do with the followers and their psychological makeup. I also posted there some very searching, personal observations on what attracted me to this material and to Castaneda, and what I got out of my involvement on a psychological level. Frankly, I haven't felt comfortable putting that material up on a totally public forum like this, and the others who shared similar responses obviously haven't either. Perhaps we should add you to the SA Mailing list if this is material that you really want to discuss and process. All we've done to date on this site is to point to certain factual data and certain psychological and theoretical constructs that do a remarkable job of describing the kinds of behavior many of us witnessed. In time, maybe we can do more to communicate this to people who are interested but who lack the personal experiences many of us take for granted.

At any rate, thanks for your observations, Corey

-----
Re: You're too much...
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/27/99

Kevin Peterson insists: >>>>Just a point. Yesterday I posted a challenge for you all to provide background info on yourselves. <<<<

And what's the point of your point? Have any of us on this list sold books or workshops to you, or described ourselves as magical beings from other realms (or as people who spent large chunks of our lives in other realms)? What exactly is it you think we owe you? This is an inquiry into Castaneda and others who pooh-poohed interest in their "personal history" while simultaneously inventing huge slabs of it and selling it in the form of books and workshops. Since those of us who have written for this site aren't making up our personal history for you, why do we owe you personal details. Just so that you can have more fodder for personal insults and innuendos? Why bother? I'm sure wherever your (obnoxious) imagination takes you will be a much better indication of where *you're* at.

>>>>One more thing. You know Dan, nothing has made me more weary of all the Castaneda lore than seeing your schizophrenic posts. I really wonder if it's the same person posting with that name all the time. You're all over the place! If you developed that as a result of following the "Teachings", then the hell with Carlos Castaneda and Cleargreen!<<<<

Look Kevin, you don't need to take my word for it (as if you would), but if you choose to write off what Dan has to share, the loss is yours. Dan is the most consistent and authentic explorer of dreaming I've had the pleasure to know. If you prefer self-delusional fantasies to the real thing, however, then Dan is not your guy.

-----
For the love of God...
From: Kevin Peterson
Date: 10/27/99

How many times do I need to repeat myself!?

Look, maybe I'm the only one here that sees any validity in having more personal info on you SA characters. Since searching for information on people is what I do for a living (I'm a P.I./bounty hunter) I admit to having a personal "obsession" in seeing to it that people who provide information on someone/something disclose any personal motivations for their willingness to do so. Especially so when such contacts give out "information" with such emotional attachment (as is the case with you all). The motivations behind the "source" are as important as the "facts" being presented. Or do you still not see the relation?

If you would have kept to just presenting "facts" and let the readers come to their own conclusions, no problem. But when you start injecting all this commentary so laced with resentment and outright contempt well, the significance of the " facts" changes considerably, and the conclusions based on them are shakey at best.

You state that your goal in sharing all this material is to come to a better understanding of the"bigger picture", etc, etc, and you do it out of "personal integrity". If that's the case, why is it that most of what you find here is nothing but DIATRIBE (go ahead, look it up). What gives! If you've already come to your conclusions (which you so eagerly provide at every turn of the page), then why try to wrap it up in this pseudo-journalistic "search for the greater truth"? Just come out and say it! You hate the guy for your own personal reasons and if you can't do that then provide enough info on yourselves so that the reader can REALLY come to THEIR own conclusions based on whatever credibility they afford you.

If indeed this site "is an inquiry into Castaneda..." then present your info and stop trying to lead the reader to your own a priori conclusions.

"why do we owe you personal details. Just so that you can have more fodder for personal insults and innuendos?"

Hey, that's what you all do here. So why not dish some in your direction?

This next one really baffles me.

I wrote: "One more thing. You know Dan, nothing has made me more weary of all the Castaneda lore than seeing your schizophrenic posts. I really wonder if it's the same person posting with that name all the time. You're all over the place! If you developed that as a result of following the "Teachings", then the hell with Carlos Castaneda and Cleargreen!"

