Some years ago I injured my right hand and was put in a brace for several months. Just after the accident I had a "big dream," one I had to rely on a friend to write down for me. I revisited the dream when I was able to write. My friend wrote the summary I'd dictated and now I wrote out the dream with all its nuances and details. Eventually, the piece became a private myth with a clearly defined alchemical theme. Recently, I proposed the dream-myth to an editor and was told that they don't publish fiction. This left me wondering whether this piece - a dream triggered by a physical crisis - were in fact fiction. Where do you draw the line?
In a similar connection, I read this morning that the ex-wife of Carlos Castenada died. Apparently, she'd written a book some years ago in which she contends that Carlos' Don Juan series was little more than a "conversation he had with himself." I was stunned by her suggestion that the myth which had sparked a New Age may have all been the fiction of a very secretive, imaginative man. Or, was it? Again, I am left asking whether these amazing books are fiction. I certainly took them to heart, believing every fantastic detail to be real, to have happened and to some extent, contributing to my own belief system and how I viewed life. Of course, fiction can have this effect, but I still stubbornly believe that Don Juan Mateus was a Mexican shaman and Carlos, his naive student/apprentice.
Certainly, I can recount many instances which Jung experienced - beginning with his Red Book - that call to our attention this same question - how much of this material is "real" and how much fictionalized? Where and how to we draw the line in an age where the boundaries between above and below, small and large, are increasingly blurred and at times, indistinguishable.
BTW I haven't yet mentioned synchronicity or psychoid phenomena...later!
Replies
Hi Thom, I feel a bit guilty about pointing out that Castenada was a fraud. I hope it didn't deflate you too much. I thought therefore that I should write a short piece on my own take on Castenada from the perspective of an ayahuasca curandero, or an apprentice shaman who has been initiated into the mysteries of ayahuasca, said to be the most powerful natural plant hallucinogen.
In my apprenticeship I was taught how to work not only with this "teacher plant" but also in how to work with all the other plant spirits of the rainforest. have read Castenada's work, and it did leave me a little cold. Not only that, but I discovered a world, a realm out there that was infinitely more beautiful than the descriptions in his book. Maybe this is partly because you are experiencing the ineffable, but also because not only are you communing with the spirits of plants, they lead you into their world, their realm, and this is so unlike anything we know and understand in our human world that it can take many many lessons before it is possible to navigate and feel at home there.
How can I explain the exquisite beauty of a plant opening itself to reveal all its glory, of being with a plant as it dances to the haunting songs of the shaman, as they not only reveal themselves to the shaman, but join in consciousness, as the shaman and plant become one? It is pretty much impossible to describe.
I've have been there, I have lived in the rainforest, I have slowed myself down to the rhythm of the plants, become their friends, and they have shown me their secrets. This is something that you too can discover, so do not be down at heart at discovering that Castenada was a fraud. The "truth" as I have borne witness to is so much more glorious : )
The only downside being that the plants say you have to suffer to get there. There is no easy route!
Dear Simon. Thank you for your considerate response. I am not at all disheartened to learn that Carlos may have been "making it all up." In truth, there is little of anything new in the world of ideas. Castenada came into my life at a time when I needed to have my eyes opened; he was among many influences that had a positive affect on me. One of the main benefits that these roads led me to was psychological and spiritual alchemy, one that I've pursued for many years. Although I do not work in spygrics, your descriptions echo what I have heard from colleagues who do plant alchemy. I must also mention my wife, who is very much into shamanism. whose had an important influence on me. BTW my daughter and her husband just returned from the Amazon where they stayed in an eco-lodge for two weeks. There they met a aged shaman who used various elixirs made mostly from bark to help them. I love your descriptions of the plant world and admire the courage needed to enter their world. This is the way of mystery - there is always a personal sacrifice needed to enter. I know all too well what price I've paid in my work with the Osiris mystery.
Hi Thom
The general consensus is that Castenada's work is highly plagiarised and is now regarded only as fiction. Here is a good reference.
Simon
Richard De Mille (Ed.) The Don Juan Papers. Further Castaneda Controversies. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson Publishers, 94-98.
Plagiarized from what source? Thanks for the reference.
Hi - mainly Wasson.
The first page of this article is available to read free
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2066119
The paper also presents evidence that Castenada also took works from C.S.Lewis, Michael Harner and San Juan de la Cruz.
You could read this article too:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/an-original-richard-d...
Hope this helps.
Hello Thom, Castenada definitily influence my understanding in much the same way that Gurdjieff did, and tough though it seemed (and still does) I was determined to hold their ideas and methods as good working models. Call me a fool but whether fact or fiction does it matter. And to add to that, which is more real the adventures by or with a 'guru' or the journey within into the vast oceans and forest of the unconscious,
Remember Jungs girl who went to the moon? 'Of course she did
Cathryn
Von Franz's first lesson and one we might also follow!