The teachings of Don Juan

Actually, Don Juan tells CC that religion is a garbage heap. He is not at all an 'impersonalist' or a 'personalist'. These categories don't even pertain. They are derived from Indian philosophy which has a totally different basis and set of goals.

It is useless to seek to equate these fantasies with other spiritual paths. They are one man's imaginative work.

But even if they were true, your mention of the need for a 'benefactor' brings us neatly round in a circle, and I repeat my earlier point that no such exists, as DJ clearly tells CC that this is the end of the lineage.
Dis-carnate gurus won't do.
Reincarnation is clearly discounted in 'The Eagle's Gift'.
So - no toltec benefactor = no path.

But again, you could do as a previous poster advises and try some of the 'methodology'. But instead of the 'gait of power', try a big dose of datura, and dont forget you'll need the two lizards - sew up the mouth of the one and the eyes of the other - then perhaps, enlightenment will come. Send one off to look for the nagual.......if that is, you think that whatever you got in past lives from gurus or anyone else is sufficient to support you in such actions.

I suggest strongly that any 'pot' that wasn't cracked before would become a 'cracked pot' under such a regieme. And actually,please ignore my advice about the datura, because it is a highly dangerous substance. As for the lizards, the thought is sickening. But thats all there, in 'a separate reality'.
My theory is that the stiching up of the eyes was an idea CC took from Dante's 'Purgatory'.

 

That is exactly my view.

 

Although I agree esoteric reality is another side of what we term phisical reality, I don't think the true knower and seeker (true) can deviated by a book.To use a figure of speech from hinduism. 'the paramahamsa can extract the cream from the milk and leave the water', so in the case that there is truth mixed with fabrications, the one who is in tune with truth, will determine which is which, and may I say unless one has that sharp ability to distinguish one from the other, all the reading wont lead anyone anywhere.
These were only meant to be tales of power, and even Don Juan told that to Carlos, that he would have to be content with that.

That Carlos became a true man of knowledge is doubtful; that Don Juan and all the rest were all real is not so far-fetched; that true Nawalism exists...well, if hinduim exists and other orthodox paths exists...it doesn't matter what they are called. I think that when the indivivdual is ready his right path will find him and this readiness is the most important factor in any path- seeking journey. Readiness is what separates the cracked from the wholle.

 

But we're not speaking here for the benefit of the Paramhansa, but ordinary people. If they waste their time seeking to pursue these so-called 'toltec practices' they may miss out on stuff that might be helpful.

As for your other point, I can only repeat that it is meaningless to speak of Don Juan as a man of knowledge or anything else other than a literary creation of CC.

 

Ordinary people do not thirst for knowledge; read iin the gita the types of people that look for God. As far as DJ is concerned I have to disagree on many levels....first of all if anyone writes a script or a book, who else has the right to say wether the character is either real, a composite, or totally fictitious?
I personally would not be so bold as to say that, even if I knew the person
and chatted wih them on a daily basis,,, nawalls even like Carlos are not as ordinary people. How many of your friends publish books aclaimed buy the New york Times? or make movies? or posses great wealth? or have turned the world around?
Those who afect many, even if not so well -recognised are not ordinary. With great power comes great responsablity, "to whom much is given , much is required".

 

Its invalid to quote what the Gita sys in this context, as Don Juan is not telling CC to seek God. Read the books. There is not one positive mention of god, and certainly the whole notion of devotionalism is wholly alien to the whole tone of them.

If I chat with a person on a daily basis, I think that person is real. I mean by a person someone with a physical body.
No doubt many characters in fiction are composites of those the author has known. That doesn't make them real, tangible people.

Many people have written books, made films, been rich. Their worldly success proves absolutely nothing about the authenticity of that which made them rich. It most certainly doesn't prove that any of them are particularly enlightened. And many very rich and powerful people do far more harm than good in this world. G.W.Bush is both rich and powerful.

Jesus, who you quote, had no wealth, wrote nothing. But one can't really quote Jesus in defence of CC, as religion is dismissed by DJ as a fantasy for the masses.

