The roots of quasi-spirituality and the misery it causes, based on people like this!

Ryan Gomez4 said:But aren't you doing the exact same thing by pushing your own views? And pretty aggressively, too.

And why shouldn't someone put these things in a negative context?

Why does a view have to be "wrong" just because it doesn't match yours?

I'm not forcing anything.

Honestly, I haven't even clearly laid out my positions on this subforum until now.
Up until this exact moment.

The whole reason I bolded them was to emphasize that they aren't necessarily bad things.

That's just the vibe I got from what he wrote—he basically framed my worldview in a negative way.

I’m stressing this point because I don't think being "new age" gives anyone a free pass for being sinful or just plain stupid... or like some kind of "super" status where someone gets to talk trash about others and act like they're "credible."

Based on what, exactly?

Some authority that, say, Carlos Castaneda grants him?

Looking at what's been posted here, you can pretty much judge for yourself what kind of "authority" we're actually dealing with.

frozengull2 said:The topic is clearly defined.

I brought up Carlos Castaneda as an example of one of those big-shot figures who basically shaped the whole New Age movement (and dragged it into the mainstream), and I posed a dilemma—a question, really;
"What a mess people like that cause..."
It’s even more relevant because New Age is baked right into what everyone calls "spirituality" these days.

Everything else was just me explaining what actually pushed me to start this discussion in the first place.

I don't see any reason to shut this down.

Honestly, it would be better if we stopped obsessing over my personal reasons for starting this—which I laid out pretty straight, by the way—and just focused on the actual point;

THE DARK UNDERBELLY OF NEW AGE PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO JUDGE OTHERS!

ps.
If you do decide to lock this, you're basically just locking up the fact that I pointed this out.
Nothing more, nothing less.

And I don't think that would be right, especially considering all that talk from your side about the right to express your own opinion.

Then we can move on—because that’s exactly the issue I’m talking about... and ideally, let's do it without making the tension in here thick enough to cut with a knife.

unknown:

THE DIRTY UNDERBELLY OF NEW-AGE THINKERS WHO LOVE TO LECTURE OTHERS!

Can you explain what exactly makes that New Age stuff so "dirty"?

Also, how much have you actually read by Carlos Castaneda, and what specifically about his work bothers you?

unknown:

or maybe they just hold some "uber" position that allows them to "authentically" talk down to everyone else.

Look, absolutely—everyone has the right to critique a concept, whether they believe in it or not, including Christianity, regardless of where they're standing. To me, being "authentic" would mean actually knowing the subject matter and having solid arguments to back it up. Though, honestly, when you're picking through spiritual concepts, it's hard to say who holds the upper hand, since one idea might resonate deeply with one person while leaving another completely cold. It's not like there's some scientific methodology out there that will label one thing as flawed and declare another as valid.

Well, if I had to pick one... I mean, the whole belief system of Christianity has been under fire since the very beginning. You could take the critiques leveled by Celsus almost 2,000 years ago and apply them today without much trouble. Not to mention all the pushback from the Enlightenment era.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03490a.htm

Christianity has basically been discredited by a mountain of arguments over the centuries. It’s managed to adapt somewhat, I guess, but it’s had to drop a lot of its original claims to stay relevant.

On the flip side, New Age philosophies and things like that are relatively new, and they haven't really gained enough traction to draw that kind of heavy criticism yet. Still, I suppose they deserve just as much scrutiny as Christianity does.

And it's true that people tend to turn a blind eye to many New Age movements—or generally any religions that aren't Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. People rarely bother to criticize their dogmas or how their actual practices deviate from what they teach.

Paul Anderson2 said:Well, if I had to pick one... I mean, the whole belief system of Christianity has been under fire since the very beginning. You could take the critiques leveled by Celsus almost 2,000 years ago and apply them today without much trouble. Not to mention all the pushback from the Enlightenment era.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03490a.htm

Christianity has basically been discredited by a mountain of arguments over the centuries. It’s managed to adapt somewhat, I guess, but it’s had to drop a lot of its original claims to stay relevant.

On the flip side, New Age philosophies and things like that are relatively new, and they haven't really gained enough traction to draw that kind of heavy criticism yet. Still, I suppose they deserve just as much scrutiny as Christianity does.

And it's true that people tend to turn a blind eye to many New Age movements—or generally any religions that aren't Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. People rarely bother to criticize their dogmas or how their actual practices deviate from what they teach.

Just imagine if they tried to introduce something like Transcendental Meditation as an elective course at a major university, where professors start getting funded by the hard-earned, meager pennies of unsuspecting students while the leadership pockets massive pensions. That’s the exact moment when everyone would stop looking the other way.

Brenda Cook4;
unknown

So we just back away (because that’s the whole issue I’m talking about... and honestly, you could practically cut the tension in the room with a knife).

You're right there.

This topic is way too heavy for this subforum.

There aren't many people around here who are actually gonna point stuff like this out.

unknown

Explain it to me, what makes the New Age so "dark"?

The fakes sitting at the core of "New Age" teachings.
Carlos Castaneda is the perfect example, considering how much he's influenced the mainstream.

Anyway, what defines the New Age is this general sense of confusion and a "fast food" vibe that the whole movement promotes.
It isn't even about real spirituality; it’s just massive-scale self-serving ego trips.
People just grazing on bits and pieces from everywhere because they don't want to actually open their mouths and bite into anything real.
It mostly just feeds that consumerist-individualist-neoliberal appetite (basically a hungry mind focused entirely on its own comfort zone), rather than being anything authentic or capable of actually changing someone from the inside.

unknown

Moving on, how much of Carlos Castaneda have you read, and what specifically bugs you about him?

I've read it all.

What bothers me is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrB5...feature=relmfu

The thing that jumps out is his manipulative nature and his ego, which is just off the charts.
It shows up heavily in how he treats women, which borders on pedophilia (if not goes right past it); Amy, Patty (when they were super young)...
By the way, five women from his inner circle ended up killing themselves.

And the worst part? Thousands of his followers are basing their entire lives on him.

Basically just isolating themselves from the world.

unknown

Totally, everyone has the right to criticize any concept, and I wouldn't believe otherwise—even Christianity—from any standpoint. Being "authentic" would mean having some actual knowledge of the subject matter and using arguments, though when picking a spiritual path, it's hard to say who holds primacy, since it's all about what resonates with one person and not another. It's not like there's some scientific methodology that will reject one thing as flawed and declare another as true.

I'm saying it again;
The right to an opinion or to criticize anything isn't up for debate.
And I'm exercising that right by starting this thread.

