THE TWILIGHT ZONE

DeMille critique documents

Kootte's critique of de Mille in the 1984 Journal of Mind and Behavior debate focused on Richard de Mille's 'proof' that Castaneda's work is fiction.

Later: de Mille's response, and Koote's reply.

A Critical Look at Castaneda’s Critics
Anton F. Koote
University of Florida.

Mystics have long maintained that their systems cannot be fully understood without active personal involvement. Carlos Castaneda is among the most prominent of those scientists who are experimentally exploring the metaphysical systems of another culture. However, DeMille maintains that Castaneda is a hoaxer and that don Juan is fictional. He charges the scientific community with uncritically accepting Castaneda’s work. The present article critically examines the arguments for the belief that Castaneda is a hoaxer, as found in reviews of Castaneda’s The Eagle’s Gift (1981) and in DeMille’s The Don Juan Papers (1980), and finds them lacking in logical and empirical proof.


. Until recently Western science approached non-European religious beliefs and metaphysical systems as if they could be understood in an objective manner, without emotional involvement, without personal participation. However, as mystics have always maintained, a purely objective approach often proves inadequate (Beg, 1983). The mystic’s knowledge is attained with experiential means rather than empirical means. In fact, since mystics question the validity of the object/subject model of reality, they believe that fundamental reality is beyond the understanding of the logical mind (Pelletier, 1978).
. Recent decades have brought us the work of Western philosophers and scientists who have actively taken on foreign belief systems. Prominent examples include Lama Govinda, who has given Western readers an insider’s of Tibetan Buddhism, and Baba Ram Dass, who is practicing Tantric Yoga within a Hindu framework. Perhaps the best known of the scientists who are experientially exploring the metaphysical systems of another culture is Carlos Castaneda. While a graduate anthropology student at the University of California, Castaneda came in contact with an Amerindian shaman who accepted him as an apprentice. Castaneda has told us the story of his apprenticeship with the shaman he called don Juan in a series of popular books. His first book, The Teachings of Don Juan (1968), includes a ‘structural analysis’ which consists of what Castaneda felt were the major points of don Juan’s teachings. Aside from this analysis, Castaneda’s books are not really anthropology, but rather accounts of shamanism as practiced by a few sorcerers in modern Mexico. No attempt is made to import anthropological terminology into his direct reporting (Reno, 1975). Although it must be remembered that don Juan is not a traditional shaman, Castaneda’s books may be seen as a primary source from anthropological conclusions may be drawn.
. Castaneda freely admits that The Eagle’s Gift (1981) is “not strictly an anthropological work: but that his work has turned into an autobiography of the experiences he had as a result of taking on an alien belief system (Castaneda, 1981, p.7). Castaneda had to enter into the system to truly experience it. He is, obviously, no longer an unbiased objective observer; however, the history of scientific methodology and scientific breakthrough is replete with instances of personalistic reporting. As we shall see, it is probably wiser to regard Castaneda as a shaman rather than as an anthropologist. But there is no reason to regard him as a charlatan.
. Recently there has been renewed questioning of the authenticity of Castaneda’s account. Richard DeMille has written two books (Castaneda’s Journey, 1976); The Don Juan Papers, 1980) claiming that Castaneda is a hoaxer and that don Juan is fictional. DeMille charges the scientific community with uncritically accepting Castaneda’s work. Castaneda’s account should of course be critically examined, as should all scientific works, including DeMille’s. The DeMille books are not a logical presentation of evidence, but are stocked with innuendo, logical fallacy, fiction and gossip. Recent issues of The Journal of Mind and Behavior have contained reviews of Castaneda’s The Eagle’s Gift (1981). First we shall examine some of the arguments made in these reviews, and then we will proceed to critically examine the arguments concerning the belief that Castaneda is a hoaxer, as found in The Don Juan Papers (1980).

The Rule

. Covello (1981) throughout his review writes as if Castaneda’s work is fiction and everyone knows it. He asserts that “… The Eagle’s Gift can be loosely classified as anthropological fiction” (p. 353). Providing no argument he only refers to DeMille’s ‘proof’ of Castaneda’s supposed hoax.
. The Eagle’s Gift includes an account of don Juan’s initiation. After placing him in a heightened state of awareness his ‘benefactor’ revealed ‘the rule of the nagual’, a teaching that describes the beginning of a mystical ‘brotherhood’ and their relationship with the supreme being, the Eagle. Covello excerpts the following passage from ‘the rule’:

The power that governs the destiny of all living beings is called the Eagle, not because it is an eagle or has anything to do with an eagle, but because it appears to the seer as an immeasurably jet-black eagle …. The Eagle is devouring the awareness of all creatures that, alive on earth a moment before and now dead, have floated to the Eagle’s beak, like a ceaseless swarm of fireflies, to meet their owner, their reason for having had life. (Castaneda, 1981, pp. 176-177)


The above description of the passing of awareness (souls) from the tonal (world of appearances, phenomenal) to the nagual (noumenal) brings this comment from Covello: “One would expect an ancient mesoamerican teaching to look mesoamerican, or at least ancient” (p. 354). This statement implies that we already know what an ancient mesoamerican ‘esoteric’ teaching will look like. Generally, ‘secret’ teachings are not part of the public record, so are unlikely to be discovered by archeologists. On what do we based our expectations? Do we have access to the esoteric teachings of ancient mesoamerica prior to Castaneda’s work Going against expectations is of course no argument against the validity of what Castaneda has written. In addition Covello claims “the metaphor [the Eagle] is couched in a wealth of abstract language that looks surprisingly modern” (p. 354) thus implying the ancients were incapable of abstract thought or that Castaneda himself has anthropomorphized his account of the teachings. In either case, Covell’s own ethnocentricity limits his interpretation of Castaneda’s account: damning Castaneda for lacking articulation and then (again) damning Castaneda for the vicissitudes inherent in anthropological reporting.

Socially Marginal?

. Merkur (1981) argues that “Castaneda presents Amerindians for whom tribal ceremonial and tribal myth do not exist – a situation absolutely unknown among Amerindian ecstatics” (p. 460). Merkur also asserts that “The kind of Southwestern and Mexican ‘sorcerer’ that Castaneda at first purported to describe is always a widely known, revered, and feared tribal figure …” (p. 460). This is an example of “arguing from ignorance” (Copi, 1982), that is, Castaneda’s evidence is false because it has not been proved true by previous anthropological data. Merkur’s argument essentially precludes any new discoveries.
. Continuing the argument, Merkur states that “Socially marginal sorcerers with an autonomous system of lore, that is unrelated to cultural religious orthodoxy, are a uniquely Judaeo-Christian development in the history of religions” (p. 460). Having created a category that is virtually impossible to investigate, Merkur now contends that all ‘socially marginal sorcerers’ with an autonomous system of lore unrelated to religious orthodoxy are Judaeo-Christian.
. It should not be surprising that Castaneda’s story differs from other Amerindian religious practices. When we are speaking of shamans, we are by definition speaking of individuals who are pushing at the edges of consciousness, exploring realms that Western science has taken notice of only recently. The personality of the shaman and his unique ecstatic trance experience form the core of shamanic religions (Furst, 1977). Altered state experience is highly subjective and variable (within groups and within individuals) and is interpreted by Western science in many different, often mutually exclusive ways. The content of shamanic visions must vary considerably. It is only natural that somewhat different cosmologies and rituals will arise.
. Merkur also compares Castaneda’s ‘fiction’ to the fictional works of occult writers such as Bulwer-Lytton, Aleister Crowley and W.B. Yeats. Yet, we should remember that Bulwer-Lytton’s Rosicrucians and Crowley’s magicians were not fictional creations. They were presented in a fictional medium because the consensus of the era in which these authors wrote could not accept such people and systems as reality. In our present era, although such works find no lack of readers, most people are still not ready to believe in a real ‘separate reality’; only a fictional one.

The Don Juan Papers

The scene is the American Booksellers’ Association convention in Los Angeles. The time, Memorial Day 1979. Beside a towering stack of Harold Garfinkel’s Agnes Redux: Confessions from the Ivory Closet, Robert Crichton, author of The Great Imposter, is talking to Stringfellow Bean, president of Columbia University Press – and a short man in a tan leisure suit. As I walk by, Crichton seizes my arm.
“Richard! Here’s somebody I want you to meet. Carlos, this is Richard DeMille.”
The man in the tan leisure suit smiles roguishly. “How do you do”
“Fine!” I pump his hand. “I’m glad to meet you after all this time. What are you writing about now?” I ask.
Carlos looks down at a notebook he is holding in his hand. He looks up. “It’s, um, it’s a story about a literary hoaxer.”
“Really!”
“Yes.” He nods. “It has to do with a Mexican Indian who write – in his native language, of course, which is Toltec – about a tribe of Indians that never existed. When the anthropologists go looking for the tribe, the hoaxer says they’ve gone to the other world.”
“That’s intriguing,” I say. “Where does don Juan fit in?”
Carlos smiles. “I asked don Juan if I should write such a book, and he said, ‘Go ahead! It’s the only thing you know how to do.’ And he laughed. And he said I have a lot in common with the man I’m writing about.”
“He said that?”
“Yes, but I told him, I don’t have the mechanics to be a hoaxer. I could never get away with it.”
“One thing I’m no good at is lying. If I tell just the smallest, most innocent lie – maybe to make a friend feel better – I get a horrendous headache, and I have guilty feelings for hours.”
“That’s remarkable.”
“Yes, you see, my father always accused me of lying, even when I was telling the truth. As a matter of fact that’s why I stopped writing to him, because he doesn’t believe the letters. He thinks I can’t be trusted, and there’s no power on earth that can make him change his mind about me.”
“That’s too bad,” I say.
“It’s my curse,” says Carlos. At this point Udo Stutynski, of the University of California Press, hauls Carlos away to meet novelist Jerry Kosinski. (DeMille, 1980, pp. 9-10)