And "Corey" responded (????): "Look Kevin, you don't need to take my word for it (as if you would), but if you choose to write off what Dan has to share, the loss is yours. Dan is the most consistent and authentic explorer of dreaming I've had the pleasure to know. If you prefer self-delusional fantasies to the real thing, however, then Dan is not your guy."

Huh!? What the hey! When I refered to Dan's schizophrenic posts, I was refering to his constantly changing attitude implied by them. One day he's very thoughtful and offers excellent insights, another day he's hysterical with his Castaneda/Creagreen are evil rantings. And what self-delusional fantasies are you refering to?

That's enough now.

Ta, ta.

Kevin Peterson

-----
Re: For the love of what?
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/27/99

Inquiring-minded Kevin Peterson: repeated: >>>>Look, maybe I'm the only one here that sees any validity in having more personal info on you SA characters. Since searching for information on people is what I do for a living (I'm a P.I./bounty hunter) I admit to having a personal "obsession" in seeing to it that people who provide information on someone/something disclose any personal motivations for their willingness to do so. Especially so when such contacts give out "information" with such emotional attachment (as is the case with you all). The motivations behind the "source" are as important as the "facts" being presented. Or do you still not see the relation?<<<<

I've addressed that already, but you seem to ignore what I say that's inconvenient to your position. But since you are a PI with a personal "obsession" about checking out people's personal motivations, don't you have any interest in finding out what really happened to Florinda, Taisha, Kylie, Talia and Nury following Castaneda's death? Carol gave out different, contradictory stories to her own gang in the months since those five all left town (including the initial story that they were all dead), but maybe you could be helpful in getting to the bottom of that story. After all, if they are just off somewhere living on their Castaneda-inheritance, and have no intention of ever writing any more or appearing at workshops (let alone "practicing Tensegrity"), then we would have a much better sense of their "motivations" in backing up Castaneda's stories. Or if one or more of them *did* kill themselves, then this would shed a little more light on the benefits of the "cult of Castaneda," wouldn't it? Or are you merely being paid by (or a volunteer to) Cleargreen in an effort to harass those of us who are questioning their story? If so, then shame on you.

>>>>If you would have kept to just presenting "facts" and let the readers come to their own conclusions, no problem. But when you start injecting all this commentary so laced with resentment and outright contempt well, the significance of the " facts" changes considerably, and the conclusions based on them are shakey at best.<<<<

I personally have tried to confine myself to presenting "facts," but then I get attacked by Logan here for doing exactly that and not presenting more of my judgment and interpretation of those facts. Can't win with everybody, obviously.

>>>>You state that your goal in sharing all this material is to come to a better understanding of the"bigger picture", etc, etc, and you do it out of "personal integrity". If that's the case, why is it that most of what you find here is nothing but DIATRIBE (go ahead, look it up). What gives! If you've already come to your conclusions (which you so eagerly provide at every turn of the page), then why try to wrap it up in this pseudo-journalistic "search for the greater truth"? Just come out and say it!<<<<

The percentage of what could be called "diatribe" is actually pretty small here, although there is some (and your posts are beginning to add to the percentage). A more objective observer (and I've received private comments from many such people) would not characterize most of what is here as diatribe at all. You're welcome to your idiosyncratic view, however, of course.

>>>>You hate the guy for your own personal reasons and if you can't do that then provide enough info on yourselves so that the reader can REALLY come to THEIR own conclusions based on whatever credibility they afford you. <<<<<

Speaking for myself, I don't "hate the guy." I do have complex feelings about him and my experience with him, but I definitely derived benefits from that relationship (among other things, a much deeper understanding of my own narcissistic tendencies and attraction to larger-than-life, charismatic narcissists). And if you were really objective you would have to agree that we've done more to provide people with basic material (including copies of death certificates and other legal documents) for "making up their own minds" than any other site on this topic on the 'Net. But you're not very objective then, are you, or you might have more interest in what happened to the "missing five"?