I don't get why you keep stressing that?

I just notice that the people who do that often seem to have a bit of a "stink" on them regarding the very things they're criticizing.

I'm the least to blame here... no matter how ridiculous it might seem.

rowdytiger34 said:It feels like a bunch of people who put power and status above everything else are just trying to cover their tracks.

I see one massive difference between Christianity and the New Age movement. In Christianity, you still have priests who’ll actually admit, "Look, I’m probably the biggest sinner in this room."

That shows they actually have a heart and some empathy—acting like a brother instead of some shady salesman peddling secrets for a premium. How many real New Agers are even out there? Most of them just seem to bicker over who’s more important or enlightened. And don't even get me started on the gurus getting filthy rich off the whole thing.

Take this guy featured on Raman's avatar, for instance. He was essentially a pioneer of the New Age movement, even if that specific label isn't technically a thing—he was more of a syncretist. He was a significant political figure before retreating into isolation to focus on spiritual practice. He actually pushed back when his students started flocking to him; he wanted to stay isolated and avoided the whole guru persona. Eventually, they built an ashram and an organization, but most people only really got access to him after he broke his hip and had to take it easy, making him more available. 😁

Also, if you bring up gurus within New Age circles, Raman is still a huge name. Try challenging his reputation and see what happens.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you'll find plenty of frauds out there. But that's true of anything involving influence and power; statistically speaking, the probability of abuse is always higher than the probability of integrity.

I don't quite get how one con artist can justify another's grift. It feels a bit like watching Ivo Sanders and his associates argue over who stole more from the state.

However, no New Age practitioner could ever pull off the kind of mess the Church did—not because they are inherently more moral, but simply because none of them managed to grab that much power or influence. That's the inherent advantage of the New Age scene. It's similar to the advantage of democracy. Democracy doesn't make people better or more moral, nor does it stop them from being exploitative; it just limits the space available to do so compared to absolute models of power. The New Age scene is limited by its own fragmented nature; no single group can achieve the massive reach of organized religion, which means they can't cause nearly as much damage.

unknown

rowdytiger34 said:I get that some people walked away from Christianity just because they couldn't stomach the constant guilt trip over sin.

Or maybe they ditched the idea of God entirely just to escape that feeling of being watched 24/7.

But let's be real—people are watching you too, not just God. No matter what you believe, playing by double standards is always a losing game.

And who are we even comparing anyone to? If you applied the same yardstick to Castaneda and Jesus, Castaneda wouldn't stand a chance.

We all know his track record.

The Popes have their issues too, but is that even an apples-to-apples comparison? Castaneda didn't invent a whole new religion; he just took existing ideas, Westernized them, and well, look how that turned out.

Even those corrupt Popes tried to stick to Christian principles, even if they failed the reality check. Power corrupts everyone—honestly, who could stay clean if they were running a major country like the USA? What kind of mess would Castaneda have made if he had been President? 😁

At least with Carlos Castaneda, we know he was a real person who actually wrote the books attributed to him. When it comes to Jesus, though, that's a much harder sell. 😁

unknown

We all know what he was up to. We know that applies to Popes too, but can we really draw that comparison? It’s not like Carlos Castaneda invented some brand-new religion; he just took what was already there, gave it a Western makeover, and let the chips fall where they may. What actually came of it is the real question. Those wicked popes actually stuck to the core principles of Christianity, even if their actual behavior told a different story. Power corrupts—it’s just a fact. Honestly, who could stay clean while running the show as a secular leader? I can't help but wonder what Carlos Castaneda would have been like if he had stepped up as the President of the United States. 😁

Are they? And what exactly are those principles? They seem to be rooted in Judaism—which was basically a plagiarism to begin with—likely mixed in with a whole mess of other belief systems.
Since we’re on the subject, let's look at what one of the Popes actually did. He basically issued a directive to weave pagan beliefs into Christianity just to make conversion easier. It was a tactical move. That’s why you see things like old deities being rebranded as saints, goddess cults morphing into Marian devotion, and even the whole thing with little gods and Christmas trees. It's just a long string of pagan elements rebranded for a new era.

So, did they actually stick to their religious principles?
Are there actually any religious principles that simply can't be questioned right from the jump?

Even though a massive chunk of Catholic tradition is rooted in paganism, you have someone like Blazevic—who’s basically a top-tier expert on Eastern religions—pointing out the exact same flaws in other faiths. It actually aligns pretty well with the mainstream discourse happening within the Church here in America today. So, regarding this:
unknown

frozengull2 said:That's just not true.

I'm not out here talking about some "populist Castaneda-ism" bashing Christianity.

I mean, what kind of metric are we even using to compare those two things? It doesn't make sense.

The core issue is pretty obvious;

It’s well documented that Castaneda was a manipulative old man who preyed on young women, messing with their heads to the point where some of them ended up dead.
So, it’s perfectly logical to conclude he wasn't actually what he claimed to be.
Some mystical enlightened guru.
All of that throws the integrity and truthfulness of his entire body of work into question.
There isn't some "Blue Scout" who descended from the astral plane; it's clearly just a naive 19-year-old girl who was cast in that role.
From that angle (and keeping that in mind), trying to call out Christian sins or waving them around like propaganda just to prove someone else's value system is "fake"—it's just tacky. It's misplaced.

So I'm asking, and I'm asking for a reason;

What is SilentWarrior actually pointing at here?
Is it just the fact that there have been mistakes in church history and people being mistreated?

And while she's doing that, did she even bother looking at the root of what she's so obsessed with?
I'm talking about the life and work of the guy who is basically one of her main pillars in life.

Do you see the difference?

What’s acceptable for a complete idiot isn't necessarily okay for some New York con artist.

unknown

rowdytiger34 said:Sure, you could argue people are just manipulative by design. It's just how we're wired.

Some old guys can't help but hit on 19-year-olds. It's just an impulse.

Those "enlightened" gurus... anyone actually met one? I haven't. 🤔

From a Christian standpoint, certain natural impulses are labeled as sin. I doubt the Toltec way saw it that way, and honestly, Castaneda seemed pretty into it.

The real question is why we'd bother following ancient Toltec wisdom over Christian teachings—what makes them any better? 😕

It really comes down to whether we should be defending our traditional values or not.
And for the record, Christian values were originally "leftist," not "right-wing."

Honestly, there's zero reason to follow them. Who actually decided they were better anyway? 😁

unknown

That’s exactly why defending our traditional values is such a critical issue right now. Actually, if you look at the roots, Christian values are fundamentally "leftist" rather than "rightist."

