11-26-2011, 12:01 AM
Gonzo wrote:
There's a wee problem with “I experienced it.” And that is, the same “I” interpreted the experience. It's quite possible the interpretation could be flawed, let alone that possibly not all of the experience was recalled correctly, or that all aspects of the experience were paid attention to or even recalled. IOW, memory being selective, it's quite conceivable personal bias has colored the experience.
What books like Castaneda's are helpful for, minimally, is corroboration. If the data used for corroboration is proven to be, or even suspected to be, fraudulent, what then of the potential validity of one's recollected experience?
In my opinion, the books are most helpful in presenting techniques for valuable explorations of self leading to better understanding of self, and perhaps even to what I consider a most worthwhile goal, that of attaining the totality of self. Whether or not CC was a fraud, in this case, is irrelevant. The techniques provided work. It's easy to ignore the hooks that draw many, that of super powers and abilities and magical nonsense.
Re your first paragraph, I actually agree. (Surprised?) Heh. That's why I always caution about jumping to conclusions. The experience is what it is and cannot be taken from you. What it MEANS... well, that's another matter altogether. With regard to my own metaphysical/mystical experiences, I try to take them as objectively as possible. Beyond that, there are patterns of experience - when the same metaphysical/mystical thing happens more than once or twice, it becomes possible to at least observe how those patterns may (or may not) relate to our ordinary lives.
Which brings me to Castaneda's books. As I was saying to Diamond Unicorn, CC's books were largely just corroboration for me. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't doubt many/most of his experiences, because I've been there, done that... and therein lies the pattern. This isn't just some isolated, subjective experience. It can be repeated, so in that regard it is at least somewhat quantifiable. It happened to me. It happened to NLW. It happened to CC. And I'm sure it's happened to thousands of others who have actually sought out the experience rather than just reading about it in a book.
The problem I've observed is that when people treat it as a religion is when the trouble begins (as with any religion). For example, yoga is a practice, not a religion. Nagualism is also a practice - not a belief system. So when DU is up in arms because "Castaneda lied," I can only liken it to a religious man suffering what's commonly called "a loss of faith". Having found out that the guru lied (about anything), the apprentice goes into anger-denial-bargaining-depression-acceptance and blames everyone but himself. Common pattern.
DU uses the argument that if CC lied about one thing, he probably lied about all of it. Well... let's examine that premise just briefly. Assuming anyone here studies martial arts or yoga, how would it affect your experience if you found out that your teacher lied about something? It's the old cliche of shooting the messenger. DU can blame CC all day long, but it doesn't invalidate the message - for those who have actually experienced it. The messenger lied about how he got the information, but does that invalidate the information itself?
One thing about shamanism that many do not know or choose to ignore is that most shamans are bona-fide liars - not by choice but by design. A large part of "spiritual healing" is often accomplished by what might be labeled as deceit on the part of the shaman. Shamans may pretend to suck out a deadly spider from a patient suffering from pneumonia, when the reality was that the spider was concealed in the shaman's cloak all along. BUT the patient gets better because s/he believes the shaman cured her (when the reality is that she cured herself) and isn't all that really matters? And doesn't it somewhat alter one's idea of "truth"? If the patient was dying of pneumonia but can be cured by a lie, is the cure itself not then Truth?
Expecting a real shaman (brujo, sorcerer, curandero) to be an upstanding "truthsayer" is ludicrous, because the shaman's primary objective revolves around getting folks to let go of their consensual programming (IOW, the foreign installation). And the ONLY way to do that is to simply grab them by the scruff of the neck and drag them (kicking and screaming, if necessary) out of the matrix and into the real world - which is NOT what most around here THINK it is. But I digress... Simple point: shamans lie because the world itself is a lie which must be unraveled to reveal the truth underneath. Get over it. If your teacher HASN'T lied to you to get you to change your thinking, he's probably not a very effective teacher. (Oh my! Illusions of wholesomeness and truth, justice and the usual yada just got blasted all to hell!)
Everything you need to know can be *seen* in Star Trek. Hehheh.
[trying to confuse an android - aka surgical strike to remove foreign installation]
Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain!
[And this being done, the robot fizzled, his programming undone. Any questions?]
As for magical abilities and such... "Magick is only science not yet understood." We live in a quantum universe, where it may well turn out that everything is created by thought, intent and will. At the very least, we already know that the universe is directly affected by our observations of it - IOW, we are inexorably connected. That being the case...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(Big Bill Shakespeare)
Which brings me back to the begining. The experience is simply what it is. The fact that I/we/you cannot wrap our minds around it doesn't invalidate the experience itself.