 

Your main premise is that the character of Don Juan is not real, and that his teachings/ or Carlos's overimaginative writings deter or could deter an inocent reader from seeking elsewhere for knowledge and devotion.

That is not up for you to determine. One of the greatest books in India called the Supreme yoga teaches the impersonal aproach as the highest path.
When Vasistha goes to Shiva's planet and enconters his worshipable deity there, he asks what is the best process and Shiva fills a wholle chapter on the impersonal philosophy. Up to that moment Vasistha had been worshipping the form. Vasistha was Rama's Guru, Rama was an incarnation of Vishnu the God of gods. Rama was depressed and to get him out of his depression Vasistha recites the Supreme Yoga which is the highest understanding.

We must all aproach the path that is more suitable to our station in life's spiritual journey. No one should have the right in this world to determine what is real or what is not except the individual. For me neither Carlos nor any average westener has the skill to create a character Like Don Juan. And to speak so clearly on occult matters, and the knowledge is not something one can invent so easily. A good example of a mediocre invention is the book"The journey of the peaceful warrior" or for that matter another one called "the celestine prophesy'", Those books are witten by rip-off artists who has nothing of value to say and take 300 pages to say it.

To say that the charcter is created by Carlos is to by-pass many important things. In the first place why name a visionary mystic Don Juan ?
When someone told me "you should read Don Juan" I thought they meant
the spanish lover. If they had said "you should read Don Marko de la magia" I would've asked "what exactly is that?" Instead I payed no attention to the comment. Later on on a table where I used to rehearse
there was a book called "Journey to Ixlatan" I wondered what it was about but I never asked and I didn't like that title. Perhaps a year later I began to read the books but it was the title or the picture that atracted my atention. It was now "tales of power",,,,, What's in a name?


Besides that "Don Juan" is a very poor choice (worst) of name for a transcendental character, the things that this man says is not the average knowledge for a student of Antropology. The wholle: "this Don Juan was an invention of Carlos's" just doesn't hold any water. The wholle concept is inside a cracked pot.

We don't have to believe everything we read, and I don't recommend it and that is not the way to find out truth in the first place, but adding all the pieces here and there; doubting, researching,,reading more, investigating, researching all religions and paths
and then putting it all together, that is more the right way. The ones that don't hold water will be exposed for that. All true philosofies all have to agree, but their symbols may differ, and even the aproaches of the teachers and the attitudes of the students.

That should be the goal, to extract the cream and to leave the water, to confirm the basic simple premises and to forget who said and under what circumstances or under what names and drown in that mediocre aproach.
Lizards are not mentioned anywhere I have read in conecetion with knowledge, so obviously I will by-pass that isolated item and focus on things that are echoed in other places and see how they put together the puzzle.

If one gets enough round-up knowledge one will be able to determine what is truth, and not let others by their opinion determine that. A rumor sometimes becomes truth but not inside the mind of those who think for themselves. It takes time,yes, but it's far more worthy than letting someone else determine or even influence one into believing what is and is not real.

 

Since I myself am a seeker it is very much for me to determine. Who else?

Hinduism has nothing in common with DJ's teachings, so to seek to use it to support them is pointless.

To say that no-one has the skill to create a character like DJ is simple nonsense. In fact, as a 'real person' he is very far from being a convincing character.
I agree the Celstine Prophecy is rubbish, and I've already acknowledged that I think CC was a fine writer.

DJ is NOT a mystic! Mystics are people who seek to know God (however conceived - impersonal, personal or otherwise). DJ is not a guru. He says to CC that mystics of all ages are siply deluded.
Naming the character 'Don Juan' is a clever literary device.

.
The thing is fiction.
If you choose to beleive in it, that's up to you.

Lizards, and the sewing up of their eyes and mouths occurs in 'A Separate Reality'. book II of the series.

 

You believe whatever you chose. As for for me I don't get caught in the terminolgy. Spiritualism is the same yesterday, today and forever; and there are myriads of aproches and paths... and individuals who aproach a particular path differently.

