 |
There is a Greek word, hamartia, which is usually translated as tragic flaw, although it connotes more a cognitive than a moral failing — the lack of an important insight, a misperception, a blindness, a failure to perceive ethical and spiritual consequences. The idea of hamartia is often ironic; the very strength that makes the protagonist a hero is what brings about disaster.
A complete biography of Carlos Castaneda has yet to be written. His life in many ways followed a classic Hollywood arc — a trajectory from obscurity to fame and fortune and, finally, to a sort of desperate madness. And the story, too, is a classic tragedy, since Castaneda was undone by the very qualities that brought him his remarkable success. He was charming, boyish, imaginative, clever, filled with imagination, and driven by a need to outwit the world. Castaneda was ultimately undone by a profound hamartia.
For many of us, The Teachings of Don Juan was our first glimpse into a shamanic world at once magical and meaningful, not just for primitive and superstitious people in distant countries, but for ourselves. The character don Juan Matus was the teacher we all yearned for, an initiator into this dark and magical realm — self-contained, charismatic, cynical, intimidating, wise, loving us despite our flaws.
 |
| Carlos Castaneda |
It was all, of course, a fraud. But we were willing to forgive Castaneda, at least for a while, because he was himself the trickster teacher, who had caught the spirit of our deepest needs.
Eventually it all unraveled. The books became increasingly bizarre and inconsistent. Detailed skeptical analysis revealed fiction after fiction. It seemed that every time Castaneda had a new enthusiasm, his purported teachers would have a new teaching. I stopped reading after the third book.
If you were not paying close attention — if you were not within the oddly contoured boundaries of Castaneda’s inner circle — it was easy to miss the accelerating weirdness of Castaneda’s final years. When he died of liver cancer in 1998, at the age of 72, the impeccable warrior left behind a legal mess, irreparable damage to Yaqui and Huichol cultures, and a core of female cult followers, at least one — and perhaps all — of whom committed suicide.
Soon after Castaneda’s death, The New York Times published an article about the lingering legal and familial chaos. In 2007, Salon published a comprehensive article about Castaneda’s last days and the fate of his followers, entitled The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda. And in 2006 the BBC produced an hour-long documentary on Castaneda, which you can see here:
- Previous Post: How I Became a Sorcerer
- Next Post: Video Amazonia Indigena
- More Articles Related to: Books and Art, Indigenous Culture, Sacred Plants
I am no fan of castaneda. He seriously misinformed and confused people about native spirituality in Mexico. However, I am willing to give him the term that Alejandro Jodorowsky uses to refer to him. ” A sacred liar”. He was the reason many people decided to go into deeper levels of internalization and spirituality. Many so called shamans and nahuales came out of the cloth of his influence, but also many people found very solid cultural roots, elders, peace, commmunity and paths, out of starting their search with the reading of the teachings of don Juan.
Exactly, I was about to comment the same.
What is this obsession we have as western culture to determine exactly which facts are true, which aren’t? I see a lot of obsession in that, the need to feel smart, or snob, or to claim “i’m no fool”, “you can’t fool me”.
And, like chuntaro, i’m no fan of castaneda. He might be a liar, but I don’t care. The important thing is what happens to me when I read one of his books.
What I do care is that he was a sacred liar. The sacred part is the important one.
To say that Castaneda was a liar is the politically correct statement, the one that intellectuals, “smart” people are willing to hear. Are they willing to hear about the sacred part? Are they willing to give up on their obsessive need to evaluate which fact is true and which isn’t, and focus instead on what the book is saying?
I just hope that others who might benefit from reading Castaneda, don’t stop their search for truth because of hearing the judgment of “smart” people saying “that book is just lies”.
I can still remember the feeling when reading his first book. It was wonderful to have my attention directed to the world of indigenous spirituality and the feeling was one of real interest and the anticipation of adventures full of mysterious possibilities. It would be years before I heard about his work and stories being questioned while his character and authenticity were being run down hill. He was being “proved” to be a fraud. I felt misunderstood as a person that day and lonely because of it. I thought I had gained a sense of direction, the exploration of indigenous practices, but wondered if I was somehow being a fraud because the person who inspired me was being called one. For me the books were art, novels about possible ways that I hadn’t thought to explore until I read them. The truth wasn’t my concern. I wasn’t looking for the truth, or becoming someone who tells others what it is and isn’t after getting an education in it from those who are sure they know it.
