Why are the writings of Carlos Castaneda being taught as serious scholarship at universities?

[Abba]

I seriously do not get it. My son is taking a philosophy of religion course at a state university and one of the assignments is to read Journey to Ixtlan. The assignment this week is to practice for a day the teachings of the book. Mainly to live the day as if it was the last. But, I find the whole thing weird. I do not think he is a serious scholar and if a professor wanted to cover him it would seem more appropriate to cover him in passing. If need be at all, a good fifteen minutes of lecture time and carry one.

 

[Garyjohn2]

He’s a pretty good writer. I’m sure there is a reason to study the philosophy in the book. Try to live it for one day, critique it, compare it to other philosophical positions, etc.

I mean, it’s not Plato, but it’s a worthy object of study I think.

 

[Bluegoat]

Lots of religious figures were important but not scholars. St Francis comes to mind, many of the desert fathers and mothers, and so on. Even Jesus.

I would have said this was an odd choice for an introductory class to the philosophy of religion, but is that the actual title of the course? Is it a first year or introductory course?

Another thing to consider is that it is pretty normal in the university for classes to follow to some extent the research interests of the professor. Less so in the introductory classes which should cover the basics, but more so in upper years.

I’ve known quite a lot of young people who were interested in these works, so it could be they were chosen partly for their accessibility. Some people think it is best to start teaching young people with things that are more familiar and then move to the less familiar.

 

[whaleheadking]

I haven’t read these books in a while, but they did open me to spiritual aspects I had neglected, and eventually led me to the church. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with living each day as if it will be your last. Saint Expedite is an inspiration for me. He crushed the devil under his foot rather than accept the advice that he should put off becoming a Christian till tomorrow.

 

[Abba]

He’s a pretty good writer. I’m sure there is a reason to study the philosophy in the book. Try to live it for one day, critique it, compare it to other philosophical positions, etc.

I mean, it’s not Plato, but it’s a worthy object of study I think.

Hello Garyjohn2,

Well, I hope the reason is not to promote New Age thinking to our youngsters.

Teaching packages are available for middle schools and high schools!

bookrags.com/lessonplan/the-teachings-of-don-juan/intro.html

I would think that a scholarly presentation of shamanism, Toltec teachings, phenomenology, etc…would be more educationally fruitful then assigning the books of Carlos Castaneda to read without putting the ideas presented there in context.

It bothers me.

P.s. I just remembered that a year and a half ago, I went to a presentation of Haiti at my local library. The presentation was given by a professor at a fine college. His personal goal is to promote voodoo as a legitimate religion. I objected to a lot of his comments and misinformation and he tried to get back at me by saying that the voodoo loas sacrifice the Eucharist and at their altars. I was amazed to learn that that college was actually allowing such a thing to be taught and promoted in the classrooms. I don’t think such a promotion would have been allowed years back. I am still very surprised that college is actually providing a course on voodoo and by a professor that is promoting it!

 

[Contarini]

I seriously do not get it. My son is taking a philosophy of religion course at a state university and one of the assignments is to read Journey to Ixtlan. The assignment this week is to practice for a day the teachings of the book. Mainly to live the day as if it was the last. But, I find the whole thing weird. I do not think he is a serious scholar and if a professor wanted to cover him it would seem more appropriate to cover him in passing. If need be at all, a good fifteen minutes of lecture time and carry one.

I think that there’s a legitimate reason for objecting to a professor at a state university requiring religious practice as part of a course. In a religious college, of course, this would be fine (though even then one needs to be sensitive to those who don’t share the faith officially professed by the institution, and give them alternative ways of passing the course without forcing them to practice a religion they do not profess).

As others have said, there doesn’t seem to be anything contrary to orthodox Christianity in living each day as if it were your last–indeed, this is the traditional practice of “memento mori.” So if that’s all that your son has to do, it’s probably not worth objecting to. But in principle I think this is a dubious approach at best for a professor at a state university. If a Catholic professor asked people to pray the rosary every day as part of a course at such a university, I suspect there would be objections

I think you’re on more questionable ground when you say that Castaneda isn’t a serious scholar. If the professor judges that his writings are a good way of getting students to think about basic questions in the philosophy of religion, I think that’s the professor’s prerogative. Castaneda did have a Ph.D., although the scholarly nature of his works has been seriously questioned and there’s some ground for considering him a con artist. But more to the point, the professor may not be using him as a scholar but rather as someone who raises basic questions that help students start to think about the nature of religion and its place in life.