Don Juan's Guru (benefactor, teaher, Sensei, coach ) was an actor and as such he would cry while don Juan would laugh, at the stupidity of his chelas. (or is it benefactees?)

Who is there qualified to say what nawalism is, or what are the rules of the symbols and the methods of teaching? That is what I mean by who is qualified to determine what is kosher and what is not. In the bible every single prophet is as diffferent from another as colors are unique in themselves even when mixed. In the Shrimad Bhagavatam each devotee and each incarnation was incredibe unique and different from the others,all came to teach the people of the times. Some were poor but some were kings of the wholle world, some would have great Mystic powers and some livedpretty much ordinary lives.

Some people reading this will get what I'm saying now, some will get it later, and some will never get it. The sower casts the seeds unconcerned about which wil die immediately and which will bring a thousand-fold fruits.

I simply propose rightful thinking,,,without which any path would lead only to confusion and mere corruption.

 

So the joke goes on. (I have not read this thread for some time.) If he was attempting nothing else, CC succeeded as the cosmic trickster. A bit like being an excellent stand-up comic, and I take my hat off to him. People are still debating his fiction years after his death. I am certain he would have appreciated that. Indeed, it probably was a slight blow to his ego when his books stopped being officially classed as 'anthropology' when they were published. (The publishers having realised that they had been had LOL.)

Earlier in this thread the 'warrior' is contrasted with the mystic. Mysticism is in fact the path to the goal of life, as can be discovered in any true fount of esotericism. The 'warrior' concept, while you might find it elsewhere, is in the CC books once again a fiction so therefore meaningless. The so-called 'warrior', do note, has NO altruism!

Hari wrote:

>>>"For me neither Carlos nor any average westener has the skill to create a character Like Don Juan. And to speak so clearly on occult matters, and the knowledge is not something one can invent so easily."

LOL, you'd have to look far and wide to find an indigenous shaman anywhere on Earth who speaks perfect English so elaborately and imbued with literary devices as does DJ. Once more, a great character invention by a gifted author.

The 'argument' will go round and round. Those who have taken the books to heart and cannot let go of them a little will have to dwell within that world, rather like being 'stuck' in the imaginary world of Harry Potter. Meanwhile, the real Path goes on.

Meanwhile, Blackbillblake is so right. There's not much point in contrasting Hinduism or any other scheme of spiritual thought with the CC / DJ philosophy. That was after all a fiction, not something actually lived and workable over generations, with an existing culture practising it.

If any reader has known a neurotic liar (and that is simply a medical or psychological condition so we can feel sorry for them without judging), they will very quickly get the gist of what CC is doing in his books and in the life he lived. I've seen it a few times before.

(If anyone is familiar with the Baird T. Spalding books, 6 volumes of "Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far east", these too are a good parallel: they are almost worshipped by generations of readers, and are great books too. Alas it is now out that these too were purely fiction (though unlike the CC works the philosophy within them is IMHO most valid actually).

Akasha

 

So then the conclusion is, Carlos was "pulling" everyones's leg...literaly.

 

So let's stop using wholly inapplicable terms to refer to DJ. He is not presented as a mystic or a guru.

Since CC invented the term 'nagualism' and it is an imaginary concept, I suppose it's open to anyone to define it, as other so called 'Toltec' writers (Ken Eagle Feather, Merylin Tunneshende etc) have done. Their work mainly contradicts CC. They are likewise fantasists.

If you are really interested in Native American spirituality, there are much better and more genuine books on the topic, but you'll find nothing which corresponds to CC's ideas or his somewhat tacky cosmology.

 

Well. I apreciate the advice and will look up those writers. Yet, I have great respect for CC's work because it reaches me at a gut level.

I recently found the writings in spanish, and being bilingual, I began reading his description of his antropology teacher, then others non-related things to nawalism, but about strange people he knows, and I found myself simply amused by his skillful elucidation of the events, and realised that his skill at writing was the type that was refreshing and not like the writers that say too little with a million words, while he says more with few. His skill is in painting clear pictures in your mind and puting you where you can feel what he felt at the time... how he 'saw' it.