-----
More Analysis
From: Point
Date: 10/27/99

In reply to Lawton:

It would be hypocritical of me to say I am not interested in the Cleargreen/SA problems. These issues are important to me because they parallel experiences I have had the past 25 years. I can understand the disappointment, disillusionment, cynicism and heartache. There is no particular way to soften the experience. There is no way for an "outsider" to either prove or disprove your statements. On the face of them, they are no doubt exactly what you either experienced or heard from those who did.

It doesn't matter whether CC said he was a teacher or not, he was one. He was responsible for his actions just as his cohorts are. I think that extends to the SA people as well. They have ultimate responsibility for their relationship to CC in as much as they wanted and asked for what he was offering. You may well agree with me and say this website is an extension of that responsibility because he was such a charlaton that he deserves to be dethroned and debunked. That is the choice you made.

The situation is more complex than that maybe. Tensegrity and the recapitulation exerecises are beneficial, in my experience, to my ordinary state of reality. I don't look for phenomenological verification like walking through walls or changing shapes or having out of body type experiences. There is a certain well being I experience from doing Tensegrity and a certain lack of obsessiveness in my daily doings I attribute to the recapitulation. These seem to be good things and I can understand them and experience them directly.

I have loved CC's books over the years but have been very skeptical of some of the stuff. You are more jaded as you have had exposure to the "real" thing, but still the concepts of warriorship, impeccability, controlled folly and others still have impact and are evocative of some better way to lead your life.

I never wanted to join in with CC voluntarily because what he wrote about I knew would attract enormously flaky people who were completely ungrounded, fantasy driven and out of touch. In that group there would develop some real practicioners. That and because I was completely involved in another discipline that was more compelling to me then, and still is. That discipline attracted very flaky people as well who are now some of the best friends one could imagine because some how we have worked through, and still do, those neurotic and habitual patterns that keep us from experiencing reality directly. But you would not know that to look at it. Not only that, but each person has to do it completely on this own by continually testing and challenging the precepts that are presented as fact and the basis of the experience for thousands of people over thousands of years. There are no banquets or awards for awareness and no one congratulates you on how aware you are. You never graduate.

What keeps it alive is that each person has to recreate the entire thing in order for it to have meaning and be real.

What is also painfully evident is that naivete is not an excuse. It is the beginning energy that actually allows people to enter into situations they wouldn't otherwise get into. It is devastating when that naivete is destroyed. And it doesn't only happen once and it doesn't only happen to the young. What is even worse is that you have to maintain some level of naivete, or openness or inquisitiveness in order to continue on in any discipline that doesn't rely on some kind of mindless belief system. That does not imply non-critical thinking, mindless acceptance or band wagon mentality. It does mean you often find yourself in groundless situations.

In that sense, I don't think Cleargreen is completely fucked up. But the message of SA is lost in its emotionalism. Cleargreen may well have something to learn from SA but all would be lost if there is no common ground. If not, then not and once the body is buried life goes on. The practices developed may be the only genuine thing that survives and those may die off if they truly are meaningless.

The final comment is that this is an old ,old story. Debunking and disillusionment with teachers, false teachers, strange cults have been around for a long time. Historiically, your experiences are not unique or all that special although on a personal level they obviously are quite meaningful.. Very few teachers over time have been genuine because the true disciplines are very difficult. it seems. I could make the statement that you could subtract the teacher from the point of the teachings and just take the good parts and throw away the rest. I don't think that is how it works however. In my experience it is a package deal. Somehow the whole situation has to be accomodated even though you know there are glaring inconsistencies, bad faith and unfair dealings.

I appreciate your efforts and website if I don't agree with your methods or all your conclusions. My guess is that someday this will all have to fade however becuause the post mortem will be finished. What will you have then.

Regards

-----
Re: More Analysis
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/28/99

>In that sense, I don't think Cleargreen is completely fucked up. But the message of SA is lost in its emotionalism. Cleargreen may well have something to learn from SA but all would be lost if there is no common ground. If not, then not and once the body is buried life goes on. The practices developed may be the only genuine thing that survives and those may die off if they truly are meaningless.

