Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
songbird wrote:Geez, it smells a bit like Sustained Reaction in here.... Yuck!
If you mean it smells like critical thinking then why would that be yucky? sniff sniff, smells like freedom to me
"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and
fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in
evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often
altogether too self-confident and dogmatic."
-Urantia
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
I absolutely get your point but I disagree with your conclusion that it 'doesn't matter' or its irrelevant.
It matters simply because there is a difference between truth and fantasy, and anyone who loves the truth will want to know the truth!
There is a difference between a piece of fiction that may 'reflect truth' or be inspiring and between a real and valid account of actual spiritual experiences and teachings;
QS: Believing that "Jesus saves" or "Don Juan lives" or "Castaneda lied"... all these things are irrelevant, BECAUSE they are only beliefs - and in the big picture, "belief" is as worthless as tits on a bull.
Not exactly... there is a big difference between believing in something that is actually true in universe reality and believing in something that was made up in someone's imagination.
I've highlighted in red the points where I think you are stuck. Sorry - no offense. If you are "believing in something", it is not Knowledge but only information that you can either accept or reject. That being the case, I would no more "believe in Castaneda" than I would "believe in" the Bible or Dr. Seuss.
If you are asking for something that is "actually true in universe reality"... good luck with that. As far as I know, there are only 4 things that MIGHT qualify: earth, air, fire, water. And even that is purely a matter of perception, so what would you classify as "actually true"?
When I say it doesn't matter, I stand by that statement wholly. If Castaneda lied, it doesn't matter. If Dr. Seuss lied, it doesn't matter. If Jesus was "made up in someone's imagination", it doesn't matter.
What DOES matter? What have you experienced for yourself that others would consider impossible? Would you be called a liar or a fool or a charlatan if you had the courage to relate your own unique experience and pull no punches?
Perception is entirely unique to the perceiver. We may have common reference points (aka "the consensus reality") but that's rather like having a "baseline normal" for the human body. Normal body temp is 98.6. But if yours is slightly higher or lower than that, does that make you a liar?
It's all about perception. If Castaneda says he jumped off a mountain and landed in Los Angeles, what do I care? It doesn't affect MY experience one iota. If Admiral Byrd claims he found the entrance to "another world", how does that change my own journey? (It doesn't.) If somebody once wrote the words, "Jesus wept," how do I know if it's true, or if "Jesus" even existed? ...and why should it MATTER? I-Am. Beyond that, it's all a **** shoot.
Only when you have no beliefs left to lose will you have the courage to stand naked in the face of the infinite. As long as you "believe in something", you are limiting your own experience. Your choice.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Unless you can verify that something is 100% factual or not, then you have to rely on belief;
you either believe it is true or you dont (or a mixture of the two)
Again, it MATTERS if you sincerely desire to know the truth.
It MATTERS if you want to take Castaneda's works seriously...
If evidence appears that creates doubt or shows he could have possibly lied about some things he wrote or even if everything was fabricated, any person who is honest and interested in Castaneda's works will look at the evidence objectively and sincerely and not just blow it off saying it is irrelevant.
If Castaneda lied it changes EVERYTHING...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote  ongbird wrote:Geez, it smells a bit like Sustained Reaction in here.... Yuck!
If you mean it smells like critical thinking then why would that be yucky? sniff sniff, smells like freedom to me
"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and
fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in
evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often
altogether too self-confident and dogmatic."
-Urantia
No, that's not what I meant. I meant the atmosphere , the scent, the aura, the vibe of SR -- critical thinking is good, question everything, but becoming attached to any idea is not healthy. Becoming so stuck on the idea that Carlos was a fraud when it really doesn't matter, is a gigantic waste of energy. QS is right, we learn for ourselves regardless of what any book says. If a 'lie' in a book validates our own seeing, what does that mean? Does that mean our seeing was wrong? No. I can open the dictionary, or a kids book to a certain page and get the same validation. I can get it from a train passing by me or a bird in the sky! Its about being open to gettting messages from Spirit and the Nagual. Those can come from anywhere. And those do not lie.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
songbird wrote:Becoming so stuck on the idea that Carlos was a fraud when it really doesn't matter, is a gigantic waste of energy.