Most writers I find too crebral and cold, so I read nothing or very little that is not scripture. I get the feeling about some writers that they look at things from the distance, or as if they are more wiriting with the public in mind and how proper they are writing, and how the public will recieive it, and showing off that all the years of studying writing was not all a waste, but having spent so much time in school they then lacked a living experience to talk about because of so much sitting in classes.

In the case of Carlos we have to understand that in 1968 the common topic in the streets was not esoteric knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume he was trying to get atention by writing about that.

He was not a writer when he wrote his first books, he was merely taking notes..It is part of being a student of antropolgy to do that or record it. In the case of Juan, he was not intereseted in being Carlos's ginea pig but was directed by the spirit to instruct Carlos in sharperning his inborn talent and power. He told Carlos not to use a tape-recorder. Carlos
took notes.



As you put it, don juan " is not presented" as a guru...by who's terms?? we must be coming from two totally different perspectives, and I'm aware of that from the start. Carlos never presented himslef as a writer, perhaps later he saw the nessesity for that, and Jj never said he was a guru .
but a benefactor,'rightful thinking' is llooking at the essence of things beyond labes.....guru, benefactor, teacher, guide, are mere terms,,,what do they mean in general? what do they mean in particular?


DJ told Carlos to put all his notes into a book and according to DJ Carlos was a nawal. or one with a doble aura, and this is not knowldge even now in 2005 that people in the west are ready to swallow, because of what colleges have done to the mind of the young and the persecution o spiritual warriors called"witches" in he past. People in Europe as far back and before Hitler considered esoteric things as part or spirituality itself in spite of the church selling the idea that Christ should be worshipped but never imitated.

Timothy Leary going to India is an example of that, He was meeting his guru who was as unorthodox as you can get. The man told Leary what he was thinking before on his own, and Leary being the typical westener (even after LSD trips) began speculating what CIA conections this little man may have to be able to do that, but being that even the CIA itself has not developed that technology (yet) then he was left simply with his confusion.

My point is: What is a guru? who dermines exactly whos in qualified to be called a guru and who is not? does he have to be indian? sit cross-legged, know kundalini lingo, wear a loin cloth? have an ashram?

People with narrow minds want to shrink reality to terms and live inside that safe cocoon of limted knowable concepts, and be content with simply materialism and put all esoteric things as fantasy, so what place to they have in nawalism? The books merely give people a hint of power...Gurus have power,Naguals have power, krishna has power Chist has power: but the average man has to be content with merely reading tales...of power(?).

 

Thats just part of Carlos fictitious plot.

 

PS - Where other so-called 'Toltec' writers are concerned, I would save yourself the money and time. They are even less convincing than CC, who at least dreamed the thing up to begin with.

 

But you see,, it was obvious to me one thing only (never that the writings happenened exactly as written from his experience as he experienced it ) and that is that Carlos never became anything other than a writer after being first an antroplogy student and before that Just your average angelino.(L.A.). as far as a guru meaning one who leads one to God I kinda agree on that but who or what God is where all paths or teaching disagree.
Brahaman, parabraman.the Father, satori, nawall,The eagle, chi, prana, the mother, Vishnu, christ, yaweh, Alah, jah, Krishna, Om, nirvana, are names that people have devised or have read about. For me they all talk about the same thing, but by naming it they have separated from the others, yet one who really knows, knows that what can be named is not the true Tao (there I go again).

 

i read The Art of Dreaming by Castaneda and a couple days after i finished i had my first lucid dream! Might be because i had been thinking about it a great deal but ... i suggest reading it.

 

Can't post links,,,see title.

 

woohoo
I can't believe i just discovered this Thread, I read the Teachings of Don Juan laster year twice cover to cover then cover to cover again, oh my goodness.....when he first meets mescalito.....as the dog HOLY COW that is amazing

 

Tales of power, The art of dreaming and even the Eagle's gift are pearls,,,
they (about 7 of them) have amusing stories and pearls of wisdom. The only ones I don't find artistic amusing and profound are the ones in the very end,
something like George Lucas leaving all the work to computers.