Again, *I *wouldn’t take this approach. But I’m not the one teaching the course!

My own course on world religions was criticized by one ex-student as superficial because I didn’t approach the subject from a point of view informed by the work of Joseph Campbell!

Edwin

 

[Warrenton]

ICastaneda did have a Ph.D., although the scholarly nature of his works has been seriously questioned and there’s some ground for considering him a con artist.

I had long thought Carlos consigned to the proverbial dustbin. In an odd way, finding out he’s actually taught at college gives one hope in the afterlife.

Castenada puts me in mind of grafitti I read on the bathroom wall at the university library long ago: “Don’t drop acid. Take it pass/fail.”

Peace, man.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Hello Garyjohn2,

Well, I hope the reason is not to promote New Age thinking to our youngsters.

I would think that a scholarly presentation of shamanism, Toltec teachings, phenomenology, etc…would be more educationally fruitful then assigning the books of Carlos Castaneda to read without putting the ideas presented there in context.

It bothers me.

P.s. I just remembered that a year and a half ago, I went to a presentation of Haiti at my local library. The presentation was given by a professor at a fine college. His personal goal is to promote voodoo as a legitimate religion. I objected to a lot of his comments and misinformation and he tried to get back at me by saying that the voodoo loas sacrifice the Eucharist and at their altars. I was amazed to learn that that college was actually allowing such a thing to be taught and promoted in the classrooms. I don’t think such a promotion would have been allowed years back. I am still very surprised that college is actually providing a course on voodoo and by a professor that is promoting it!

We don’t know if the authors ideas are being presenting in context or not, all we know is that this book is being used in a philosophy class. College and higher learning are not about learning only about things we agree with. The purpose of such an education is to develop stronger critical thinking skills. We do this by subjecting students to a wide range of philosophies, theories, authors, cultures, and ideas. Then we can disect them, learn their context, explore their virtues, identify their flaws, and pretty much learn more about the word around us.

Also, voodoo is a legitimate religion practiced by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people for a very long time. Just because it disagrees with our faith does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of study!

 

[Abba]

I haven’t read these books in a while, but they did open me to spiritual aspects I had neglected, and eventually led me to the church. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with living each day as if it will be your last. Saint Expedite is an inspiration for me. He crushed the devil under his foot rather than accept the advice that he should put off becoming a Christian till tomorrow.

How exactly did the spirituality of Carlos Castaneda lead you back to the Church?

I understand that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with living each day as if it was your last and this understanding is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

What concerns me is the context and the other teachings; make every decision as if it was your last, forget your personal history and loose self importance (and this should not be misunderstood as the christian humility). So far that is what the students will practice for one day as this is how far they are in the book. Perhaps, later in the semester the professor will ask them to practice all the teachings for a day.

 

[Abba]

I would have said this was an odd choice for an introductory class to the philosophy of religion, but is that the actual title of the course? Is it a first year or introductory course?

Yes, that’s the title of the course: Philosophy of Religion. I suppose it is both, a first year and introductory course.

Lots of religious figures were important but not scholars. St Francis comes to mind, many of the desert fathers and mothers, and so on. Even Jesus.

Agreed. Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross could very well be studied in a philosophy of religion class and they were not ‘scholars’. One of the problems I have with Castaneda is that he lied and inflated his ‘scholar’ understanding and himself to the detriment of his followers. He even encouraged them to commit suicide and they did. On the other hand, the Catholic saints were sincere and Ghandi about what they had come to understand.

Understanding should be rational and logical not a narcissistic, psychopath personality that is using drugs to get undomesticated and to be able to detach himself from this reality. How can this be passed on as legitimate knowledge? Based on what? How can people be expected to adopt or take seriously a spirituality that is based on hallucinations brought about by drugs and that is not true to the connection that is claiming to other spiritual systems? Where is the spiritual, rational, logical foundation? The sxties are over, why pass this stuff as legit and at universities and schools?

It makes more sense to me to give a more general presentation on the philosophy of religion to freshmen. I just think its weird.