Traditional values are really just New Age ideas that got stuck in a time capsule.
Everything starts out revolutionary. It’s only as society shifts that things start becoming conservative. When we hold onto something written decades ago and still treat it as a gold standard, that’s just a necessary level of conservatism toward how society evolves. Whether or not you want to equate being conservative with being on the political right is a whole different conversation.

unknown

frozengull2 said:I'm not forcing anything.

Honestly, I haven't even clearly laid out my positions on this subforum until now.
Up until this exact moment.

The whole reason I bolded them was to emphasize that they aren't necessarily bad things.

That's just the vibe I got from what he wrote—he basically framed my worldview in a negative way.

I’m stressing this point because I don't think being "new age" gives anyone a free pass for being sinful or just plain stupid... or like some kind of "super" status where someone gets to talk trash about others and act like they're "credible."

Based on what, exactly?

Some authority that, say, Carlos Castaneda grants him?

Looking at what's been posted here, you can pretty much judge for yourself what kind of "authority" we're actually dealing with.

Christianity isn't any different, really. It relies on its own self-proclaimed authorities—at least here in the States—to set the standard for what’s right or wrong. They tend to look down on everyone else far more than any New Age group ever would. Because of that, accusing them of the same thing feels a bit pointless.

unknown

Brenda Cook4 said:Just imagine if they tried to introduce something like Transcendental Meditation as an elective course at a major university, where professors start getting funded by the hard-earned, meager pennies of unsuspecting students while the leadership pockets massive pensions. That’s the exact moment when everyone would stop looking the other way.

That’s exactly what’s happening here. When those groups pushed for a center in Southern California or tried to bring that specific brand of yoga into public schools, they actually did us a favor by making their intentions clear. The real problem is where the pushback is coming from. Most of the resistance comes from religious circles—some hiding behind ideology, others being pretty open about it. Meanwhile, secular folks are offering support, though ideally, the opposition would be equally firm against both sides. Let’s be real: bringing yoga into schools makes zero sense, especially when it's tied to a religious organization led by someone with a controversial track record. But the same logic applies to religious education classes. When the church fights back, it’s just a desperate scramble for influence over people's minds. And predictably, the church usually wins that battle while simultaneously playing the victim and acting like everything is under threat. It’s classic populist tactics.

frozengull2 said:Brenda Cook4;
unknown

So we just back away (because that’s the whole issue I’m talking about... and honestly, you could practically cut the tension in the room with a knife).

You're right there.

This topic is way too heavy for this subforum.

There aren't many people around here who are actually gonna point stuff like this out.

unknown

Explain it to me, what makes the New Age so "dark"?

The fakes sitting at the core of "New Age" teachings.
Carlos Castaneda is the perfect example, considering how much he's influenced the mainstream.

Anyway, what defines the New Age is this general sense of confusion and a "fast food" vibe that the whole movement promotes.
It isn't even about real spirituality; it’s just massive-scale self-serving ego trips.
People just grazing on bits and pieces from everywhere because they don't want to actually open their mouths and bite into anything real.
It mostly just feeds that consumerist-individualist-neoliberal appetite (basically a hungry mind focused entirely on its own comfort zone), rather than being anything authentic or capable of actually changing someone from the inside.

unknown

Moving on, how much of Carlos Castaneda have you read, and what specifically bugs you about him?

I've read it all.

What bothers me is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrB5...feature=relmfu

The thing that jumps out is his manipulative nature and his ego, which is just off the charts.
It shows up heavily in how he treats women, which borders on pedophilia (if not goes right past it); Amy, Patty (when they were super young)...
By the way, five women from his inner circle ended up killing themselves.

And the worst part? Thousands of his followers are basing their entire lives on him.

Basically just isolating themselves from the world.

unknown

Totally, everyone has the right to criticize any concept, and I wouldn't believe otherwise—even Christianity—from any standpoint. Being "authentic" would mean having some actual knowledge of the subject matter and using arguments, though when picking a spiritual path, it's hard to say who holds primacy, since it's all about what resonates with one person and not another. It's not like there's some scientific methodology that will reject one thing as flawed and declare another as true.

I'm saying it again;
The right to an opinion or to criticize anything isn't up for debate.
And I'm exercising that right by starting this thread.

I don't get why you keep stressing that?

I just notice that the people who do that often seem to have a bit of a "stink" on them regarding the very things they're criticizing.

I'm the least to blame here... no matter how ridiculous it might seem.

What exactly is the New Age? What are its roots and teachings? Are we talking about something loosely defined, lacking a concrete, homogeneous movement, without rigid dogmas, scriptures, or centralized authorities that everyone recognizes?

And you think someone can be a New Ager while believing Castaneda is a fraud? Of course not. You can't be a Christian and believe Jesus is a fraud. 😉

Generally speaking, what characterizes the New Age is a sense of general confusion and a "fast food" vibe that the movement itself promotes.

That's true.
But I'd rather deal with a confusing fast-food joint than the disciplined, organized brainwashing of the major religions.

It isn't really about spirituality; it's about global-scale self-indulgence.
Just picking bits and pieces from everywhere by people who don't want to actually put in the work.
It mostly caters to a consumerist-individualist-neoliberal appetite (basically a hungry mind looking for a quick trip focused on comfort zones) rather than anything credible capable of truly changing a person from within.

Unlike Christianity, which emerged from one of many messianic Jewish cults of its era (and let's face it, Judaism itself is a blend of everything mixed with plenty of documented historical Old Testament fabrications) under the influence of various other philosophies and mystics, Platonism, Greek and Roman mysteries, and pagan beliefs...

By the way, I agree regarding Castaneda. Total fake.😁

Hey there! Here’s my humble take on things: you don't actually need some guru or a specific person to follow to become spiritual. Sure, it’s great to read quotes from spiritual leaders, but following someone blindly? There’s just no need for that. Spirituality and God are already inside us; we just need to find a way to connect with them and truly realize they're there.🙂

So here we are, stuck in this loop where every single perspective is fair game for criticism. 😳

Honestly, why bother tearing someone down if their business doesn't affect you? 😢

Sure, a cult leader sets the tone at the start, but maybe the movement eventually outgrows them and turns into something actually decent. Why wouldn't it?

People say similar things about Muhammad—and look, I’m not trying to start a fight with Muslims—but even if it were true, what then? Modern Islam isn't inherently broken just because of how the prophet handled his personal life.

