ordinary  reality. Also some people
are  born  more  energetically  powerful  than  others.  For
example if both parents are energetic and the baby is raised
on the mother's  milk. But don't worry if  you were not born
with a special abundance of energy, you have all you need if
you will be  careful with it. Also you  will get extra jolts
when your  assemblage point moves.  We just need  to be more
disciplined  to guard  our energy.  It really  does not take
much energy anyway to move the point.

"Nietsche said  whatever doesn't kill me  makes me stronger.
That  is how  sorcerers think.  But otherwise  be careful of
philosophers because they are famous crazy self indulgers.

"Recapitulation. There  is no method. There  is a method but
it is not important whether you move your head from right to
left or from left to right or  set aside a regular time or a
lot of  time. What is  important is the  unbending intent to
recapitulate. Then spirit will guide you into the right form
and time and amount of  practice. With intent, time will set
itself.  When you  make the  right intent,  you will have 27
generations  of  sorcerers  behind  you.  They  did  not all
practice the  recapitulation the same way,  but their intent
will  hook you  support you  and guide  you. The  intent out
there  to recapitulate  is constant  but the  method varies.
Therefore:

"1. Intend it.

"2.  Have an  integrity about   it -  don't brag  or compete
(competition  is  the  worst  thing  in  the  world, it is a
primary  support  for  the  third  cornerstone  of  everyday
reality, the sense of self importance).

"3. Discipline  order harmoney. Don't  be random unless  you
intend it. Most people make a list and work backwards.

"4. Breath.  Direction not important.  What is important  is
using the breath to pull the energy back.

"Letter  came to  Carlos Castaneda  - 'I  recapitulated last
night. Can  I join your  party now?' Recapitulation  takes a
lifetime, not a night."

[end of transcription. By Swedenborg@aol.com]

         * Some questions * 

 LK> I got a disarming book recently called "The Don Juan Papers".  It is a
 LK> supposed expose of the entire series by Carlos Castenada.

 LK> Anyone else read and follows these works?  There's some amazing and
 LK> probing ideas there.

All I know about this case is what I've read in Cornerstone
magazine (Vol. 19 Issue 93, p.24), in part 3 or a series by Bob
Passantino, called "Fantasies, Legends, Heroes: a discussion of
popular 'legends' and how they arise." I'll quote the relevant
section:

Christians aren't the only ones who accept legends substituted
for real research. Those of you who are around my age and who
remember (or were even part of) the 1960s age of "drug
enlightenment" probably remember Carlos Castaneda as the
anthropologist who discovered that hallucinatory drugs supposedly
bring spiritual enlightenment.
He didn't do it the way many of my generation did, by dropping
acid, staring into a flower, and suddenly realizing that
everything is "God."
He did it by allegedly spending portions of several years in the
American Southwest and Mexican deserts as an apprentice to an
Indian shaman.

UCLA awarded Castaneda a Ph.D. in anthropology in 1973 for his
fieldwork and ethnography dissertation on Native American
shamanism. "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yacqui Way of Knowledge"
represents that work and is known worldwide for its vivid
portrayal of Castneda's apprenticehip to the shaman, Don Juan.

However, practically nothing about Castaneda, including his name,
birth date, and original nationality, is what it appears to be.
In fact, careful investigation and analysis shows that his books
represent more of the Castaneda his college friend described as
"witty, imaginative, cheerful--a big liar and a real friend"*1
than they do Castaneda as the serious anthropologist and reporter
who sacrifices himself for scientific ethnographic research.

Like most legends, the Castaneda legend is missing dates, times,
people, places, and documents. Careful research and investigation
uncovered gaping holes, inconsistencies, and outright
fabrications in the convoluted stories Castaneda told in his four
books *2.

But the reason I mention the Castaneda legend particularly is
that I would never have expected the professional reaction to the
expose. Rather than relegating his books to the legend shelf,
some professionals STILL depend on them for ethnographic
information, and still herald him as the father of the
ethnographic "revolution" in anthropology!

        What is most interesting is the response that has greeted
        the revelation that Castaneda's works are fictional.
        First, there has been no real attempt to revoke his
        Ph.D., based as it is on fraudulent "research."
        Secondly, as de Mille ... documents, the response among
        many anthropologists and others who share the Don Juan
        type of philosophical outlook has been neutral.
        In other words, it doesn't matter if the works are
        fictional because the underlying philosophy is, in some
        vague sense, true.
        An excellent example of this approach is Shelburne's
        (1987) article titled "Carlos Castaneda: If It Didn't
        Happen, What Does It Matter?"
        Shelburne argues that "the issue of whether it
        [Castaneda's experience] literally happened or not makes
        no fundamental difference to the truth of the account"
        (p. 217). Such excuses are little more than intellectual
        used-car salesmanship. *3

Let's relate this back to our legend/research paradigm. Castaneda
BASED his "revolutionary" cultural anthropological ideas on
FICTION *4.
That's like building a house on sinking sand instead of solid
rock. Now Shelburne and other professional like him say it
doesn't matter, because the "truth" is the same. That's like
saying your sinking house is fine where it is--the house itself
is well built. But no matter how well built the house is, it will
fall apart since it's built on sand instead of solid ground.
You need BOTH as well-built house AND solid ground if you expect
to live in the house.

*1 Richard de Mille, "Castaneda's Journey" (Santa Barbara, CA:
   Capra Press, 1976), 26.

*2 The most comprehensive investigation was done by Richard de
   Mille and is contained in "Castaneda's Journey (see above
   note) and the book de Mille later edited, "The Don Juan
   Papers: Further Castaneda Controversies (Santa Barbara, CA:
   Ross-Erickson Publishers, 1980).

*3 Terence-Hines, "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" (Buffalo,
   NY: Prometheus Press, 1988), 278.

*4 If there is any truth to Castaneda's anthropological theories,
   it would be in spite of his fantasies, not because of them.

[End Quote]