There are only a couple of people inside cleargreen I consider fucked up. The rest, I don't know.

What would have been nice would have been for them to come clean right away. Why not say, "This information is a surprise to us too, it's looks pretty bad. But if anyone wants to keep practicing, knowing it's probably not true, to see why it works, we're here to do that."

And maybe they would have, but Carol Tigg's huge ego wouldn't allow it. I think that message had only 1 purpose, to make her feel better. It reminds me of the continuous lying of a psychotic person I know. Catch 1 lie, get a different one. On and on. It never occurs to him that it would be better if he just told the truth.

-----
Carlos succeeded where Leary failed?
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/28/99

Here's one possible interpretation of Carlos and his group. He succeeded doing what Leary and his fellows wanted to do. He learned to deliberately alter his view of reality. In that sense, he was a big success because the other people for the 60s that tried to do that later admitted to failure (at least the one's I'm familiar with). But there wasn't a don Juan.

And I still think his system is too complicated. Just learn to get silent, toss out the rest.

-----
too close... for Dan et al.
From: eidolon
Date: 10/28/99

Personally, after practicing the magical passes and trying to be on the warriors' way for some years, I actually live a better life than before, although my life before was really alright from the 'normal life' point of view. My body knows for sure that the warriors' way is for real.

I have read all the stuff that you presented on this web page, and I confess that my mind got confused. But recapitulating my personal experience with everything connected to the path proposed by Carlos et al. convinced me that all these (sometimes strange, sometimes funny, sometimes bizarre) facts do not prove anything. I know that this seems to be a statement out of logique, so I will try to explain it: As others already stated here - the knowledge submitted by Castaneda et al. is far too complex to be the product of imagination or 'construction from other sources'. There are too many layers in all those books. Re-reading them always offers new insights - show me one oeuvre of another author who simply was a lier and a thief (as you characterize Carlos) that possesses this quality. I guess you will have difficulties. Or - even better - try to write a book yourself. Take different sources and make this book a convincing success. I guess it won't be possible. A complex system always seems to contradict itself - do a scientific research work about a really complex system, for example the universe or the brain, and you will find contradictions.

Even minor authors when constructing novels will avoid inconsistencies in their stories. Carlos was not really a 'minor' author - I think in this point you will agree. On the other hand, if one has really strange experiences over the years (power plants, different attentions, dreaming experiences, no-ordinary reality, terrible fear, long journeys with multiple impressions and so on) and one will try to give an account one will automatically make mistakes, chronological inconsitencies will be the normal case. Do you really know what you have done five years ago? Maybe you will, but if that what you remember is what really happened five years ago is not for sure. In this light, the research work of deMille et al. seems to be at least a little bit ridiculous. And all your meticulously collected facts lose a lot of their importance. Maybe not all the facts, for example I really think that Cleargreen should make a clear statement about the Blue Scout. To conclude this - I wanted to show that a real life account will contain inconsistencies with much more probability than a literary construction.

Well, maybe, after all, the problem between Castaneda and his fallen Sunday school disciples is the well known problem of too much proximity. It is often reported that sons or secretaries of really outstanding persons never see the grandeur of them. They only see the trash. It's been the case with Goethe and his son Wolfgang Goethe. Or a more recent example: the secretary of John Lennon wrote a book about Lennon showing him as a cruel, sexually abusive, heartless person. From his point of view, he was right - but he could not at all explain by this the great artist Lennon was.

So I guess that you've been too close to see the truth, all you saw was the trash.... First, you've felt important, you've been the chosen one's. At workshops, you've been the ones that already knew the passes, that were 'friends' with Carlos and the witches... Then Carlos let you fall to the ground.

And, Dan, it is not true that amongst the people going to workshops, you've been the only person who tried really hard to becom silent and to learn dreaming and so on. I know some others. And none of them could be convinced by your 'facts' and sex stories....