There's a wee problem with “I experienced it.” And that is, the same “I” interpreted the experience. It's quite possible the interpretation could be flawed, let alone that possibly not all of the experience was recalled correctly, or that all aspects of the experience were paid attention to or even recalled. IOW, memory being selective, it's quite conceivable personal bias has colored the experience.
What books like Castaneda's are helpful for, minimally, is corroboration. If the data used for corroboration is proven to be, or even suspected to be, fraudulent, what then of the potential validity of one's recollected experience?
In my opinion, the books are most helpful in presenting techniques for valuable explorations of self leading to better understanding of self, and perhaps even to what I consider a most worthwhile goal, that of attaining the totality of self. Whether or not CC was a fraud, in this case, is irrelevant. The techniques provided work. It's easy to ignore the hooks that draw many, that of super powers and abilities and magical nonsense.
Re your first paragraph, I actually agree. (Surprised?) Heh. That's why I always caution about jumping to conclusions. The experience is what it is and cannot be taken from you. What it MEANS... well, that's another matter altogether. With regard to my own metaphysical/mystical experiences, I try to take them as objectively as possible. Beyond that, there are patterns of experience - when the same metaphysical/mystical thing happens more than once or twice, it becomes possible to at least observe how those patterns may (or may not) relate to our ordinary lives.
Which brings me to Castaneda's books. As I was saying to Diamond Unicorn, CC's books were largely just corroboration for me. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't doubt many/most of his experiences, because I've been there, done that... and therein lies the pattern. This isn't just some isolated, subjective experience. It can be repeated, so in that regard it is at least somewhat quantifiable. It happened to me. It happened to NLW. It happened to CC. And I'm sure it's happened to thousands of others who have actually sought out the experience rather than just reading about it in a book.
The problem I've observed is that when people treat it as a religion is when the trouble begins (as with any religion). For example, yoga is a practice, not a religion. Nagualism is also a practice - not a belief system. So when DU is up in arms because "Castaneda lied," I can only liken it to a religious man suffering what's commonly called "a loss of faith". Having found out that the guru lied (about anything), the apprentice goes into anger-denial-bargaining-depression-acceptance and blames everyone but himself. Common pattern.
DU uses the argument that if CC lied about one thing, he probably lied about all of it. Well... let's examine that premise just briefly. Assuming anyone here studies martial arts or yoga, how would it affect your experience if you found out that your teacher lied about something? It's the old cliche of shooting the messenger. DU can blame CC all day long, but it doesn't invalidate the message - for those who have actually experienced it. The messenger lied about how he got the information, but does that invalidate the information itself?
One thing about shamanism that many do not know or choose to ignore is that most shamans are bona-fide liars - not by choice but by design. A large part of "spiritual healing" is often accomplished by what might be labeled as deceit on the part of the shaman. Shamans may pretend to suck out a deadly spider from a patient suffering from pneumonia, when the reality was that the spider was concealed in the shaman's cloak all along. BUT the patient gets better because s/he believes the shaman cured her (when the reality is that she cured herself) and isn't all that really matters? And doesn't it somewhat alter one's idea of "truth"? If the patient was dying of pneumonia but can be cured by a lie, is the cure itself not then Truth?
Expecting a real shaman (brujo, sorcerer, curandero) to be an upstanding "truthsayer" is ludicrous, because the shaman's primary objective revolves around getting folks to let go of their consensual programming (IOW, the foreign installation). And the ONLY way to do that is to simply grab them by the scruff of the neck and drag them (kicking and screaming, if necessary) out of the matrix and into the real world - which is NOT what most around here THINK it is. But I digress... Simple point: shamans lie because the world itself is a lie which must be unraveled to reveal the truth underneath. Get over it. If your teacher HASN'T lied to you to get you to change your thinking, he's probably not a very effective teacher. (Oh my! Illusions of wholesomeness and truth, justice and the usual yada just got blasted all to hell!)
Everything you need to know can be *seen* in Star Trek. Hehheh.
[trying to confuse an android - aka surgical strike to remove foreign installation]
Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain!
[And this being done, the robot fizzled, his programming undone. Any questions?]
As for magical abilities and such... "Magick is only science not yet understood." We live in a quantum universe, where it may well turn out that everything is created by thought, intent and will. At the very least, we already know that the universe is directly affected by our observations of it - IOW, we are inexorably connected. That being the case...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(Big Bill Shakespeare)
Which brings me back to the begining. The experience is simply what it is. The fact that I/we/you cannot wrap our minds around it doesn't invalidate the experience itself.