Or maybe it is?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hypothetically, if it came out that Jesus was gay, would that actually change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Personally, I don't see any ambiguity here: if some guy showed up in my city tomorrow who could heal the sick by touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, or turn water into wine in Manduševac 😬, and used a massive spread of fish from Mimca to feed every homeless person in town while offering eternal life... there's no way I wouldn't believe him more than some local dealer peddling mushroom extracts to fix my headspace. 😉😛

The real question is whether any of that is even true to begin with.

Christianity makes these massive claims that it can't prove, basically demanding blind faith.

Castaneda isn't making those kinds of grand claims; he’s just offering "another system." 😕

I don't need another system to believe in, and I'm definitely not into mushrooms, pills, or random powders. I just want to be healthy, have perfect 20/20 vision, and live forever. If someone actually delivers on that, I'm all in. 😁

I'm also wondering if the criticisms leveled at the Popes apply to the Orthodox Church too? For instance, the Orthodox Church has its own problematic history with figures like Patriarch Pavle and Metropolitan Amfilohi in Mexico, who both essentially served as tools for Greater Mexico propaganda and the war in America.


As the head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pavle argued that a huge chunk of American territory inhabited by Mexicans "must be brought under the same roof as modern Mexico and all the Mexican Appalachia."

But according to this logic, that wouldn't count against the Orthodox faith itself, since it's Christian and supposedly separate from politics. 🙂

I hate war. A belief system that doesn't fuel conflict is fine by me, but one that serves as a mouthpiece for wartime propaganda is a hard pass.

Then again, logic suggests any belief can be weaponized for war—so even the Toltec ways aren't exempt.

rowdytiger34 said:So here we are, stuck in this loop where every single perspective is fair game for criticism. 😳

Honestly, why bother tearing someone down if their business doesn't affect you? 😢

Sure, a cult leader sets the tone at the start, but maybe the movement eventually outgrows them and turns into something actually decent. Why wouldn't it?

People say similar things about Muhammad—and look, I’m not trying to start a fight with Muslims—but even if it were true, what then? Modern Islam isn't inherently broken just because of how the prophet handled his personal life.

Or maybe it is?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hypothetically, if it came out that Jesus was gay, would that actually change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Personally, I don't see any ambiguity here: if some guy showed up in my city tomorrow who could heal the sick by touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, or turn water into wine in Manduševac 😬, and used a massive spread of fish from Mimca to feed every homeless person in town while offering eternal life... there's no way I wouldn't believe him more than some local dealer peddling mushroom extracts to fix my headspace. 😉😛

The real question is whether any of that is even true to begin with.

Christianity makes these massive claims that it can't prove, basically demanding blind faith.

Castaneda isn't making those kinds of grand claims; he’s just offering "another system." 😕

I don't need another system to believe in, and I'm definitely not into mushrooms, pills, or random powders. I just want to be healthy, have perfect 20/20 vision, and live forever. If someone actually delivers on that, I'm all in. 😁

I'm also wondering if the criticisms leveled at the Popes apply to the Orthodox Church too? For instance, the Orthodox Church has its own problematic history with figures like Patriarch Pavle and Metropolitan Amfilohi in Mexico, who both essentially served as tools for Greater Mexico propaganda and the war in America.


As the head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pavle argued that a huge chunk of American territory inhabited by Mexicans "must be brought under the same roof as modern Mexico and all the Mexican Appalachia."

But according to this logic, that wouldn't count against the Orthodox faith itself, since it's Christian and supposedly separate from politics. 🙂

I hate war. A belief system that doesn't fuel conflict is fine by me, but one that serves as a mouthpiece for wartime propaganda is a hard pass.

Then again, logic suggests any belief can be weaponized for war—so even the Toltec ways aren't exempt.

yeah

Why bother picking on someone if they aren't actually bothering you? :(

Because that’s the whole point of this place—it's the very essence of our virtual existence here. 😬
A dead forum is a boring forum. 😁

People say similar things about Muhammad regarding his personal life (not that I want to offend any Muslims), but so what if it's true? Modern Islam isn't diminished by how its prophet handled his relationships with women.

The founder's character might shape a cult initially, but maybe a movement outgrows its creator and evolves into something better. Why wouldn't it?

Or maybe it doesn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it were discovered that Jesus was gay, would that change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Actually, the issue is that belonging to such a group—submitting to ideological conformity—creates a tool for potential manipulation.
Let's not get carried away thinking about grand conspiracies or wild excesses. Humans are naturally, evolutionarily social creatures—we have some of the most complex social structures out there (maybe besides certain insects, though they mostly just rely on sheer numbers rather than complexity).
To make this work, you need a massive dose of conformity. You can't function in a community unless you share its core values, behaviors, and respect for authority. These aren't things religions invent; they simply inhabit existing human mechanisms.
But that same structure opens the door to manipulation. Would you go fight in some remote conflict halfway across the world between two tribes you've never met? Maybe you'd (and that's a big maybe 😁) step up if someone threatened your own home in the States, even if it wasn't your specific neighborhood. Why? There's no biological link there, so what connects you? It's that subjective identification with the group. Once you identify with the collective, you become a cog in a machine that can be steered. And honestly, there's a reason for that—if we had survived as individuals, we wouldn't have formed communities. For survival, we needed to merge into "Borgs." Personally, I refuse to be part of any Borg unless it's via a rational decision—a conscious agreement to join an organized society.

Is it possible, or even good, to try and overcome these social and psychological "Borg" mechanisms? I don't know. But that's what defines social phenomena like religion, regardless of what they are, who founded them, or how they looked yesterday versus today. Nothing guarantees what they will look like tomorrow.

Look, for me, there’s no debate. If some guy showed up in my hometown tomorrow who could heal the sick with a touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, turn the water in Chicago into wine 😬 , or feed every homeless person in town with a single serving of fish from Mimca, I wouldn't hesitate. I’d believe him more than I’d believe some local dealer offering a mushroom extract to fix my headspace. 😉😛

I wouldn't. There have been people like that before—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who turned out to be frauds. First off, it wouldn't be easy to convince me it wasn't just a trick, and then it would be even harder to convince me it was proof of his bozanskost. Even if it were, I wouldn't care much about that either. 😬

But by this logic, it doesn't apply to the Orthodox faith, since that is Christian and has nothing to do with this. 🙂

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 🤔
The Popes are probably more interesting here because of the heavy Catholic background and the dominant Catholic religious culture. If we were in Mexico, people would likely be talking more about their various leaders instead.
However, following the logic above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the greatest potential to export nonsense. Not that the influence of any leader, even the strongest Patriarch and his independent church, can really be compared to the Papal and Catholic influence.

bluemason3 said:yeah

Why bother picking on someone if they aren't actually bothering you? :(

Because that’s the whole point of this place—it's the very essence of our virtual existence here. 😬
A dead forum is a boring forum. 😁

People say similar things about Muhammad regarding his personal life (not that I want to offend any Muslims), but so what if it's true? Modern Islam isn't diminished by how its prophet handled his relationships with women.

