I wouldn't doubt he he had Indian guides. He would've needed them to acquire the mescaline back then. I barely recall the details of the books I read, but most of the crazy stuff wasn't reported to be real exactly. They were his peyote trips. I think he saw something that shook him up.. But I assumed he made a conscious choice in believing they were actually taking him to the "spirit world". I don't know anything about sorcery books. I only read the early stuff.
Interesting. Well, I stopped reading them after he spoke to the peyote god. haha. I've never done peyote specifically, but I never tripped that bad.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1563273/bio
There was also the question as to whether or not don Juan's teachings actually reflected Yaqui mysticism and philosophy. The answer was "no."
Yeah, I heard about that, also about the extent to which indigenous communities were plagued by hippies and druggies wanting to participate in what they'd read about.
I guess that the things he wrote about could have happened and the persons could have existed but I dont actually consider that the important point, why and what difference does it make are for me the important points.
If don Juan is considered to be a real person, and his teachings are valid, then this validated the way a lot of people felt back in the hippie era. Drugs are, therefore, not a meaningless escape, the experiences are no mere illusion. What you see when high is just as real - perhaps more real - then when sober. Being high does not mean "dropping out," but instead, one is "dropping in" to visit another, more relevant dimension.
If don Juan is considered to be a real person, and his teachings are valid, then this validated the way a lot of people felt back in the hippie era. Drugs are, therefore, not a meaningless escape, the experiences are no mere illusion. What you see when high is just as real - perhaps more real - then when sober. Being high does not mean "dropping out," but instead, one is "dropping in" to visit another, more relevant dimension.
That's a lot of conclusions contingent upon don Juan having existed which I dont think are necessarily so, Osama really existed, it doesnt make his message about the Koran, Islam or the world is any the more valid than otherwise would be the case.
We don't want to go around affirming the consequent, though.
It's possible to be right but for all the wrong reasons. Even if this guy was fake and wrong, that doesn't mean that the basic premise that you put forth above was fake and wrong.
It's kinda like justifying the tooth fairy to prove that the quarter under your pillow is real. The quarter being real isn't really the problem, it's there. Making convoluted stories to prove something doesn't help.
That sounds like a variation on the "even if don Juan isn't real, he ought to be real" argument.
Yes, you can believe something without considering it real when it represents an idea or system of ideas.
However, when you detract from the reality of something, it really takes the wind out of their sails. Like saying there's no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. If the crucifixion didn't happen, then Christianity is dead as a religion. Yes, it is that important. It's not just the Sermon on the Mount, it has to be all or nothing. Don Juan may not be Jesus, but the reality of the character is just as important to the believers as his ideas.
That sounds like a variation on the "even if don Juan isn't real, he ought to be real" argument.
Yes, you can believe something without considering it real when it represents an idea or system of ideas.
However, when you detract from the reality of something, it really takes the wind out of their sails. Like saying there's no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. If the crucifixion didn't happen, then Christianity is dead as a religion. Yes, it is that important. It's not just the Sermon on the Mount, it has to be all or nothing. Don Juan may not be Jesus, but the reality of the character is just as important to the believers as his ideas.
Nah. I'm just saying that the prospect of being able to drop into another dimension with the assistance of substances has nothing to do with Don Juan. His reality or lack thereof does nothing to prove or disprove this question.
The Jesus example isn't quite the same thing. If we disproved the Crucifixion then we show that some supposed facts were mistaken, and it does mean the religion got stuff wrong, but that doesn't disprove other independent questions such as whether he even existed or whether or not he healed people. It depends on what you're looking for.
I'm pretty sure Castaneda and just Shamanism in general are more concerned about the idea or system of ideas and even more nebulous stuff than actual historical reality.
Even in Christianity, there are plenty of non fundamental sects that consider the historicity of the Bible as immaterial.
That is one reason why they are called "sects."
They're all sects. Unless, you want to clear this out and point to which is the authorative Christianity, I assume it'll be whatever agrees with your thought in the matter. Anyway, sticking to Shamanism, historicity and factuality is definitely demoted to the mystical experience.. hell, even writing about a faux mystical experience is acceptible if it has a type of metaphysical truth to it.
That's completely wrong, but I don't have time to explain to you why.
In the Christian realm, "sect" is a four-letter word in more ways than one.
I don't know what you mean by "authoritative," there is only mainstream or fringeist. For example, denying the divinity or the historical truth of Christ is fringe thinking. Then there are for example some odd fringe sects consisting of those Christians who refuse all medical care, and who only go to the dentist when their dental health has deteriorated to the point of needing all their teeth pulled out. These practices are based on some non-mainstream interpretations of the Bible, or on the teachings of false prophets. If you want to know who a "false prophet" is, just call up your local mainstream religious minister.
"even writing about a faux mystical experience is acceptible if it has a type of metaphysical truth to it." You don't know the difference between a faux mystical experience and a true one. The difference is that if an experience carries with it metaphysical truth, then it was a true mystical experience.