Letters to the Editor
-
Transcendence
Just a follow up to my first letter. When Karen Armstrong was interviewed here, one of her main points was that the fertile period that produced many of the world's great religions had one theme in ccommon, that the true nature of reality lay in some ability to transcend the perception and world of the ego. That issues of deep connection, oneness, love all involved getting beyond one's limited view.
Whether Castandeda was "real" in this sense is secondary. Obviously he was talented and "tuned in "enough as a mystical writer to powerfully evoke in people a deep sense that life was magical, awesome, mysterious and that these qualities not only were a product of that which normally is unseen, but required dedication to awaken to them. The enormous impact and resonance for so many people, some very well rspected, that Mr. Marshall recounts vividly attests to how well Casraneda was able to stimulate this archetype, to enable people to thirst for Hamlet's truth, 'There are more things, Horatio, in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Marshall speaks of Redfield and the Celestine Prophesy and argues Castaneda would have been on firmer ground if he had admitted his fiction. Probably so, but they were different times. And the fact is, Redfield did *not* believe the "insights" were fiction, and after the book became a sensation, developed lectures, workbooks and a "Path" that developed from that fictitious story. That one writer may have been more grounded and carried less shadow than the other is to some degree beside the point and for those who chose to immerse themselves more deeply in the "'Way" of those authors/"pholopsophers" as a mystery school to me is more about their personal karma and proclivity than the more general resonance for society that is my concern.
There is abundant evidence that the Morman religion is based on a hoax and was made up by Joseph Smith. There is an argument that Jesus was not real historically but a compendiun of theologies of the time. I personally don't believe that, but on one level it doesn't matter. At this current point in our dealing with the theology of Christianity, there has been a "ressurection" of the Gnostic point of view which was eradicated in the establishment of what became the mainstreanm religion. What is fascinating is that "reality" is nebulous, what is competing are different perspectives, 'stories" of what it means. Ultimately we respond to our story of events, not the event itself. George Bush's ability to carry out the Iraq war was based partly on a deep American belief, our story, that we are the "good guys" and that they are the "bad" guys". When a story wins, it is called "history".
I reiterate my point that in the end it is the power of the story, our response to it, and how we incorporate it into our own personal story that matters most. Castaneda, at his best, tapped into a deep well that fit the times he lived in. That he apparently had such a shadow side is tragic. Personally he may have been more akin to Jim Jones, but Jones never achieved the ability to transmit the powerful sense of connection to the idea of transendence on a more widespread level that could inspire as Castaneda did. And in this is the vast difference between the two.