 

[Abba]

Also, voodoo is a legitimate religion practiced by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people for a very long time. Just because it disagrees with our faith does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of study!

It is not considered a religion by the Catholic Church. It is a sect. Voodoo is a syncretism of African spiritual beliefs and Catholic beliefs.

Part of what defines voodoo is the rejection of Catholicism, Jesus and an embracing of Satan as the hero. There was an American apologist some time ago that was attacked by the media for saying that voodoo practitioners believed Satan helped the Haitians to gain their independence. People who had never heard of that were shocked but, the truth of the matter is that that tele-evangelist did not make that up. I have known many Haitians who have worked and still do for my family and long before that tele-evangelist made that comment I heard it myself from Haitians. I was actually once teaching a course and had a highly educated Haitian (who spoke french french) student and I asked him if it was true that the Haitian voodoo practitioners believed that Satan obtained the independence for Haiti. He told me the history and confirmed to me that it was most certainly Satan. I had told my worker that I would ask my professional student and she was amused. She said to go ahead, he will tell you then.

Now, people who are promoting voodoo on the internet and otherwise, knowing how the rest of the world would object to certain practices and beliefs will deny some and not mention others, but, you have to go to Haiti to see for yourself.

How the Catholic Church is addressing the matter in Haiti is by distinguishing the aspects of the culture that are not based on such beliefs and how some (e.g. music) although part of the practices are not founded there and can be used in christianity.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It is not considered a religion by the Catholic Church. It is a sect. Voodoo is a syncretism of of the African spiritual belief and Catholic beliefs.

I did not know the Catholic Church had the authority to define what is a religion and what is a sect. Is then Buhdism a sect of Hinduism, or Islam and Christianity a sect of Judaism?

Is there a certain number of people that must belong to the sect before its upgraded to a religion? Am I in danger of being a heretic if I think that Voodoo is a religion, or it still open to interpretation? Is there a list somewhere where one can see what is a sect and what is a religion?

There are actual real questions I have. I’ve never heard of this before!

 

[Abba]

I did not know the Catholic Church had the authority to define what is a religion and what is a sect. Is then Buhdism a sect of Hinduism, or Islam and Christianity a sect of Judaism?

Is there a certain number of people that must belong to the sect before its upgraded to a religion? Am I in danger of being a heretic if I think that Voodoo is a religion, or it still open to interpretation? Is there a list somewhere where one can see what is a sect and what is a religion?
)

Hello Garyjohn2,

The Catholic Church alone has supreme authority to define what is a religion and what is a sect. I will search the Holy See website later today and see if I can find what exactly are the things considered in making the distinction between a religion and a sect. For now, I can tell you for sure that it is not the quantity of the followers. The Mormons are many and even if they outnumbered Catholics 10 to 1 one day, they will still be considered a sect by the Catholic Church. Mine you, it is not in a hostile way, it is the intention of the Church to bring all human beings to the fullness of the faith with love. The Church does not reject the people holding beliefs of sects but tries to guide them in a pastoral manner to the faith. This is different from the way the Church handles her interactions with religions. Representatives of religions can meet with the Pope and Bishops and attend ceremonies but sects have no representations and are not recognized as religions but the Church tries to guide the people holding erroneous beliefs to God.

I will see if later I can find something on the Holy See website.

Here is something:

The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men, although in fact, this allegiance is withheld by many because of ignorance and the abuse of free-will. She is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Her members do not constitute a sect nor will they consent to be known as such, because they do not belong to a party called into existence by a human leader, or to a school of thought sworn to the dictates of a mortal master. They form part of a Church which embraces all space and in a certain sense both time and eternity, since it is militant, suffering, and triumphant. This claim that the Catholic religion is the only genuine form of Christianity may startle some by its exclusiveness. But the truth is necessarily exclusive; it must exclude error just as necessarily as light is incompatible with darkness. As all non-Catholic denominations reject some truth or truths taught by Christ, or repudiate the authority instituted by him in his Church, they have in some essential point sacrificed his doctrine to human learning or his authority to self-constituted leadership. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

It is not considered a religion by the Catholic Church. It is a sect. Voodoo is a syncretism of African spiritual beliefs and Catholic beliefs.

