04-16-2013, 12:04 AM
Abs: Thats classical "Castanedology", read the argument* of Tony Schultes what is below first pls.
that book is scavenging imo on gossip and b.s., as i see the phenomenon, some people are obsessed with CC and sorcery (sustained reaction). It is very unhealthy for them, and dangerous in some cases.
That book may be interesting from analytic, comparative and psychological point of view (otherwise it is 50 % gossip ? and the rest are opinions that "CC is Gurdjieff"
(tonal-nagual dichotomy, the mind is tonal, everything is tonal, e.g. Don Juans says: "Human is only mind" ! Chilli sauce etc.)
CC books are Shamanism class and G. not, G. is G. specific, G. is comparative unit akin to e.g. Aleister Crowley etc.
it is good to read all the reviews on that book with comments.. (i meant all the 1* reviews with comments) and 5* reviews with comments.
The point is that =Don Juan Teachings= (Castaneda books, and not the ad hominem man Carlos Castaneda) is single distinct unit like schools in =Yoga=, Buddhist schools included. Buddhism is Yoga, Dharma is term in Yoga, a knowledge that you hold (historical Buddha was "Emperor of yogis", not only "a king of yogis"). Or shamanism units. It is not Gurdjieff teachings, obviously.
You can do some phenomenological research for yourself, or test it. I post on third attention yoga and third attention warriors. Specifically on the Tonal-Nagual awarenes and Light body realization (Third attention). I can suggest you specific tests and exercises how to test it if you wanted.
The book is wrong probably, highly unethical, and perhaps potentially extremely dangerous/deleterious for the author himself (or for some obssesed readers too), except the fact that the book is ****, it depends on who cares, and who is obssesed with "CC stuff". Amy Wallace s book is OK, but this book is imo "toxic" piece, for some certain specific reasons. it will buy only people into CC stuff and G., so thats ok probably.
I will read it someday pro forma (there is personal history piece that Carol Tiggs was student of one student of G.), but i rather would like to read the Belzebub tales, books of G. are original books as CCs are, not to mention that CC books contain =Don Juan Teachings= is a form of Knowledge, as Dharma in Yoga, CC books are Shamanism class, not Gurdjieff, in G. are some exercises, insights and allegories and life wisdom, but is it not Yoga. It is not Knowledge and it is not Dharma (Knowledge and Dharma have death as criterion).
I am interested in G. for literary and psychological insights reasons, but claims that "Fourth way" is CC - no, those are only so called similiarities.
*here is the argument:
Castaneda never claimed the teaching he followed was "his own teaching." As for the source of the teaching, it's good to keep the question. We recognized similarities between the Teachings of Don Juan and those of Gurdjieff decades ago, after the first books from Castaneda, but some of us decided not to draw any conclusions. Castaneda's works stand very well on their own. There were always questions about the source. It was even suggested in another circle that Milton Erickson was Don Juan. Erickson, who is reputed to be the father of modern hypnosis, wasn't a follower of Gurdjieff, but some Gurdjieff literature was found in his library. One could just as easily write a book showing that Erickson was Castaneda's true source, but would it be any more real? Truth has many apparent connections.
Tony Schultes
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DMO2DDG0 ... hisHelpful
that book is scavenging imo on gossip and b.s., as i see the phenomenon, some people are obsessed with CC and sorcery (sustained reaction). It is very unhealthy for them, and dangerous in some cases.
That book may be interesting from analytic, comparative and psychological point of view (otherwise it is 50 % gossip ? and the rest are opinions that "CC is Gurdjieff"
(tonal-nagual dichotomy, the mind is tonal, everything is tonal, e.g. Don Juans says: "Human is only mind" ! Chilli sauce etc.)
CC books are Shamanism class and G. not, G. is G. specific, G. is comparative unit akin to e.g. Aleister Crowley etc.
it is good to read all the reviews on that book with comments.. (i meant all the 1* reviews with comments) and 5* reviews with comments.
The point is that =Don Juan Teachings= (Castaneda books, and not the ad hominem man Carlos Castaneda) is single distinct unit like schools in =Yoga=, Buddhist schools included. Buddhism is Yoga, Dharma is term in Yoga, a knowledge that you hold (historical Buddha was "Emperor of yogis", not only "a king of yogis"). Or shamanism units. It is not Gurdjieff teachings, obviously.
You can do some phenomenological research for yourself, or test it. I post on third attention yoga and third attention warriors. Specifically on the Tonal-Nagual awarenes and Light body realization (Third attention). I can suggest you specific tests and exercises how to test it if you wanted.
The book is wrong probably, highly unethical, and perhaps potentially extremely dangerous/deleterious for the author himself (or for some obssesed readers too), except the fact that the book is ****, it depends on who cares, and who is obssesed with "CC stuff". Amy Wallace s book is OK, but this book is imo "toxic" piece, for some certain specific reasons. it will buy only people into CC stuff and G., so thats ok probably.
I will read it someday pro forma (there is personal history piece that Carol Tiggs was student of one student of G.), but i rather would like to read the Belzebub tales, books of G. are original books as CCs are, not to mention that CC books contain =Don Juan Teachings= is a form of Knowledge, as Dharma in Yoga, CC books are Shamanism class, not Gurdjieff, in G. are some exercises, insights and allegories and life wisdom, but is it not Yoga. It is not Knowledge and it is not Dharma (Knowledge and Dharma have death as criterion).
I am interested in G. for literary and psychological insights reasons, but claims that "Fourth way" is CC - no, those are only so called similiarities.
*here is the argument:
Castaneda never claimed the teaching he followed was "his own teaching." As for the source of the teaching, it's good to keep the question. We recognized similarities between the Teachings of Don Juan and those of Gurdjieff decades ago, after the first books from Castaneda, but some of us decided not to draw any conclusions. Castaneda's works stand very well on their own. There were always questions about the source. It was even suggested in another circle that Milton Erickson was Don Juan. Erickson, who is reputed to be the father of modern hypnosis, wasn't a follower of Gurdjieff, but some Gurdjieff literature was found in his library. One could just as easily write a book showing that Erickson was Castaneda's true source, but would it be any more real? Truth has many apparent connections.
Tony Schultes
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DMO2DDG0 ... hisHelpful