The above dialogue serves as the beginning of The Don Juan Papers. DeMille does not tell his readers that the passage is fictional until his next paragraph: “Like Carlos’s fabulous first meeting with don Juan at the border between ordinary and non-ordinary worlds, the foregoing encounter is strictly a figment of a writer’s imagination – which is why I call the central character ‘Carlos’ instead of ‘Castaneda’” (DeMille, 1980, p. 10) DeMille has used fiction to cast false aspersions on Castaneda’s character.

Proof?

. DeMille claims that the Castaneda books read like fiction. He quotes novelist Joyce Carol Oates saying “Is it possible these books are non-fiction?” (p. 17). The readability and power of Castaneda’s account led “novelist Oates and William Kennedy and science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon … to recognize Castaneda as a fellow story teller” (p. 17). But a story teller’s story is not necessarily fiction. DeMille then tells us that Castaneda’s books are not marketable as fiction because of their two dimensional characters and weak dramatic structure. DeMille is suspicious of Castaneda’s writings both because they are well written and because they are poorly written. Similarly, Castaneda is criticized because his accounts are dissimilar to other accounts of Amerindian shamanism while he is also accused of stealing his ideas because they are too similar to other teachings.
. The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge was presented as the first part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of California. Only 5,000 copies were originally published by the University of California Press. The book was considered a scientific work, its publishers obviously unaware of its sales potential. The manuscript of Castaneda’s third book, Journey to Ixtlan was accepted for his dissertation and Castaneda received his doctorate degree. Of course, DeMille found it thus necessary to attack Castaneda’s doctoral board. It has been ironically observed (Hughes, 1979) that obtaining an anthropology degree from UCLA is not so difficult that a candidate must resort to hoaxing.
. Castaneda has never provided a detailed description of the hunting techniques and herb lore that don Juan imparted to him. DeMille considers this “absence of convincing detail” as a “proof” that Castaneda is a hoaxer (p. 19). If Castaneda is an apprentice to a sorcerer, then there is undoubtedly some knowledge which he would withhold from the reading public. This is done both to protect don Juan and Carlos, to preserve the dignity of the spirits, and to protect fools from their own folly. This type of knowledge has long been closely guarded. However, the teachings of don Juan do give insights into the nature of reality, details of a shamanistic cosmology and descriptions of drug and non-drug techniques for altering consciousness. To complain that Castaneda has not given us detailed information on plants and animals, information which is available from other sources, is mindless of the evidence he does present.
. DeMille (1980, p. 19) further argues: “Don Juan’s desert is vaguely described, his habituations are all but featureless. Incessantly sauntering across the sands in seasons when harsh conditions keep prudent persons away, Carlos and don Juan go quite unmolested by pests that normally torment desert hikers.” Again, there are plausible alternative explanations for the unconvincing account Castaneda presents of the desert: adequate descriptions would aid new seekers in their quest to locate don Juan; detail of the rigors of the desert is superfluous to the knowledge transmitted in the books. There is also the very real possibility that what many individuals find unpleasant or bothersome about that desert does not bother don Juan.
. Of course, ordeals are willingly taken on for spiritual reasons. The Huichol travel 300 miles, traditionally on foot, to the sacred Peyote country. “They have eaten virtually nothing and little or no water quenches their thirst. Salt is strictly prohibited. No small sacrifice when one considers the high daytime heat of the desert even during the winter months when most such pilgrimages are made” (Furst, 1977, p.81). It is entirely possible that Castaneda refrained from complaining about the weather and the pests in his writings because he did not indulge himself in suffering and self-pity. Perhaps a self deprecating, humble Castaneda does not harp upon his own suffering, or quite possibly, as a sorcerer he does not suffer the environmental restrictions that others do. An inadequate desert description casts no a priori suspicion on Castaneda’s account. While absence of convincing detail may be thought of as lack of support for one position, it cannot serve as proof for the opposite position.

