Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

M: Depak Chopra, who has enjoyed huge success with about 15 books and has now “institutionalized” himself, was a licensed endocrinologist having taken his initial medical degree in New Deli, India. He accordingly, had been exposed to both the Indian approaches as well as being trained in Western Medicine. One of his earlier books (I have read only two) had a photo of him on the cover as attired in a white lab coat and with a stethoscope hanging around his neck. To me, this is a cleaver marketing device to approach society in terms that society can initially accept before the minds would “snap close”. In that book, he quoted in one paragraph: Jesus Christ; an Indian Shaman; and Carlos Castaneda quoting don Juan Matus as “a sorcerer”; and bingo, they were saying the same thing at least in this quotation as presented. In other places in this same book, Chopra tried to help bridge the perceived gaps in society between science, medicine, and metaphysics.

M: The one book of Chopra that I would recommend to novices “seeking” a new path would be “The Way of the Wizard” because it’s light reading and not too long in page count.

M: Anyway, I’m only rattling a little to you with the purpose only of pointing out that many “out there” in society, which is to say most humans, would “snap their minds reflexively shut” if they are initially hit with an approach that triggers their survival (defensive) reflexes. CC’s approach with “sorcery” probably had that effect.

————–

R: Michael, here is an E-mail exchange with another that has me now stumped as to where to go. Would you advise me? The friend I was referring to in my reply is you and I hope I wasn’t being too presumptuous.

M: No, you are not being presumptuous, and my extension to you is evidence of that, and your concern albeit taken as courtesy, indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about … Oh well.

R: Michael, I have the sense that I ought to have this “Oh well” thought completed. I will try to complete it myself. Were you saying “… your concern … indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about why I have started this exchange.”? No, no no, that is not it, well, maybe partly.

M: Perhaps it’s in attempting to understand what I am, and not fully trusting your perceptions on this … your call.

R: Were you saying “… your concern … indicates that there still is some curiosity or reservations about —“? Well, this is not working, my second guessing, that is. Best if I look at who I was when I wrote “I hope I wasn’t being too presumptuous.” I suppose I have a very strong resistance to giving myself over to another and you’ve been so generous with your time, but not that, you are there for me, in many ways, the don Juan figure, and while I’ve … (NOTE TO READERS: The next four “m:’s” break up my original E-mail … not that that is new to these dialogues, it’s just that it seems worth mentioning again in this case)

M: Your getting warmer … but …

M: a. You’re really only second guessing yourself, not me, and,

M: b. You can “never” meet any standard of impeccability by “giving yourself over to another” – because that would be a “belief system”, not a system of facilitation, and,

M: c. The definition of what don Juan, especially as “a figure”, needs some refinement.

R: …no … that (viewing you as a don Juan figure) demands something from me and I’m judging myself as not living up to the demand, even close to, 100%. Through your support I’ve made the major change of living in a state of expectation. That is a transformation from where I was: living in a state of trying to turn off my internal dialogue every now and then — because I thought Castaneda’s writings were all probably true. You have brought the confirmation so the reservation I have looks to be one of acknowledging myself as “on the path of knowledge.”

M: Commitment to “the way” is only a commitment to yourself. It’s already been established with partial thanks to the piece you received from your father, that you have the characteristics intrinsically, so it just needs commit – unconditionally to yourself – to progress on “the way”. The reward for this will continue to change your life – forever, as in eternity.

R: I’ve never “gotten” that. It’s always been a cliche for me, … no, now I’m going off into self-pity, … sorry, wrong turn, back on track here ..

M: Great exercise in precisely the path of impeccability!

R: …it’s just been a cliche so when I don’t act impeccably there is an excuse. I imagine myself as at the level of impeccability of silent witnessing and then I don’t hold myself to that standard. By not holding myself to the standard, I make excuses and don’t have to be responsible for what I am. It’s a denial of self and maybe it’s that denial of self that hasn’t fully let you in as so doing would require that I drop the false defense.

M: Ayn Rand would help! Her philosophy directly hits at what you said immediately above.

R: I see myself now writing this and it’s all starting to cloud over — more defense to stay where I was and not come out into, say, “the light.” It’s worse than that, I’m back in denial of that silent witness that I see myself able to be.

M: Perhaps you have fear, a very primordial reflex of survival. If you “hang on” to what you have been (since you are on the threshold that could change you – forever) it’s probably “eagle snack time” and you know that, but at least you “know” and are accustomed to “the past” even though it’s not particularly comfortable!

R: It’s as if this is some kind of a game that I’m playing with myself and with you.

M: Doesn’t seem like a game …

R: I’ve grown up with the notion that I was somehow special… because I did math well, I guess. But, I’ve used it as another excuse for non action. “OH, poor me, I’m “some special one” what a terrible burden is on poor me,” instead of working hard and making something out of it. So I just pissed that ability all away.

M: “one” is a finite number. Perhaps you are an significant component of something that is broader than “a one”. You might contemplate what might be meant by that “something that is broader”.

R: I like writing to you.

M: I would hope so. It would violate your impeccability to exchange with me if you didn’t “like it”.

M: Since my reply to your friend’s E-mail is just a quiet reflection on the nature of the relationship and dialogue that has formed between us, it may be left as a reflection since I actually believe it’s far more important for you to contemplate it than for me, and that became my intent of the quiet thought, although it really started as just that: a quiet thought. It is somewhat ironic that impeccability itself, the subject of the piece, requires that we define the parameters, nature, significance (in other words: all characteristics) of each relationship for ourselves and no where is it required that this be communicated to others.

———–

M: Your friend’s E-mail asked the question: ” Why not study the “not so impeccable” of others to learn about impeccability of self?”

M: The “not so impeccable” is paled in the imagination when compared to truly understanding “the impeccable”. Why? History, current events, and almost anyone in society with whom one has “normal” contact are all replete with examples of the “not so impeccable”.

M: Impeccability, per se, requires initially an understanding that “impeccability”, meaning the standards for that attribute, is a moving parameter, or if you wish, a continually moving target. As we evolve, the concept of impeccability drives us to continually evaluate, interrogate, and re-evaluate ourselves, our emotions, our decisions, and our actions based on our decisions, to determine “if” the action will be, or was, impeccable. For those of us on “the way of knowledge”, the result of these interrogations will be, if before the fact of the action or decision, that “yes” it is believed to be impeccable. On retrospect, through, after the fact, we may learn that there was a parameter in the decision process that was ‘not’ considered, and that having fully considered the “new” parameter (that was there all along but not considered) we might find that the action or decision was not impeccable after all simply because all of the decision parameters required were not viewed objectively. In learning, new definitions and standards of impeccability are discovered.

M: So, in the retrospective mode, was the action or decision truly impeccable? Answer: yes, given the parameters considered. Question: was the process of making the decision truly impeccable? Answer: no, because something blocked full awareness of all of the factors or parameters required to come to an impeccable decision or action. The impact is, then to discover “why” the parameter was not considered. What blocked the consideration?