-----
Re: More Analysis
From: Truth or Consequences?
Date: 10/28/99

Remember that game show on tv? It's been a long time gone. What you are witnessing here now is "consequences". When people lie there are consequences in life. Simply stated it goes like this: if one puts bullshit out, guess what they get in return? It's to all of mankind's advantage to tell the fuckin truth. :)

-----
Re: too close... for Dan et al.
From: Corey Donovan
Date: 10/28/99

Eidolon wrote: >>>>Personally, after practicing the magical passes and trying to be on the warriors' way for some years, I actually live a better life than before, although my life before was really alright from the 'normal life' point of view. My body knows for sure that the warriors' way is for real.<<<<

Most of us here, I think, would certainly agree that it is possible to practice the so-called magical passes and feel better, for a number of reasons. As David Worrell points out in some of his writing on this site, virtually any sustained physical practice is going to make most people feel better. As some of the material on gurus and cults points out, the sense that one's life has a purpose, and that one is tied into something larger than oneself (two things that groups set up by guru-type figures generally offer) can make people feel better and less conflicted, at least for awhile. At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful description of your experience here, and the way in which you are grappling with how your body feels as against some of the material you've been reading here. I think that's something many of us involved in these practices have been or are now going through.

Eidolon continues:>>>>I have read all the stuff that you presented on this web page, and I confess that my mind got confused. But recapitulating my personal experience with everything connected to the path proposed by Carlos et al. convinced me that all these (sometimes strange, sometimes funny, sometimes bizarre) facts do not prove anything. I know that this seems to be a statement out of logique, so I will try to explain it: As others already stated here - the knowledge submitted by Castaneda et al. is far too complex to be the product of imagination or 'construction from other sources'. There are too many layers in all those books. Re-reading them always offers new insights - show me one oeuvre of another author who simply was a lier and a thief (as you characterize Carlos) that possesses this quality. I guess you will have difficulties.<<<<

I simply have to disagree with you here. Of course, there aren't that many authors who have had the opportunity to spin a myth based on real material from other sources as well as a powerfully creative imagination through the course of more than 12 books, but other writers do come to mind who have created compelling, complex, powerful systems. The books of Ouspensky, initially describing Gurdjieff's teachings and then proceeding to set forth explanations of his own, are not as numerous as Castaneda's but do establish a complex, philosophical set of beliefs and practices that have generated a far larger number of adherents and practitioners than Tensegrity has, or likely ever will. I personally have not read the books of L. Ron Hubbard (a colorful charismatic narcissist whose life has a number of parallels with Castaneda's), but I gather that Scientologists find in them a complex, compelling philosophical and practical system for living. In the realm of more straightforward fiction, how about Frank Herbert's *Dune* series? Those books establish an alternative universe that is quite compelling and filled with fascinating philosophies and strategies for achieving greater power and awareness. These are just a few examples that readily come to mind; I'm sure others can offer more.

Eidolon: >>>>Well, maybe, after all, the problem between Castaneda and his fallen Sunday school disciples is the well known problem of too much proximity. It is often reported that sons or secretaries of really outstanding persons never see the grandeur of them. They only see the trash. It's been the case with Goethe and his son Wolfgang Goethe. Or a more recent example: the secretary of John Lennon wrote a book about Lennon showing him as a cruel, sexually abusive, heartless person. From his point of view, he was right - but he could not at all explain by this the great artist Lennon was. So I guess that you've been too close to see the truth, all you saw was the trash.... First, you've felt important, you've been the chosen one's. At workshops, you've been the ones that already knew the passes, that were 'friends' with Carlos and the witches... Then Carlos let you fall to the ground. <<<<

Well, it is not true that "all [we] saw was the trash." We also saw a fascinating, entrancing charismatic figure who persuaded us, for awhile, partly through "tricks" and partly through sheer force of personality, to "suspend judgment" for a time, which in itself may not be a bad thing. And a number of us feel that we experienced positive aspects to his teachings as well as negative ones. But I think you have a point in your analogy to other famous figures and people who got to know them only to well.