I've spent years just assuming Castaneda was telling the truth, I have only recently been exploring the idea seriously that he could have fabricated the whole thing. Its not an issue to be so lightly dismissed if you care at all about the essence and true nature of the 'teachings of don Juan', imo.
A follower of the teachings can consider it as an exercise in the 'art of stalking' or 'controlled folly'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
songbird wrote:
Becoming so stuck on the idea that Carlos was a fraud when it really doesn't matter, is a gigantic waste of energy.
I've spent years just assuming Castaneda was telling the truth, I have only recently been exploring the idea seriously that he could have fabricated the whole thing. Its not an issue to be so lightly dismissed if you care at all about the essence and true nature of the 'teachings of don Juan', imo.
A follower of the teachings can consider it as an exercise in the 'art of stalking' or 'controlled folly'.
Are you aware of "the four agreements"?
Assume nothing.
Take nothing personally.
Always do your best.
Be impeccable with your word.
To assume ANYTHING about Castaneda (or anyone else) is a huge mistake. To say he "fooled everyone" is to take it personally (that's IF you're correct). To FOLLOW the teachings is not the same thing as do-ing the teachings.
If you are true to yourself, that's the only truth that really matters. All "truth" is in the eye of the beholder.
You don't have the luxury of worrying about whether Castaneda lied or not. The clock is ticking. Death is stalking you.
Castaneda lied. Now what?
Tick tock. Tick tock.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
If Castaneda lied it changes EVERYTHING...If YOU are true to YOUR journey, nothing has changed. If you are only a follower, then... yup... it changes everything, 'cuz now you're on your own, with the rug yanked out from under you and no safety net.
To rely on "belief", as you suggest, is to rely on your fellow man to be always truthful and impeccable. A fool's errand, at best.
You don't have the luxury of worrying about whether Castaneda lied or not. The clock is ticking. Death is stalking you.
Castaneda lied. Oh my. Now what?
Tick tock. Tick tock.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Its not about worrying, its about an honest exploration into that possibility, which there is no need to rush and brush it aside like its some taboo topic that will poison us to death.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
quantumshaman wrote:
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?
I think you may be mis-understanding me and where I'm coming from... first off I didn't use that argument if you think so you totally missed the essence of what I was saying, but since you bring it up if CC lied about some things then that does raise some flags and makes me question the real truth of his books.
What makes you think I'm blaming CC? This has nothing to do with blame, why the heck do you think I blamed him? Are you seeing things that are not there?
QS: The messenger lied about how he got the information, but does that invalidate the information itself?
Thats not the issue, the issue is, is his source of information itself a lie (ie. don Juan not real, like Dan Millman's Socrates).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
quantumshaman wrote:
DU uses the argument that if CC lied about one thing, he probably lied about all of it.
No where did I use that argument, thats a flat out lie Quantum Shaman. Thats not even close to the essence I have been talking about.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
quantumshaman wrote  U 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?
First off why you say I can blame CC? What are you implying here?
The messenger lied about how he got the information, but does that invalidate the information itself?
If the information itself is a lie, then yes.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Quantum Shaman: 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!)
Not really, it just shows that YOUR ideal of 'master teacher' is, someone who is a liar.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
quantumshaman wrote: 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!)
Not really, it just shows that YOUR ideal of 'master teacher' is: someone who is a liar.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
quantumshaman wrote:
DU uses the argument that if CC lied about one thing, he probably lied about all of it.
No where did I use that argument, thats a flat out lie Quantum Shaman. Thats not even close to the essence I have been talking about.
Not that it matters, but that argument WAS used in this thread. I read it this morning. That post has now obviously been edited and that comment deleted. *shrugs* Just FYI, edits don't seem to show, since I edited one of my own posts and there is nothing to indicate it has been edited. Not saying you did it. Maybe you never said it. Maybe you did. Maybe you lied. Maybe I did. Maybe CC did. Maybe he didn't. Does ANY of it matter? Not really.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
quantumshaman wrote:
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!)
Not really, it just shows that YOUR ideal of 'master teacher' is: someone who is a liar.
Not all liars are shamans. But all shamans are liars.
Get over it.
Or... as Jack Nicholson said with such conviction in "A Few Good Men"...
"You can't HANDLE the truth."