The founder's character might shape a cult initially, but maybe a movement outgrows its creator and evolves into something better. Why wouldn't it?

Or maybe it doesn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it were discovered that Jesus was gay, would that change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Actually, the issue is that belonging to such a group—submitting to ideological conformity—creates a tool for potential manipulation.
Let's not get carried away thinking about grand conspiracies or wild excesses. Humans are naturally, evolutionarily social creatures—we have some of the most complex social structures out there (maybe besides certain insects, though they mostly just rely on sheer numbers rather than complexity).
To make this work, you need a massive dose of conformity. You can't function in a community unless you share its core values, behaviors, and respect for authority. These aren't things religions invent; they simply inhabit existing human mechanisms.
But that same structure opens the door to manipulation. Would you go fight in some remote conflict halfway across the world between two tribes you've never met? Maybe you'd (and that's a big maybe 😁) step up if someone threatened your own home in the States, even if it wasn't your specific neighborhood. Why? There's no biological link there, so what connects you? It's that subjective identification with the group. Once you identify with the collective, you become a cog in a machine that can be steered. And honestly, there's a reason for that—if we had survived as individuals, we wouldn't have formed communities. For survival, we needed to merge into "Borgs." Personally, I refuse to be part of any Borg unless it's via a rational decision—a conscious agreement to join an organized society.

Is it possible, or even good, to try and overcome these social and psychological "Borg" mechanisms? I don't know. But that's what defines social phenomena like religion, regardless of what they are, who founded them, or how they looked yesterday versus today. Nothing guarantees what they will look like tomorrow.

Look, for me, there’s no debate. If some guy showed up in my hometown tomorrow who could heal the sick with a touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, turn the water in Chicago into wine 😬 , or feed every homeless person in town with a single serving of fish from Mimca, I wouldn't hesitate. I’d believe him more than I’d believe some local dealer offering a mushroom extract to fix my headspace. 😉😛

I wouldn't. There have been people like that before—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who turned out to be frauds. First off, it wouldn't be easy to convince me it wasn't just a trick, and then it would be even harder to convince me it was proof of his bozanskost. Even if it were, I wouldn't care much about that either. 😬

But by this logic, it doesn't apply to the Orthodox faith, since that is Christian and has nothing to do with this. 🙂

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 🤔
The Popes are probably more interesting here because of the heavy Catholic background and the dominant Catholic religious culture. If we were in Mexico, people would likely be talking more about their various leaders instead.
However, following the logic above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the greatest potential to export nonsense. Not that the influence of any leader, even the strongest Patriarch and his independent church, can really be compared to the Papal and Catholic influence.

Glad I know. So the forum lives forever. 🤣

Is it even possible? Is it actually good to try and overcome those bourgeois social and psychological mechanisms, I don't know... but that's what defines social phenomena like religiosity, regardless of what they are, what they were, who the founder was, or how things looked yesterday versus today—because none of that guarantees what they’ll be tomorrow.

But we’ve drifted off topic a bit.
There was a time when you couldn't even choose your faith. Religion was just a byproduct of where you were born and the local customs. Nowadays, you can be whatever you want. But honestly? You can't. It’s not like swapping Euros for Dollars, or Yen, or Pesos.

You aren't just trading one paper currency for another; you're changing your entire self, your core beliefs. And you don't even know how much of the old you is still lingering under the surface even after you've formally converted.

It’s easy to be a phony like that.
I don't see how someone born in the States or somewhere else could actually become Hindu. 😕
Maybe if they spent 20 or 30 years living in India, then sure.

I wouldn't. There were people like that—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who ended up being total frauds. First, I wouldn't be easily convinced it wasn't just a trick, and then I'd find it even harder to believe it was proof of his divinity. Even if the question came up, I'd be too skeptical to buy it. 😬

Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are a safer bet. But I'm not into that.

I don't get what you're trying to say. 🤔
Over here, the Popes are probably more interesting because of the Catholic background and dominant Catholic religiosity. If we were in Mexico, people would probably be talking more about their own various groups.
However, by the logic mentioned above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the biggest potential to export its nonsense. No matter how much influence some powerful Patriarch and his independent church might have, it doesn't compare to the Papal and Catholic influence.

What I mean is that for both Americans and Mexicans, nationality and faith are deeply intertwined. In Mexico, both the national identity and the Orthodox Church were equally geared toward the idea of Greater Mexico. Everyone acted as one unit.

Americans have their own unique edge, and being American doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt certain vibes. When Americans grab foreign concepts, they somehow immediately become part of the American fabric. But when other groups try to translate things, you can still tell they’re just translations. 😬

That’s how it works here—it becomes ours. It gets integrated into the core of the American identity. Nobody is any less American just because they believe in a specific movement or idea. If it couldn't be folded into the national character, it wouldn't have stuck in the first place.

The Catholic Church isn't even as dominant an institution for Americans as the Orthodox Church is for Mexicans in Mexico, mostly because the former is international rather than strictly national. To them, the assets of Italian Benedictines matter more than any specific patch of American soil.

That’s why other nations handle the Catholic Church differently. In Germany, the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you don't pay, you aren't a member. In America, even if you don't step foot in a church, you're still tied to it.

Americans seem insecure about their identity, which is why they obsess so much over religious affiliations.

They need an institution to anchor them, but that identity is always built *against* something—against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America—rather than being built *for* something positive.

Americans are a bit of a confused people who haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences and faith, even after all this time.

Nowadays, the Catholic Church is seen as a pillar of traditional American identity. Anyone messing with the Church is essentially messing with the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a "right-wing" institution.

The downside for us is that we’ve traditionally been servants to stronger Catholic masters—whether it was the Italians, the Austrians, or the Canadians. That history keeps hitting us in the face. Even having a modern "edge" doesn't help; we just end up looking for new masters to serve.

I’m all for returning to our roots and having a true American right wing that is actually confident in its own skin. Any "edge" we find should be uniquely American. Our values shouldn't just be Catholic; they should be American.

