[ryan]

I'm about a quarter of the way thru "on the toltec path" by ken eagle feather and I must say that I am pleasently suprised. I read "the art of sexual energy" and it turned me off to the whole "Don Juan taught me too" kinda thing, but this is different. I've realized all the dogma I carry around. He changes most of the terms, such as; ranger instead of warrior, field instead of attention (first field, second field, third field), focal point instead of assemblege..you get the idea. It seems to me he did this in order to explain things differently. He connects the dots, so to speak, which I found usefull because it validated some of my reasoning in the gray areas of CC books. This is starting to sound like a book review so I'll cut it short...to late.

[Merged]

I'm about a quarter of the way thru "on the toltec path" by ken eagle feather and I must say that I am pleasently suprised.

Thanx, I had a lot of laugh

Can you really believe such a book? If you're halfway through then it implies that the author is more than half-way through and knows what he's writing about... and knows how to let the reader know his 'level' via a book

As far as I can remember CC officially said that Ken the Eagle Feather was an imposter, along with Merylin Tunneshende.

[admin]

The ET part can be illustrative about the real matter of the book.

Anyway, i think is better than Shabono.

[Warbaryan]

He changes most of the terms, such as; ranger instead of warrior, field instead of attention (first field, second field, third field), focal point instead of assemblege..you get the idea. It seems to me he did this in order to explain things differently.

Maybe he changed the terms in order to appear somehow "genuine" and not be blamed as a plagiator. This is a way to ensure the inflow of the big money -- which, for some, sadly seems to be synonymous to personal power.

I don't want my sorcery made more human. Society is a trap.

[ensonar]

Maybe he changed the terms in order to appear somehow "genuine" and not be blamed as a plagiator.

Exactly.

I've seen the immitators' books in the bookstore. I've picked them up and glanced through them. I've read a few interviews with some of these authors. And it has always been very obvious to me that there is no depth nor anything genuine whatsoever to what they are writing or saying. They are just a pale immitation, or "interpretation" of what Carlos wrote about.

As someone said in another thread, why go for someone else's interpretation when you can go directly to the source; Carlos, Taisha, and Florinda's books.

I personally don't feel the need to have the teachings filtered through someone who is so self infatuated that they feel the need to try and make money off of someone else's works.

[Lilac]

Using different words would be a good idea to make people reminded that naming things is kind of illusionic behaviour (hope I don't make myself too hard to understand...)

I've only read CC's books, the women's books and the book of Martin Goodman. I guess I'm quite sceptic about all the other writers, because I feel discusted about people abusing good ideas. I've seen many people after reading a good book starting to play a teacher around... Why can't they have they own things and talk about them, why do they have to take something from somebody and start to act as a prophet or something...

***

Twice I've seen in my dreams a book from CC which has scarlet red coating, and which I haven't read already. Oh how it would be wonderfull that there would be still one book of CC... *sigh* I'm greedy...

[ryan]

Wow, it's nice to see everybodys 'ire. Here's mine. Even an imposter can give insight and perspective, some even say that CC was an imposter, after all stalking is stalking and deception wasn't beneath Carlos. Personality, bent of character, proclavities, don't these all filter perception and isn't dogmatically adhering to any one the beginnings of a cult, Don Juan, CC or otherwise. I don't care if Ken makes a few bucks off CC or me, I mean CC pimped Don Juan like there was no tomorrow. I believe that all the experiences in his book are certainly possible, so I choose to believe them. I thought his irreverance for terms and systems reflect the Nagualist path and was refreshing. Maybe it will direct perception somewhere I've overlooked. Maybe Ken's bent of character is closer to mine and his reasoning will resonate with me and give my intent something to latch onto. Why not give it a chance, at the very least it would be an opportunity to not judge before close inspection, an excercise in learning what you don't want too. Well, only got a chapter to go, and while it's no CC book, in my opinion it was certainly worth my 18 bucks.

[ensonar]

By all means, do whatever your heart desires. We're all just expressing our opinions and feelings here. If you find it helpful to read that nonsense (J/K LOL)... then go for it! Everyone learns in their own way at their own pace.

Just for clarity's sake though, I'd like to mention that often times the word dogma gets thrown around when speaking of people who are into Castaneda's works more than anything else. However, I believe this is a misunderstanding.

For example, I personally am open to many different religions and philosophies. I pick and choose from them what I feel to be universally true, or to be helpful to me in some way. Just because I don't find anything relevant or useful in books written by people who (IMO) just water down the works of Castaneda, doesn't in any way make me dogmatic in my beliefs.

For me Castaneda's works have been the most helpful, the most useful, the most clear, and the most direct.

[Warbaryan]

By all means, do whatever your heart desires. We're all just expressing our opinions and feelings here. If you find it helpful to read that nonsense (J/K LOL)... then go for it! Everyone learns in their own way at their own pace.

I've heard some people enjoy Harry Potter books, too, and say they contain "magical wisdom"... OK? I don't feel inclined to read them, however, and I don't feel an inclination to practice the humanist egalitarian virtue of tolerance-for-whatever just because it's the socially dictated trend of today. I don't feel any duty to play the "we are all big happy family" game, and I find the whole idea behind it disgusting and harmful.

By the way, I was brought up reading old Donald Duck comics. Man, they still rule!

[ensonar]

I don't feel an inclination to practice the humanist egalitarian virtue of tolerance-for-whatever just because it's the socially dictated trend of today. I don't feel any duty to play the "we are all big happy family" game, and I find the whole idea behind it disgusting and harmful.

I'm not sure if I'm taking this in the way you meant it or not, but I just wanted to say that I don't play that game either. We are not one big happy family. What I'm getting at is that anyone can do whatever they want really, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. I have no interest in eaglefeather, or any of the rest of them. But neither do I have any interest in wasting my time and energy trying to convert anyone else to my ideas or feelings.