What’s funny about passing judgment on the “truth” of his work or claims is that when your all the way inside of a ceremony with an indigenous elder in a medicine tradition that takes you into alternate realities you don’t usually spend the time determining the truth of the experience like some kind of credentialed detective. Questions certainly come up during and after, but if your in an alternate reality, or seeing through other eyes the world you normally see through your own,
it’s what you learn, or are inspired to learn that seems to me to be the most interesting part.
And if it’s true that there are other ways of seeing, other realities if you will, then who cares if the one Carlos was portraying wasn’t accurate in a single fixed and agreed on world view of so called “facts”, even if it’s subscribed to by millions.
Thank you for posting this BBC documentary. I’ve been wanting to see it since I first heard about it. Now, at last, finally.
Castaneda’s impact is a complex, fascinating subject, a big part of a much larger story — of modern society’s historically recent acquaintance with consciousness-expanding compounds, and their influence on the perennial search for transcendence and meaning. Especially as it has been playing out in the counterculture.
Reading posts here, a quote from the native healer Black Elk came to mind. In recounting mythic stories of the Lakota (his people), he said: “… whether it happened so or not I do not know; but if you think about it, you can see that it is true” (p. 3, Neihardt, “Black Elk Speaks” 1932, Wm Morrow & Co.).
Black Elk recognizes truth is not limited to the literal, and includes more than mere fact, or historic veracity. But he doesn’t devalue fact, or the distinction between true and false.
Indeed, how far can the truth and wisdom of Black Elk’s recognition be extended? Can it be applied to Castaneda, or anyone who would fabricate stories, claiming they are nonfiction — i.e., honest accounts of field work, factual events? In the process making millions of dollars, cultivating a flock of devoted fans, etc.? To me this is a more significant question for evaluating the legacy of Castaneda than some voices seem to reflect.
I wonder what Black Elk would say about this if he were with us.
Castaneda was a fraud, a liar, and a self-interested manipulator of vulnerable people who deserves contempt, not accolades. That the mildly entertaining hocum in his books has now been comprehensively discredited is most gratifying.
The ‘proofs
'that Castaneda was a ‘fraud'by Richard de Mille are a complete farce. And Fikes claims about Castaneda and the Huichols is idle fantasy; Castaneda worked minimally with the Huichols. His books are so authentic and beautiful that legions of followers created problems for some native people. That is a human tragedy, but not the responsibility of the author.Carlos Castaneda was an authentic explorer of the reality that exists ‘beyond the five sense.’ He found an affinity in indigenous thought/culture for openness to perceiving that reality. He was a lifelong prodigy as a storyteller. He brought that talent to relating readable stories of his authentic experience with one secret indigenous tradition. He neither was, nor ever purported to be, a spokesman for any USA or Mexican indigenous people. Furthermore, he personally had interest in the ‘cognitive system’ of the people he learned from, rather than any other anthropological/psychological/religious or whatever interest. So he presented the wisdom sytem that he experienced in Mexico and the SW USA from his own, what I would call ‘philosophical’ interest, which he consistently articulates as his motive, and nothing more. The fact that he made money is a tribute to his talent. The fact that he in later years used his acquired ‘power’ in some instances irresponsibly is a human failure, which does not diminish his literary accomplishment. For many such as myself he has been one of the most inspiring writers of our time, from start to finish.
The questions regarding authenticity; and the existense of a character like ‘Don Juan’, could be perceived as a natural extension of the very conditioning Castaneda’s ‘followers/fans’ seek to rid themselves of. Or do they?
Rather than waste time proving or disproving the dead’s credentials, energy could be better spent examining the fraud within one’s self. A major precept within the ‘teachings’ themselves. We want the knowledge and ‘power’ that supposedly comes with it; but we still want to drag our reason along, kicking and screaming. Speculative judgements about complete strangers and their motives is a hell of a lot easier than examining and truly changing but one part of what you believe yourself to be.
Never met the man, or his cohorts. But at least it appears they died trying to acheive that which they (apparently) sought with such passion.The average person would gnaw their left toes off for millions of dollars, fame and fortune.Not too many would seriously devote the remainder of their lives to aquescing to something intangible and ultimately, indescribable.Who cares which one Castaneda was!
The real questions are best directed through rigorous, honest self-inquiry.The real answers will only ever breed more ridiculous extensions until they too are no longer required. If it’s managed before death, all the better.If not, meh…you can only die trying.
I enjoyed Castaneda’s books. I found them similar to the ‘Medicine Woman’ series.
The same search for spirituality with a shaman teacher. It doesn’t matter that someone says Castaneda is a fraud, his words for me are wisdoms that I feel any seeker of truth would understand.