02-22-2008, 12:00 AM
Tanteric,
I understand it's polite to respond to whatever handle you're using.
I wonder if you believe that a person is capable of assembling "good lessons" from the teachings of others, and then using them to gain prominence for unsavory purposes.
I'm not thinking of Carlos so much, but of several persons of questionable morality and virtue who have taught "good lessons".
In an age when ideas can spread across the globe in a day, can we truly judge a man by the value of lessons he has taught?
Let's assume for the sake of illustration that "Love is the answer". Couldn't a person who did not understand, or truly believe that "love is the answer" merely parrot that cliche, and then use his influence for destructive purposes?
I do not believe the question here is "are Carlos' teachings good?". His teachings being good or not should be independent of an evaluation of his character.
For all I know, even the most infamous teachers in recent history have had undeniably good teachings, yet the value of those teachings may not have direct bearing on the question of whether or not such and such a person is "a fraud".
To be clear, I do not believe Carlos Castaneda acted irresponsibly with his teachings, or his influence on people.
I do suggest that anyone can offer "good teachings" and still be irresponsible with the effects those teachings may have on people.
I understand it's polite to respond to whatever handle you're using.
I wonder if you believe that a person is capable of assembling "good lessons" from the teachings of others, and then using them to gain prominence for unsavory purposes.
I'm not thinking of Carlos so much, but of several persons of questionable morality and virtue who have taught "good lessons".
In an age when ideas can spread across the globe in a day, can we truly judge a man by the value of lessons he has taught?
Let's assume for the sake of illustration that "Love is the answer". Couldn't a person who did not understand, or truly believe that "love is the answer" merely parrot that cliche, and then use his influence for destructive purposes?
I do not believe the question here is "are Carlos' teachings good?". His teachings being good or not should be independent of an evaluation of his character.
For all I know, even the most infamous teachers in recent history have had undeniably good teachings, yet the value of those teachings may not have direct bearing on the question of whether or not such and such a person is "a fraud".
To be clear, I do not believe Carlos Castaneda acted irresponsibly with his teachings, or his influence on people.
I do suggest that anyone can offer "good teachings" and still be irresponsible with the effects those teachings may have on people.