Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

M: It does not take much imagination to project that if your immune system doesn’t notice the problem in time, then it won’t react with any certainty or intensity, and diet will have nothing to do with it.

M: It is also possible that these viral mutations humanity experience are carried by DNA across generations. We generally now accept that genetics plays a role in the predispositions to these, and other, problems, but we do not have the measurement technology to determine if DNA actually carries, pre-programs, cells to develop the virus itself. Our undifferentiated cells grow into various body parts, and it’s not so off the wall that the micro-code that these carry also pre-programs cells into aberrant behavior. It that were to turn out to be true, diet or anything else in the environment, would have nothing to do with many cancers.

R: I suspect that it is the nature of refined sugar and other man made chemicals in the body and the bodies attempt to purge itself of them, that, then in the sun, and at a level of chemical toxicity beyond the bodies ability to cope, results in conditions that could well be brought on by that sun exposure. But the “as advertised” notion of staying out of the sun is, to me, another example of how warped current thinking is. But, publish a paper against the sugar industry and you are swept away by the sugar industry who will fight you tooth and nail.

M: No industry has much power to prevent the truth at this point, as the tobacco companies have learned. Specifically because of the tobacco companies, the doors are fully open for truth to be exposed. The problem that you cite, however, is missing the compelling evidence that the tobacco companies contrived to hide.

R: So the, I speculate, indirect cause, the sun, takes the blame and we’re told to stay out of it. It’s laughable (except that it’s not) when you really think it through. And I wouldn’t get bogged down in considering genetic predisposition. Just trust the body to do what is best for itself when given a chance. I really think that so often we out smart ourselves … just give the body a chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is.

M: Actually, for myself, that is my approach. I believe the people, like my protege (who is truly scholarly on the health/diet/cancer subject) less than the supermarket mentality, because of their extremism. The body seems to do just fine as long as it is exposed to moderation.

R: No one wants to tell people to change their diets meaningfully (and I understand your stand that no one knows what a “correct” diet is.) That’s too much like work for people. We all want what is easy.

M: Perhaps, but responsible people will react if they have a clear understanding. The media does not help. The health-food zealots don’t help particularly when they are hyping “natural diet” stuff that in itself is processed with very questionable quality and contaminant controls. I would in general “question” the efficacy of an approach when it’s discovered that those exposing the approach have a vested interest. If I have cynicism on something (many subjects) this is probably as close as I come – however I’d prefer to think of it as objective observation. I don’t say “no, it’s not possible” even in this intonation, and I am driven toward the data base.

R: So, for the most part, even perhaps those physician who know or highly suspect, don’t advice other than “standard procedure.” And so we have; for example, the thousands of children having ear operations each year and the physician who admits, “of course we know that milk is the primary cause. I don’t tell my patients parents to have their children stop drinking milk, then I wouldn’t have any patients.” Wrong! then he would be run out of town by the milk industry.

M: Hummm. No comment.

R: I recommend that you find a copy of Sugar Blues by William Dufty. I would like to hear what you think about it should you read it.

M: Actually, no motivation. I grew up in the 40’s and the 50’s. I never had an ear problem and growing up never knew anyone that had, and I’ve taken tons of milk through my life and still do because I enjoy it. My experience just does not have the drama that you imply is the fact. If experience and reports don’t match, believe experience. My children, aged at the youngest 24 and at the oldest 30, drank tons of milk, still do, never had an ear problem, nor among the parents and children of their peers do I know of anyone that did. My experience just doesn’t align anything even vaguely approaching your report.

R: Above I wrote “just give the body a chance to show itself to be the miracle which it is.” I just looked up “miracle” in the dictionary (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate) for the spelling (“a” not “I”) and read this definition: “3 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law.” I expect so.

M: And I do not. “Christianity” is a belief system. “Science” is a measurement system. A belief system cannot be proven or falsified. Anything in science must be falsifyable, must always and forever be “tentative” (e.g. the best data that we have to date, but there may be better data eventually found) or it is not “science”, it is a belief system. “Christian Science” by my definition is a oxymoron, as is “Scientific Creationism”, both confusing the measurements of what can be found, with philosophical and religious belief systems. These systems are not, in reality, in conflict with each other because they exist in separate and parallel elements of human considerations. Science never knows “why” anything actually happens: it only measures and attempts to define what it can observe; and, it attempts to measure and define the interactions between things that it observes; but, it never knows “why”.

R: Perhaps you misunderstood what I said above? I said that I expect it to be the case that the body is equal to “a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law.” “Divinely natural” means to me that the body is just what it is, no more no less, just what it is … there is an implication there of its being beyond verbal understanding as well, in that divine would equate to me with don Juan’s indescribable force.

M: Something has been observed in our dialogues. On occasion, when “clarity” needs to be brought out toward each in our own way, we tend to use a provocative method as an attempt to cause reflex information, and although it can be a challenging methodology of human interface, it is efficient.

M: Yes, of course, there is agreement with the flow of the statement. The only real difference to me, based on experience yet again, is that DJM’s indescribable force is truly “difficult” to describe, but not indescribable. Once the power of the universe has been explored, touched, travelled upon as the traveller is propelled by it, the experience albeit vast and profound, becomes a “known” component of self and it’s energy forms are also found within ourselves, bodies and all. The extension of self, which amounts to the coupling of self, into these manifestations of energy cause us to become “extensions” of the universal energy flow, and ourselves coupled to them. From that point on, almost like one’s loosing virginity, one cannot go back into being an isolated individual and to attempt to do so, reaps problems for the traveller/warrior. In any case, the apprentice may be with effort and development brought to understand at least how to experience the touch of the energy, and hopefully, to channel the energy (better said: fields) meaning that this flows with the individual, not just through the individual. Once that occurs, it is truly “not” indescribable at least among/between those having had the experience. If the term “power of the universe”, or, “universal fields of energy” are considered as surrogate terms for “divine”, then the descriptive match is impeccable.

R: So then, it continues to say the we experience that as we experience it and, that, that experience is the fulfillment of spiritual law, or, that experience is the indescribable force’s law, say, order, fulfilled.

R: Sounds to me like just saying that our bodies are a part of the indescribable force. I don’t care that someone in the Christian Science church cooked it up, but since you brought it up, that is a great oxymoron … Christian Science … and while your paragraph seemed out of the blue, I totally agree with you and appreciated your words on Science.

M: You’re welcome.

R: Thank you for clearing up the “Why thank you” comment.

M: In my early years, it’s believed reported previously (not certain), although born in California, my mother immediately (on husband/father’s command) took us to my father’s family ranch in . Quick review: he was a ranking officer in the Marine Corps, parents had been married about 8 years before conceiving their only child, mother a haughty Andalucian Spaniard (Sevillana), had no infrastructure because sent into San Diego 5 days before birth of son because father was reassigned to Pearl Harbor – wouldn’t allow pregnant wife to go there – Japan bombed Pearl about 3 weeks after birth of son, father at war (he was the commandant on the Marine detachment on the Battleship Oklahoma), mother and son sent to rural ranch because San Diego was a military target – a total mismatch for mother, a person of European social stature in a ranch of a “different” social stature (Grandparents were socially prominent), but son raised in “isolation” without other children for the duration of the WWII on the ranch, met father about age 5. The point: Every once in a while, there is an impulse to put ohn mah best country’ twang which can be called up in an instant, ahs en, “Waaahy, have ah-nother meant julll-LIP?”, and, “Waaahy, Thannnnk yuh”. E/mail text misses the intonation.