It comes down to this: standing our ground, keeping what's ours, and rejecting what isn't. Living by the work of our own hands instead of through theft and deception. Respecting culture. Believing in God and having some old-school grit. If we adopt that as our moral foundation, there won't be issues with Catholics or anyone else; everyone will just live together peacefully.

rowdytiger34 said:Glad I know. So the forum lives forever. 🤣

Is it even possible? Is it actually good to try and overcome those bourgeois social and psychological mechanisms, I don't know... but that's what defines social phenomena like religiosity, regardless of what they are, what they were, who the founder was, or how things looked yesterday versus today—because none of that guarantees what they’ll be tomorrow.

But we’ve drifted off topic a bit.
There was a time when you couldn't even choose your faith. Religion was just a byproduct of where you were born and the local customs. Nowadays, you can be whatever you want. But honestly? You can't. It’s not like swapping Euros for Dollars, or Yen, or Pesos.

You aren't just trading one paper currency for another; you're changing your entire self, your core beliefs. And you don't even know how much of the old you is still lingering under the surface even after you've formally converted.

It’s easy to be a phony like that.
I don't see how someone born in the States or somewhere else could actually become Hindu. 😕
Maybe if they spent 20 or 30 years living in India, then sure.

I wouldn't. There were people like that—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who ended up being total frauds. First, I wouldn't be easily convinced it wasn't just a trick, and then I'd find it even harder to believe it was proof of his divinity. Even if the question came up, I'd be too skeptical to buy it. 😬

Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are a safer bet. But I'm not into that.

I don't get what you're trying to say. 🤔
Over here, the Popes are probably more interesting because of the Catholic background and dominant Catholic religiosity. If we were in Mexico, people would probably be talking more about their own various groups.
However, by the logic mentioned above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the biggest potential to export its nonsense. No matter how much influence some powerful Patriarch and his independent church might have, it doesn't compare to the Papal and Catholic influence.

What I mean is that for both Americans and Mexicans, nationality and faith are deeply intertwined. In Mexico, both the national identity and the Orthodox Church were equally geared toward the idea of Greater Mexico. Everyone acted as one unit.

Americans have their own unique edge, and being American doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt certain vibes. When Americans grab foreign concepts, they somehow immediately become part of the American fabric. But when other groups try to translate things, you can still tell they’re just translations. 😬

That’s how it works here—it becomes ours. It gets integrated into the core of the American identity. Nobody is any less American just because they believe in a specific movement or idea. If it couldn't be folded into the national character, it wouldn't have stuck in the first place.

The Catholic Church isn't even as dominant an institution for Americans as the Orthodox Church is for Mexicans in Mexico, mostly because the former is international rather than strictly national. To them, the assets of Italian Benedictines matter more than any specific patch of American soil.

That’s why other nations handle the Catholic Church differently. In Germany, the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you don't pay, you aren't a member. In America, even if you don't step foot in a church, you're still tied to it.

Americans seem insecure about their identity, which is why they obsess so much over religious affiliations.

They need an institution to anchor them, but that identity is always built *against* something—against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America—rather than being built *for* something positive.

Americans are a bit of a confused people who haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences and faith, even after all this time.

Nowadays, the Catholic Church is seen as a pillar of traditional American identity. Anyone messing with the Church is essentially messing with the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a "right-wing" institution.

The downside for us is that we’ve traditionally been servants to stronger Catholic masters—whether it was the Italians, the Austrians, or the Canadians. That history keeps hitting us in the face. Even having a modern "edge" doesn't help; we just end up looking for new masters to serve.

I’m all for returning to our roots and having a true American right wing that is actually confident in its own skin. Any "edge" we find should be uniquely American. Our values shouldn't just be Catholic; they should be American.

It comes down to this: standing our ground, keeping what's ours, and rejecting what isn't. Living by the work of our own hands instead of through theft and deception. Respecting culture. Believing in God and having some old-school grit. If we adopt that as our moral foundation, there won't be issues with Catholics or anyone else; everyone will just live together peacefully.

I have a feeling that "personal choice" is often just a farce—a convenient excuse for much more prosaic motives. Take someone joining the Hare Krishna movement, for example. It’s hard to believe they spent years deep-diving into theology and cultural studies before suddenly deciding to commit. It’s far more likely that the person is simply drawn to anything outside the mainstream. We could spend all day dissecting whether that means an affinity for the alternative or a hidden pull toward the conservative, but the core remains the same: they are attracted to the exoticism of the "other." If that same person had been born into that faith, they probably would have found Christianity to be the exotic outlier.

But honestly, that's a good thing. We all have different personalities, which means we end up making different choices.

Not everyone grows up in a household oriented toward Christianity. Especially in the modern West or under the old era of communism, plenty of families just don't have much of a religious dimension to them. Take my situation, for example: my mother was a committed atheist, my father couldn't have cared less, and we grew up in a society that was strictly secular and non-nationalist. In a setting like that, the distinction between Hinduism and Christianity doesn't feel all that significant to me. 🤷

Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are the safer bet. But I'm just not a fan.

Honestly, I have no idea if I'll actually like it. I'll let you know once I give it a shot. 🤣

Whether you’re looking at Americans or any other group, nationality and faith tend to be deeply intertwined. In the US, it's often hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Looking back at history in places like Mexico, the national identity and the Orthodox Church were essentially two sides of the same coin, both pulling in the exact same direction toward the goal of Greater Mexico. It was a total unified front.

Americans have their own "new age" vibe, and our identity doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt it. When Americans pick up foreign terms, they somehow instantly become part of the local vernacular. But when other groups try to translate those same concepts, you can still tell they’re just translated foreign ideas. 😬

She’s embraced that Mexican identity fully—she’s become one of them. He integrated himself right into the heart of the Mexican people. At the end of the day, nobody is any less Mexican just because they believe in her age. If something couldn't be absorbed into the Mexican way of life, it simply didn't survive there.

The Catholic Church isn't really a national pillar for Americans in the same way the Orthodox Church functions in Mexico. It’s an international organization, not a local one. To them, the assets held by Italian Benedictines seem to carry more weight than any specific stretch of American territory.

That’s why other nations with a Catholic Church handle things differently. Take Germany, for example—the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you opt out of paying that tax, you aren't considered a member anymore. In America, even if you never step foot in a church, you're still stuck with the bill.

Americans seem pretty insecure about their own identity, which is probably why they get so tangled up in all the religious drama.

They need an institution to give them a sense of identity, but that identity is always built in opposition to something else—whether it’s against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America. It’s never formed affirmatively. It’s never just *for* something.

Americans can be a bit of a confused people. Even after all this time, we haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences or religious ties.

