10-20-2011, 12:01 AM
Victor Sanchez stated that, for him, there were two Carlos Castanedas: The one he imagined from Carlos' earlier books and the one he actually met in later life. Consider that Victor's first major book was called: The Teachings of Don Carlos. What was that implying? It was OBVIOUSLY implying that there was no don Juan and Castaneda was actually don Juan. It doesn't take a genius to come to this conclusion. I now feel that Castaneda was offended by this implication and was determined to PROVE to Victor Sanchez that he was no don Juan in disguise. I could be wrong, but I now feel that there were many educated people who felt that there was no actual don Juan and that Castaneda was a fraud. Carlos wanted to sue them all, but he couldn't. He could only sue one person who felt there was no actual don Juan and that was Victor Sanchez. Castaneda could vent his frustrations on Victor by PROVING that he was not don Juan by acting towards him in ways don Juan would NEVER act.
Don Juan was not a glory seeker like Castaneda was. Don Juan would NEVER want to be interviewed by Time magazine or any other American magazine, for that matter. Don Juan was not secretly planning to use Castaneda to become a millionaire or to bewitch women into having sex with him. Don Juan did not want to be respected by the academic community of Western society.
There was a world of difference between don Juan and Carlos Castaneda. Don Juan was of Nature while Carlos Castaneda was of Western society and sought the all the glory Western society had to offer. Writing about Carlos Castaneda is a drag while writing about don Juan can be EXTREMELY inspiring. Thus I find it impossible to believe that Castaneda created don Juan from his imagination, wrote a string of New York Times bestsellers, then earned himself a Ph. D with his books to top it off. If Castaneda was talking don Juan philosophy before he purportedly met the shaman it would indeed be in his ex-wife's book. She purportedly wrote a book against Castaneda, but stated that he was indeed taking field trips when he stated he was in his books.
Once again: There was a BIG DIFFERENCE between Carlos Castaneda and don Juan. Don Juan was inspiring and Carlos Castaneda sucked as a human being. That is all the evidence I need to believe there was an actual don Juan whom Castaneda embellished with lies. Yes, how Castaneda treated Victor Sanchez endorsing his attorneys to spread all sorts of lying rumors and convincing the judge against Victor with lie after lie does indeed tell the story of who Castaneda was underneath his hype. That's who Castaneda actually was and ANY who would remain with such a 'guru' had to be of the same character or they would not have endured Castaneda and taken him as their hero.
This is a logical and reasonable assumption and it all comes down to a simple question:
Does it serve me to believe there was an actual don Juan, Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or any other mythological figure in literary history?
Answer:
Yes it does!
Well, then the matter is settled with me for now. I may change my mind very soon when I discover a more effective manner to better myself as a human being, but for now it does indeed serve me to believe there was an actual don Juan and to learn and apply the very best of what he taught through Castaneda's books.
TO THE CASTANEDA SKEPTICS:
I'm curious how many of you are certain there was no don Juan, but there actually was a Buddha?
Don Juan was not a glory seeker like Castaneda was. Don Juan would NEVER want to be interviewed by Time magazine or any other American magazine, for that matter. Don Juan was not secretly planning to use Castaneda to become a millionaire or to bewitch women into having sex with him. Don Juan did not want to be respected by the academic community of Western society.
There was a world of difference between don Juan and Carlos Castaneda. Don Juan was of Nature while Carlos Castaneda was of Western society and sought the all the glory Western society had to offer. Writing about Carlos Castaneda is a drag while writing about don Juan can be EXTREMELY inspiring. Thus I find it impossible to believe that Castaneda created don Juan from his imagination, wrote a string of New York Times bestsellers, then earned himself a Ph. D with his books to top it off. If Castaneda was talking don Juan philosophy before he purportedly met the shaman it would indeed be in his ex-wife's book. She purportedly wrote a book against Castaneda, but stated that he was indeed taking field trips when he stated he was in his books.
Once again: There was a BIG DIFFERENCE between Carlos Castaneda and don Juan. Don Juan was inspiring and Carlos Castaneda sucked as a human being. That is all the evidence I need to believe there was an actual don Juan whom Castaneda embellished with lies. Yes, how Castaneda treated Victor Sanchez endorsing his attorneys to spread all sorts of lying rumors and convincing the judge against Victor with lie after lie does indeed tell the story of who Castaneda was underneath his hype. That's who Castaneda actually was and ANY who would remain with such a 'guru' had to be of the same character or they would not have endured Castaneda and taken him as their hero.
This is a logical and reasonable assumption and it all comes down to a simple question:
Does it serve me to believe there was an actual don Juan, Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or any other mythological figure in literary history?
Answer:
Yes it does!
Well, then the matter is settled with me for now. I may change my mind very soon when I discover a more effective manner to better myself as a human being, but for now it does indeed serve me to believe there was an actual don Juan and to learn and apply the very best of what he taught through Castaneda's books.
TO THE CASTANEDA SKEPTICS:
I'm curious how many of you are certain there was no don Juan, but there actually was a Buddha?