The problem, in Castaneda's case, is that he urged us to examine other people we had formerly admired in the same way that "don Juan" supposedly urged him to analyze his professors at UCLA: to see if the beautiful things they talked about had any relation to their real, waking lives. In Castaneda's case, as it turns out, this is not a test that he can fully pass any more than his professors could. But certainly, if all we had ever known of Castaneda was his books, those of us from the former Sunday group would not have had a reason to challenge much of what we read. The books and most of Castaneda's public statements present an idealized, fully committed "warrior" figure, whose sole purpose is to conserve his energy and expand his awareness in order to successfully achieve a final "abstract leap," evading death. For those who have been captivated by this image (especially the many who have shared with me about how they used to berate themselves for not being able to live up to this image in their own lives) the fact that Castaneda was a real and heavily flawed human being who didn't follow his own prescriptions can, in many ways, be a liberating discovery that brings us greater maturity and self reliance.

--Corey

-----
Re: too close... for Dan et al.
From: Daniel Lawton
Date: 10/29/99

>And, Dan, it is not true that amongst the people going to workshops, you've been the only person who tried really hard to becom silent and to learn dreaming and so on. I know some others.

Looks like you're reading what you want to read off this web page. I didn't say that. I said I hadn't talked with anyone else that had worked as hard as I had. And that's still true. I expect that if I talked with the people you know I'd find the same was true. You have no idea how much time I put in to that.

I also believe you're glossing by saying that Carlos' works were too deep to be fiction. Have you really checked other people's works? There are so many other sources like that. I've had people tell me about many similiar movements in history, started by great authors who created huge fantasy systems. I think that if you look around you'll find it's common. It just happens that this particular outlook appeals to you and me. It suits our personality, so we think it's some deeper truth. But to someone else it would be obvious nonsense. Some people read Ron Hubbard's works and find them true. They argue that a fake wouldn't have created the huge volumes of research.

Carlos once recommended that we study the bible to see how it impinges on us. As usual, I took his advice and worked really hard at it. If you want to talk about an internally consistant series of books, those blow Carlos' away. Not to mention the fact that all the predictions made there eventually come true, in eery detail, sometimes as much later as 3000 years. Carlos even said the same, although he attributed it to the fliers.

So if you want to use the consistancy and truthfulness or depth of a set of books as justification for picking a way to live, you ought to become a christian. Now do you really want to do that?

We pick what suits us. To stop glossing over facts is very difficult and doesn't happen just because a group of people tell you they are teaching you not to gloss. While you're glossing it's like being in dreaming. You can stare right at something and swear it proves what you wanted to know, then eventually you wake up and realize it was exactly the opposite of what you believed you saw.

-----
Re: Flyboy
From: Calixto
Date: 10/30/99

Flyboy:

"Still, the idea that CC was highly sex seems to clash with the fact that he didn't get married till he was 35, and then for only six months. "

Nope. The evidence seems to indicate that CC got married for the first time back in Peru (even abandoned a child of that marriage, apparently).

"-- From your chronology, it's clear that these women were associated with CC as far back as the early 70s -- long before any of them came forward to support his claims or wrote books. In TA's case, 20 years! If they knew he was just a big liar, why were they so closely allied with him so long ago, to the point of actually living in his house? "

CC was a celebrity --- world famous by 1970. He was also already a "magical con artist". And that's one of the questions ... DID the women really know he was a con at first, or were they initially taken in by his schemes too, only to discover the truth much later? I suspect they did not know at first...

"-- I'm not so sure about Florinda copying her book. It could have been an unconsious regurgitation of something she read years earlier, or perhaps she and the other author were simply describing the same cultural phenomena."

Yeah, well ... WHEN did she go there? Her own profs at UCLA admitted to being "baffled" over when she could possibly have done what she claimed. C'mon man, it's just too obvious. First CC makes up some "magic anthropology" and becomes rich and famous doing it. Then his "cohort" tries, stupidly, to pull the same trick without being careful enough, and gets caught, and is forced to flee her doctoral program. It's ridiculous that after the big stink over CC's authenticity that Flo would even do what she did. The arrogance boggles the mind...

-C.

Sustained Reaction Archive - Page 3