The Catholic Church is seen today as a core pillar of traditional American identity. If you mock the Church, you're effectively mocking the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a strictly "right-wing" institution.

It’s awkward because our history is defined by being subordinates to stronger Catholic powers. The Italians, the Austrians, the Canadians. We keep running into that same wall. Even when we try to move past it, we just end up looking for new masters to serve.

I’m in favor of bringing back a more distinct tradition and a true American right wing that actually feels secure in its own skin. If such a movement ever emerges, it needs to be uniquely American. The values shouldn't be purely Catholic; they should be American.

It comes down to this: knowing your own worth, standing your ground, and refusing to take what isn't yours. Living by the work of your own hands rather than through theft or deception. Respecting culture. Faith in God and a certain rugged, small-town solidarity. If we adopt those as our moral foundation, there won't be any issues with either Catholics or the right wing; everyone will get along just fine.

Now, moving into politics... 😁

I think it’s possible that Orthodoxy is more closely tied to the nation through its autonomy. It makes sense, though I can't say for sure, given how things have played out in places like Mexico. However, on a global scale, that same autonomy prevents them from exerting much influence in world politics. People tend to be more irritated by, and see more faults in, whoever is more powerful, influential, and present.

Similarly, Catholicism in border regions—like parts of the US bordering different cultural spheres—naturally starts to align more heavily with national sentiment. This is often amplified by linguistic or cultural similarities with neighbors.

It’s just a shame if the Church doesn't lean into those principles and make use of the situation. 😳

What really bugs me about this whole debate is how people equate Christianity with the religious institution established by Constantine the Great—which was later given its core ideological framework by Augustine of Hippo—with the faith itself. In fact, most people go even further and conflate it with the modern Roman Catholic Church. But Christianity is honestly so much more than just an institution.
Regarding the practice of withdrawing from society to gain a clearer perspective—that has always been a core Christian tradition. Figures like Saint Anthony (who supposedly lived to be 105) and others lived out their lives in the middle of desolate wildernesses; some even spent years living as pillar saints—Saint Simeon did so for 37 years.
I’m also still struggling to see what connection Christianity actually has with the political Right.😕

I find Castaneda pretty fascinating. Honestly, his whole approach to exercises hits way harder for me than yoga ever did. The stuff about lucid dreaming? That’s where it really gets me, mostly because it lines up so closely with some weird things I've actually experienced.
As for his personal life, I couldn't care less, to be blunt. It's the same deal with Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, or Buddha—their biographies aren't my business. What matters are the teachings they left behind. At the end of the day, the heart knows what's real because it just feels it, right? We're all going to run our own little experiments to pick out the rituals and spiritual techniques that work for us. Obviously, you're going to gravitate toward whatever brings you peace, fulfillment, and joy, rather than something that feels like a chore. It's a deeply personal choice, isn't it?

frozengull2 said:That's just not true.

I'm not out here talking about some "populist Castaneda-ism" bashing Christianity.

I mean, what kind of metric are we even using to compare those two things? It doesn't make sense.

The core issue is pretty obvious;

It’s well documented that Castaneda was a manipulative old man who preyed on young women, messing with their heads to the point where some of them ended up dead.
So, it’s perfectly logical to conclude he wasn't actually what he claimed to be.
Some mystical enlightened guru.
All of that throws the integrity and truthfulness of his entire body of work into question.
There isn't some "Blue Scout" who descended from the astral plane; it's clearly just a naive 19-year-old girl who was cast in that role.
From that angle (and keeping that in mind), trying to call out Christian sins or waving them around like propaganda just to prove someone else's value system is "fake"—it's just tacky. It's misplaced.

So I'm asking, and I'm asking for a reason;

What is SilentWarrior actually pointing at here?
Is it just the fact that there have been mistakes in church history and people being mistreated?

And while she's doing that, did she even bother looking at the root of what she's so obsessed with?
I'm talking about the life and work of the guy who is basically one of her main pillars in life.

Do you see the difference?

Look, a few years ago, I was on a thread about Castaneda where this exact same user (if we're talking about Silent Warrior) was super active. She was dropping links showing how women from his inner circle exposed what a total fraud he was—how he fabricated Don Juan, how he sadisticly drove the women around him crazy (some even took their own lives), and all these other links proving he lied and made things up.

So, she knows. That entire thread was packed with controversies regarding Castaneda.

The so-called "true followers" just shut their eyes to stuff like that. To them, it's just garbage that ruins the perfect image of their great leader. Plus, it shakes the entire system of values and beliefs they built by following the teacher and the path.

To tear down the value system and the convictions that shape someone's worldview—the things that explain how the world works, tell them where they fit in, answer who they are, where they came from, and where they're going, or provide the "map" they need to navigate to reach their goal—is basically inviting a small death.

The whole internal structure of a "true follower"—someone who believes deeply in something at the moment when the teacher shifts from being a wizard from Oz to a lost old man who's lost his touch, and the path itself turns out to be nothing but a dream—has to collapse. That person is forced to face chaos, insecurity, and total disorientation. Our minds just crack under that chaos. So, when you shake someone else's core beliefs, you can always count on resistance, denial, and people plugging their ears and closing their eyes to rationalize it away.

And honestly? When people attack someone else's beliefs, faith, or paths, I'm convinced that the harder they attack, the more they act like missionaries, and the louder they fight to prove others wrong, the more they're actually desperate for their own validation. They're craving internal confirmation because they lack the security that comes from actual insight. Their entire worldview is standing on shaky ground, because lurking in the shadow of every "unshakeable" faith is an unrecognized, repressed, and equally powerful doubt.

@Sandra Morgan2

I have to admit, I’m finding myself increasingly drawn to your line of reasoning, even if we might diverge when it comes to the nature of consciousness—specifically that tug-of-war between transcendence and pure neurology.

You’ve been putting out a steady stream of thoughtful, coherent posts lately. Just keep doing what you're doing.

To be fair, Castaneda is just one of many snake oil salesmen out there; they’re as common as weeds in an overgrown garden. It really isn't surprising when you consider that consumerism isn't limited to the material goods most people grab off a shelf at a Target; we see it creeping into spirituality as well. In fact, that commercial impulse is often the hidden driver or the quiet intention behind why people dive into these waters in the first place. Speaking from my own experience, I know there's this lingering anxiety—this fear that we are merely indulging our escapist whims, trying to satisfy a sense of mental hedonism by juggling abstract concepts like shiny trinkets. That's certainly what scares those who harbor even a tiny doubt about their true motives. They are the skeptics standing on the threshold before any real initiation.