*gotta laugh* Until a warrior reaches a certain level of awareness, s/he can't handle the truth.
I ain't lyin'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Thats the problem with the 'shaman business', its lies, tricks, smoke and mirrors,
But not all shamans were self-deceived; many were shrewd and able tricksters. As the profession developed, a novice was required to serve an apprenticeship of ten years of hardship and self-denial to qualify as a medicine man. The shamans developed a professional mode of dress and affected a mysterious conduct. They frequently employed drugs to induce certain physical states which would impress and mystify the tribesmen. Sleight-of-hand feats were regarded as supernatural by the common folk, and ventriloquism was first used by shrewd priests. Many of the olden shamans unwittingly stumbled onto hypnotism; others induced autohypnosis by prolonged staring at their navels.
While many resorted to these tricks and deceptions, their reputation as a class, after all, stood on apparent achievement. When a shaman failed in his undertakings, if he could not advance a plausible alibi, he was either demoted or killed. Thus the honest shamans early perished; only the shrewd actors survived.
It was shamanism that took the exclusive direction of tribal affairs out of the hands of the old and the strong and lodged it in the hands of the shrewd, the clever, and the farsighted.
---
In many ways and by devious methods the olden shamans established their
reputations as voices of God and custodians of providence. They
sprinkled the newborn with water and conferred names upon them; they
circumcised the males. They presided over all burial ceremonies and
made due announcement of the safe arrival of the dead in spiritland.
The shamanic priests and medicine men often became very wealthy through
the accretion of their various fees which were ostensibly offerings to
the spirits. Not infrequently a shaman would accumulate practically all
the material wealth of his tribe. .
SHAMANISM—MEDICINE MEN AND PRIESTS
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:
Thats the problem with the 'shaman business', its lies, tricks, smoke and mirrors,
But not all shamans were self-deceived; many were shrewd and able tricksters. As the profession developed, a novice was required to serve an apprenticeship of ten years of hardship and self-denial to qualify as a medicine man. The shamans developed a professional mode of dress and affected a mysterious conduct. They frequently employed drugs to induce certain physical states which would impress and mystify the tribesmen. Sleight-of-hand feats were regarded as supernatural by the common folk, and ventriloquism was first used by shrewd priests. Many of the olden shamans unwittingly stumbled onto hypnotism; others induced autohypnosis by prolonged staring at their navels.
While many resorted to these tricks and deceptions, their reputation as a class, after all, stood on apparent achievement. When a shaman failed in his undertakings, if he could not advance a plausible alibi, he was either demoted or killed. Thus the honest shamans early perished; only the shrewd actors survived.
It was shamanism that took the exclusive direction of tribal affairs out of the hands of the old and the strong and lodged it in the hands of the shrewd, the clever, and the farsighted.
---
In many ways and by devious methods the olden shamans established their reputations as voices of God and custodians of providence. They sprinkled the newborn with water and conferred names upon them; they circumcised the males. They presided over all burial ceremonies and made due announcement of the safe arrival of the dead in spiritland.
The shamanic priests and medicine men often became very wealthy through the accretion of their various fees which were ostensibly offerings to the spirits. Not infrequently a shaman would accumulate practically all the material wealth of his tribe. .
SHAMANISM—MEDICINE MEN AND PRIESTS
I'm genuinely curious. What IS your point? Castaneda lied... that's where the discussion started. So... now what? What did you want or need from Castaneda that was invalidated when you came to the conclusion (whether true or false) that "Castaneda lied"? How does it affect YOU as a warrior?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I am not asserting any definite conclusions concerning the factualness or not of Castaneda's books, simply exploring the possibilities [aka thought experiments] and their implications...
Which you can say its irrelevant or doesn't matter and using that logic I can say all your responses to me also are irrelevant and doesn't matter... but maybe it many senses it IS relevant and it DOES matter...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
quantumshaman wrote iamond Unicorn wrote:
quantumshaman wrote:
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!)
Not really, it just shows that YOUR ideal of 'master teacher' is: someone who is a liar.
Not all liars are shamans. But all shamans are liars.
Get over it.
Or... as Jack Nicholson said with such conviction in "A Few Good Men"...
"You can't HANDLE the truth."