Part of what defines voodoo is the rejection of Catholicism, Jesus and an embracing of Satan as the hero. There was an American apologist some time ago that was attacked by the media for saying that voodoo practitioners believed Satan helped the Haitians to gain their independence. People who had never heard of that were shocked but, the truth of the matter is that that tele-evangelist did not make that up. I have known many Haitians who have worked and still do for my family and long before that tele-evangelist made that comment I heard it myself from Haitians. I was actually once teaching a course and had a highly educated Haitian (who spoke french french) student and I asked him if it was true that the Haitian voodoo practitioners believed that Satan obtained the independence for Haiti. He told me the history and confirmed to me that it was most certainly Satan. I had told my worker that I would ask my professional student and she was amused. She said to go ahead, he will tell you then.

Now, people who are promoting voodoo on the internet and otherwise, knowing how the rest of the world would object to certain practices and beliefs will deny some and not mention others, but, you have to go to Haiti to see for yourself.

How the Catholic Church is addressing the matter in Haiti is by distinguishing the aspects of the culture that are not based on such beliefs and how some (e.g. music) although part of the practices are not founded there and can be used in christianity.

*Thank you, Abba. Excellent points: What more do we need to know about voodoo than that the fact that it rejects Jesus Christ and embraces Satan? *I do not need to be “open” to such ideas in order to be a reasonable person. I would not want a college- aged son or daughter of mine to be exposed to further details of this evil. If it must be listed as part of a study, your summation above would suffice quite well.

Christ died on the Cross in great agony, and rose again in glory. To embrace anything other than Him is not, for me, a way to honor His great sacrifice and love. I am so glad of the Church’s teachings, and feel it takes a lifetime of devotion, so I have no inclination to squander time “studying” voodo, Satan, or the workings of his minions.
:angel1::harp:
Kathryn Ann

 

[Bluegoat]

If what you want your son to take is a class on Catholic religion, then a course on religion more generally is a silly choice. Though i would be surprised if even seminary students do not actually take time to learn something about other religions.

Religion covers many things, and comparative religion is not necessarily even about teaching the religion one believes in. I took a philosophy of religion course at university, and I believe the proffesor was an atheist. Right now the course there on Orthodox Christianity is taught by an Anglican, while an Orthodox Christian has Islam as his area of specialization.

It isn’t always about looking at things from one point of view.

 

[Contarini]

I had long thought Carlos consigned to the proverbial dustbin. In an odd way, finding out he’s actually taught at college gives one hope in the afterlife.

Castenada puts me in mind of grafitti I read on the bathroom wall at the university library long ago: “Don’t drop acid. Take it pass/fail.”

Peace, man.

I don’t know much about him, frankly. But I’m very much against intellectual dustbins

Good ideas will always be good, and bad ideas were never good (though many of them should be studied for their historical importance).

Not that you are denying this. Only that I often hear conservative folks make fun of liberal professors as “aging hippies from the 60s,” which seems like an odd form of the same chronological snobbery that so often gets directed against Catholicism!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

*Thank you, Abba. Excellent points: What more do we need to know about voodoo than that the fact that it rejects Jesus Christ and embraces Satan? *

Voodoo does not embrace Satan. Voodoo embraces various gods and spirits, and given the pragmatic nature of voodoo worship there is reason for grave concern that demons may be influencing people through these practices, as St. Paul tells us they did in the case of ancient Greco-Roman pagan practices.

But voodoo practitioners do not consciously worship Satan.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is not considered a religion by the Catholic Church. It is a sect.

I’m not sure what you think the difference is.

Voodoo is a syncretism of African spiritual beliefs and Catholic beliefs.

Part of what defines voodoo is the rejection of Catholicism

Those statements are mutually contradictory. If they are consciously engaging in syncretism, they are not consciously rejecting Catholicism.

Jesus and an embracing of Satan as the hero.

Evidence for this?

There was an American apologist some time ago that was attacked by the media for saying that voodoo practitioners believed Satan helped the Haitians to gain their independence.

Well, first of all Robertson actually said that the Haitian “founding fathers” made a pact with Satan. He further suggested that this is the cause for the poverty and misery of Haiti. This was simply an abominable remark–it was nothing but a despicable attempt to blame the victims.

People who had never heard of that were shocked but, the truth of the matter is that that tele-evangelist did not make that up.