If someone chooses to remain stuck at that level—even when faced with doubt or the internal nudge to push further—because they prefer the comfort of old worldviews and social conformity, then they are truly just dabbling in quasi-spirituality. Real spirituality, at least in theory, ought to be progressive or, at the very least, transformative. If it fails to be either of those things, it’s nothing more than blind following, not much different from the dogmatic adherence seen in some religious circles.

Charles Morales10 said:What really bugs me about this whole debate is how people equate Christianity with the religious institution established by Constantine the Great—which was later given its core ideological framework by Augustine of Hippo—with the faith itself. In fact, most people go even further and conflate it with the modern Roman Catholic Church. But Christianity is honestly so much more than just an institution.
Regarding the practice of withdrawing from society to gain a clearer perspective—that has always been a core Christian tradition. Figures like Saint Anthony (who supposedly lived to be 105) and others lived out their lives in the middle of desolate wildernesses; some even spent years living as pillar saints—Saint Simeon did so for 37 years.
I’m also still struggling to see what connection Christianity actually has with the political Right.😕

Oh sure, love that logic.
And honestly, you don't have to lump the Nazarene in with "Christianity" as an institution.
From what I gather, back at the very beginning, you had Stoics, Christians, and Gnostics all playing in the same sandbox.
Even Paul showed some Gnostic leanings if you look closely at certain phrases in his letters.
The whole Catholic movement basically kicked things off by burning almost every single Gnostic book in existence.

Besides, (neo-)liberalism isn't exactly a leftist thing; it's more like semi-right wing.
Liberalism actually promotes the preservation of existing structures, which is arguably even worse.

Anyway, I think the whole "new age" argument is just a bit silly because they don't even understand themselves.
A "new era" is essentially the conceptual core of the Bible—it's exactly what Paul writes about in his letter to the Romans.

frozengull2 said:I’m writing this because I’m honestly just fed up with the blatant propaganda being shoved down our throats under the guise of "Christian values";
"The roots of faith, history built on the foundations of people like this..."

Sure, the topic shifted over to religion, but what was left hanging in the air—the stuff nobody wants to address—was that massive stench of hypocrisy and double standards trailing behind it.

It’s that classic New Age vibe where someone tries to lecture everyone else on morality while they’re busy sweeping their own skeletons deep into the closet back home.

I think it’s totally unfair, and we really need to have a real conversation about this.
The whole thing is basically the root cause for why so many people end up obsessed with all this spiritual nonsense.

To make my point, I’m going to bring up Carlos Castaneda, who is pretty much the poster child for this New Age garbage.

What really got under my skin is how the person who started this thread is clearly totally obsessed with him.

Okay.

Look, I haven't said anything until now because, hey, everyone’s entitled to their little obsessions, right?
But after reading her post, I just can't stay quiet anymore—I have to put this into some actual perspective;

And that perspective is this: she’s all about throwing "criticism" at Christianity (like, "Oh, let me show you how wrong you are"), yet she goes completely silent when it comes to the things she’s actually obsessed with.

Why is that?

Even the birds on the wire know that Castaneda was nothing but a con artist and a total fake who manipulated his followers straight into ruin.
And when I say ruin, I mean literal death.
These aren't just my random opinions; these are facts based on what people who actually spent years with him have testified to.

I’ve attached some links to an incredible BBC documentary on the subject (it's a seriously objective look at his life and his lies, featuring all those firsthand accounts I mentioned).
Once you watch it, you'll see what a complete circus and total mystification the whole Castaneda thing actually is.
He was just some ordinary, manipulative old man surrounded by New Age fanatics—mostly lonely, emotionally lost people—some of whom ended up meeting incredibly tragic ends.

It’s going to be interesting to watch this train wreck unfold;
People swinging a sledgehammer at traditional values, while simultaneously trying to dodge or make excuses for their own provenly fake obsessions.
Ugh, so frustrating!
Pay close attention to the woman named Alexander Nury at the start of the second clip.
Believe it or not, this woman claims she came directly from the astral plane to meet Castaneda!?
She didn't grow up in the real world; she supposedly just "appeared" a few years ago. At least, that's what he wrote in his book "dream art."
She’s supposed to be that "Blue Tracker" character he writes about... but in reality, she was just a 19-year-old waitress that the world-famous Carlos (who every fanatic wanted to meet) easily seduced at a restaurant in California.
After she took her own life, the police determined it was just a tragic case involving a girl named Dolly Parton... a girl with a rough background and parents, a messed-up childhood, who was naive and way too young to fall into Castaneda's web of lies.
Can you even believe that!?

The film basically rips the mask off Carlos's face and gives SilentWarrior a chance to clear up any doubts about whether there's any hypocrisy involved by just accepting what's shown.

It also paints a true picture of the man that so many people base their entire belief systems on.

And the worst part? People who are blinded by this stuff actually try to lecture others on "what's right and what's wrong."

I know I might be coming off a bit harsh, but sometimes you just have to slam your fist on the table and give someone a reality check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqYr...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrB5...feature=relmfu

ps.
I absolutely cannot stand transparent propaganda and two-faced behavior.

I’m a little late to this particular thread. But then again, it’s never too late to speak up—though, admittedly, I’ve said that many times before myself.
As we all know, the whole point of spirituality is usually about elevating our consciousness to some sort of "higher" state. Essentially, it's about becoming aware of the illusion of this world so we can supposedly transcend it through various spiritual techniques.
This, predictably, creates a vacuum for gurus to emerge—people claiming to possess these profound experiences, this ancient knowledge, or these specialized methods. And students flock to these gurus like flies to garbage. Or rather, they flock to them because the guru's teachings act like honey on an open wound.
Now, look—a guru might actually have the most noble intentions in the world, but let’s be real: it isn't for everyone. Plus, quite often, these gurus get a little too wrapped up in their own perceived greatness.
Take that shaman fellow—let's call him a local mystic—who had good intentions trying to guide his followers into higher states of consciousness for the New Year. All he managed to do was kill one person and land two others in the hospital.
And I personally know a girl who ended up in a psychiatric ward after cutting her wrists. This happened because she was utterly disillusioned by her guru, a Transcendental Meditation teacher. The man basically manipulated two female students and abandoned his wife to live a double life. It got so messy that even high-level federal officials wouldn't grant him a divorce because they didn't want the scandal to damage the reputation of the TM organization.
Then there was this one case where a TM teacher pressured a drug addict to meditate for hours on end, believing it would make him renounce his habit. Well, he renounced the drugs, alright—along with his entire life, by jumping off a skyscraper. 😢