*gotta laugh* Until a warrior reaches a certain level of awareness, s/he can't handle the truth.
I ain't lyin'.
LOL!
Just one point to make here, been a great read so far this thread btw... is that I would put a small line in between a lie that is a trickery by a teacher (or parent for that matter) in order to eventually achieve a positive end, and a lie told for purely selfish reasons. Not that it matters, but the word lie does have some rather ugly connotations. At the end of the day, however, when you are alone in your bed, just you, yourself and your death, nothing anyone else has ever said to you really matters, lie or not!
It's all just flying french poodles!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
songbird wrote:
LOL!
Just one point to make here, been a great read so far this thread btw... is that I would put a small line in between a lie that is a trickery by a teacher (or parent for that matter) in order to eventually achieve a positive end, and a lie told for purely selfish reasons. Not that it matters, but the word lie does have some rather ugly connotations. At the end of the day, however, when you are alone in your bed, just you, yourself and your death, nothing anyone else has ever said to you really matters, lie or not!
It's all just flying french poodles!
Lori...
I agree completely: there's a difference between coyote trickery from a teacher and just outright lying. Even don Juan admitted that he himself was a "liar" in the trickster sense, when he made the reference to the fact that we have to be tricked onto the path because no sane person would do it. There's a lot of truth to that, so the only way to the truth is through the lie (trick). In my own case, Orlando "lied" to me about several things for a long time, because if he had told me the truth, I would have walked away and he obviously knew that. This is simply how the game is played, because especially in the early stages of a warrior's development, one couldn't even COMPREHEND the truth if it could be handed to them on a silver platter.
If Orlando had said to me at the onset, "Hey, Della, just wanted to tell you the truth. I'm your double, whom you created to create you, whom you dreamed to dream you, but I exist ubiquitously throughout the space-time continuum, including in your childhood-past, even though you may not create me until 20 years from now; and my primary task is to give you the tools of knowledge with which to project yourself beyond the eagle and into the infinite..."
Needless to say, I would've smiled and nodded while carefully backing away. Heh.
So he lied by what he implied. "Hey, little girl. Want to live forever?"
I was hooked onto the path.
That's what the double does. It's what our teachers do if they're worth their salt. And in the end, it is precisely what WE need, or we would have created a different reality.
It's all good. Even the lies.
___________
But just in case there is any doubt... I do agree that lying just for the sake of lying or for personal/selfish gain, is a whole other can o' stink. We've certainly seen enough of THAT just on these forums over the years, eh?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:I've spent years just assuming Castaneda was telling the truth, I have only recently been exploring the idea seriously that he could have fabricated the whole thing. Its not an issue to be so lightly dismissed if you care at all about the essence and true nature of the 'teachings of don Juan', imo.
A follower of the teachings can consider it as an exercise in the 'art of stalking' or 'controlled folly'.
This is an interesting comment DU. The last sentence gives it a complexity, a paradox of sorts. Maybe by the stalking, one would arrive at the essence of the truth, beyond all the trickery. One truth being that stalking and controlled folly are effective maneuvers that bring results in enhancing ones awareness. This would indicate value in the teachings and framework he laid down.
Were you aware of this when you wrote it? Or is it as Bob Ross says "a happy little accident"?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Diamond Unicorn wrote:It would make a difference...
If the book is fiction then Carlos lied claiming it was real, and who wants to 'believe' such books?
I mean Star Wars and Jedi are awesome cool and inspiring but we know the movies and books are fiction and the producers did not try to pass them off as being real life events...
Seriously if you found out truly that Castaneda lied about everything and there was no 'don Juan', you would not look at 'Nagualism' quite in the same way...
Well...since you mention it, I think I would look at it in exactly the same way as I do now...a bunch of con-men (and women) making **** up trying to sell books and seats in classes and trying to make names for themselves.
The methodology of getting duped follows a basic structure...the first being taking things to mean more than they do.
Castaneda had some knowledge. The knowledge was useful to a number of people. Castaneda wrapped that knowledge in a fantasy story in the same way that all the authors before (and after) him have done...because this is just what authors do. The first lie the con-men and women tell you in that their knowledge came from somewhere else...and if you believe that then they have a bridge to sell you. So one eventually learns to separate the two and ignore the story saving the knowledge.
|