Indeed. That doesn’t make it true.

I have known many Haitians who have worked and still do for my family and long before that tele-evangelist made that comment I heard it myself from Haitians. I was actually once teaching a course and had a highly educated Haitian (who spoke french french) student

And there you are. It’s like asking a New Yorker whether all Southern Pentecostals handle snakes

and I asked him if it was true that the Haitian voodoo practitioners believed that Satan obtained the independence for Haiti. He told me the history and confirmed to me that it was most certainly Satan. I had told my worker that I would ask my professional student and she was amused. She said to go ahead, he will tell you then.

The fact that this is believed by some people doesn’t make it true. Unless these people were themselves voodoo practitioners, what they think voodoo practitioners believe is of little value.

My limited understanding of the voodoo view of the world leads me to think that it would make no sense for them to believe in Satan at all.

This Haitian Christian disputes the story.

Edwin

 

[Abba]

If what you want your son to take is a class on Catholic religion, then a course on religion more generally is a silly choice. Though i would be surprised if even seminary students do not actually take time to learn something about other religions.

Religion covers many things, and comparative religion is not necessarily even about teaching the religion one believes in. I took a philosophy of religion course at university, and I believe the proffesor was an atheist. Right now the course there on Orthodox Christianity is taught by an Anglican, while an Orthodox Christian has Islam as his area of specialization.

It isn’t always about looking at things from one point of view.

Dear Bluegoat,

I appreciate the exposure and the expansion of thinking that develops when we are exposed to a variety of things, be it religion, language, philosophical thinking, cultures, music, etc…

I also understand that we are able to appreciate certain aspects of our own religion or what have you when we are exposed to different ones. I understand and I am all for it.

My problem, here is that this is suppose to be an introductory course in the philosophy of religion. The classical thinkers have been skimmed up to this point and there have been short articles read of some, yet, of Castaneda a whole book has to be read and even the teachings practiced. His spirituality is not presented in the content of the which he claims as a foundation of his spirituality (toltec, yaqui etc…) instead, out of context the student are assigned to read Journey to Ixtlan and a deep analysis ensues of the ‘work’. I am not going to complain to the university, I am just watching the situation from a far and it does not make sense to me. I will see how the semester goes. My son will not have the same professor next semester as he will be attending the campus in my town. Right now, I have to drive an hour up a mountain and back and wait in the car four hours while he is in class. I do a lot of reading in the car and I pray the rosary and listen to Bible tapes. It’s just the way things turned out this semester.

My concern is; why promote a cult? If Jim Jones wrote up some scribbles, why would that have to be studied in a philosophy of religion course? Why ignore in the presentation of the works the fact that people committed suicide and all the other problems? Why just assign the scribbles to the students as is it was something worthwhile understanding? I understand some of the wives of Carlos Castaneda and maybe the supposed daughter committed suicide. I am not sure, but, there were some suicides after his death.

What I want to say is: Eso no tiene fundamento! There! It just does not have a rational basis nor presenting it to students as if it did.

http://www.altereddimensions.net/images/crime/jonestown/JonestownBodies2.jpg

 

[Abba]

Those statements are mutually contradictory. If they are consciously engaging in syncretism, they are not consciously rejecting Catholicism.

They take some of Catholicism and reject other and combine this rejection and acceptance with African spirituality. For instance, although they do not believe that Jesus triumphed (the belief is that he lost because he raised up Lazarus and used a power he should not have used - this is what I was told by a Haitian voodoo practitioner) they still believe that the Eucharist has power and they try to have people go up to receive the Eucharist and hide it and take it to a Loa.

The images of the saints are used be they statues of paintings but they do not represent, the saint as the Catholic Church understands his.her personal history, instead the particular image represent one of the 21 spirits of African spirituality.

Well, first of all Robertson actually said that the Haitian “founding fathers” made a pact with Satan.

This is what a good portion of the Haitian population believes. I would be speculating if I pretended to give a percentage. I know for sure, not 100% as there is a decent size Catholic community in Haiti. The Salesians have a big presence there and have so for many decades.

He further suggested that this is the cause for the poverty and misery of Haiti. This was simply an abominable remark–it was nothing but a despicable attempt to blame the victims.

This was wrong and callous.