carlos castaneda

[Guest guest]

Castaneda - he was non-reliable, with this definition that - he was

telling <lie> - many times - his books and teachings were un-reliable

- with this definition - (95% truth + 5% lie) - (dangerous lies that

were designed cleverly to misguide untrained neural networks to real

darkness - (I have reasons to defend above claims about him) if

necessary, for one who wants it, we can talk. My suggestion is avoid

all his books as you avoid a ticking unknown box that has written on

it - in red - <bomb>.

[Guest guest]

I have also read from various sources Castaneda's supposed abuses he

would take upon his followers. Some of his techniques are effective

and even so were not designed by him merely documented by him. There

is much confusion about his sources and his conclusions about his

version of spirituality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda#The_Witches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda#The_Blue_Scout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda#Criticism

http://www.sustainedaction.org/Chronologies/chron_blue_scoutI.htm

 

These are merely some of the less supportive accounts.

 

I read almost all of his books and never did feel like partaking of

the plants or wrestling a supposed ally. I cannot suggest his works

for anyone to take into serious practice. Not because they are not

effective but because they can, as Shahin indicates, cause some

unfortunate experiences and belief structures based upon those

experiences to be had. They are not THE path as I have come to know

it. Yet of course everyone has free will.

 

I suggest that one allows the Shakti within themselves to educate one

on the path of spirituality. Let that which is within teach what we

need to know. Go within and allow that internal voice to guide you on

your path. No need to have fear when you go there. Trust yourself and

the aspects of yourselve(s)to help you reach your enlightenment. -my

take- chrism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Shahin "

<sh1963sh wrote:

>

>

> Castaneda - he was non-reliable, with this definition that - he was

> telling <lie> - many times - his books and teachings were un-reliable

> - with this definition - (95% truth + 5% lie) - (dangerous lies that

> were designed cleverly to misguide untrained neural networks to real

> darkness - (I have reasons to defend above claims about him) if

> necessary, for one who wants it, we can talk. My suggestion is avoid

> all his books as you avoid a ticking unknown box that has written on

> it - in red - <bomb>.

>