Not Reading

. DeMille consistently utilizes fiction to ridicule don Juan. We are presented with DeMille’s conception of don Juan addressing a PTA meeting. Don Juan is attempting to explain that parents should not worry that ‘Johnny can’t read’, because Johnny is practicing ‘not reading’. When presented in this manner the concept of ‘not doing’ does appear humorous; however, the concept of ‘non-action’ is integral to Zen Buddhism as well as Taoism (Kasulis, 1981). Boyd (1973) noted the similarities between Buddhist ‘action in non-action’ and don Juan’s ‘not-doing’. Nordstrum (1980) has compared ‘stopping the world’ (the goal of much of Castaneda’s early shamanic training) to the goal of zen: retiring to an inner nondiscriminating core. Apprehending the world without interpretation, without discrimination, is what don Juan calls ‘seeing’ (Keen, 1972). Castaneda has described ‘seeing’ as perceiving with your body instead of your reason” (Cravens, 1973, p.94). ‘Seeing’ and ‘stopping the world’ are instances of ‘not doing’. This is the central teaching and DeMille does not address it; he only ridicules it.
. ‘Don Juanism’, as DeMille has labeled the teachings of don Juan, has much in common with Buddhism and other oriental belief systems. Don Juan’s insistence that consensual reality is merely a construct is consistent with the Buddhist concept of ‘maya’. Dream Yoga as taught to Castaneda (Castaneda, 1972) is practiced by Tibetan Buddhists and the Senoi people of Malasia (Weil, 1977). Instructions for ‘controlled dreaming’ found in pre-zen and Sufi texts also compare to don Juan’s ‘dreaming’ (Pearce, 1974), not to mention the more recent methods utilized by Western psychologists concerning problem-solving through lucid dreaming, breakthrough dreaming, and creative dreaming (Garfield, 1974; La Berge, 1979; cf. Covello, 1984).

Plagiarism

. DeMille’s greatest claim for The Don Juan Papers is that he has documented the sources that Castaneda plagiarized. A “kind of proof is found in don Juan’s teachings, which sample American Indian folklore, oriental mysticism and European philosophy” (DeMille, 1980, p. 19). Finding extensive similarity between the ideas of Amerindian, oriental and European thinkers and the ideas of don Juan is certainly no proof that don Juan’s teachings are derived from others. Jung (1938) believed that certain ideas exist everywhere, throughout history and “they can even spontaneously create themselves quite apart from migration and tradition” (p. 4). Ethnologists have discovered that “the symbolic systems, or religions of hunting people everywhere are essentially shamanistic, sharing so many basic features over time and space as to suggest common historical and psychological grounds” (Furst, 1977, p. 61). It has also been noted that the core teachings of all major modern religions are essentially the same (Schuon, 1975). Finding little similarity between don Juan’s thought and those of other mystics and thinkers would be a far more damning discovery. There are however extensive similarities between Castaneda’s account of his apprenticeship and the initiatory patterns of shamanism (Furst, 1972; Reno, 1975). Don Juan’s sorcery is also similar to Western magic (Drury, 1978). Already noted above are the similarities with Buddhist concepts.
. DeMille claims “there is more to the proof than similar ideas, there are similar words” (1980, p. 19). He implies that Castaneda directly copied portions of specific works, which he lists in what he calls an ‘alleglossary’, a glossary of the alleged sources of Castaneda’s story, which DeMille insists on calling an allegory. Nearly half of the books listed in the alleglossary were published after 1968 when Teachings first appeared. These books, claims DeMille, were plagiarized by Castaneda for his last four books. Actually, Castaneda’s work my have stimulated, or paved the way for many of these later works: several of these works reveal shamanic systems similar but not identical to don Juan’s sorcery. DeMille does not explain why he chooses to believe these later accounts of shamanism were not based upon Castaneda’s works. Obviously, he regards them as the basic groundwork from which Castaneda borrowed ideas and experiences for his own books.
. The alleglossary presents the following quote as the source for Castaneda’s accounts of encountering an ally; however, an ally in Castaneda’s books has nothing to do with corpses.

The celebrant is shut up alone with a corpse in a dark room. To animate the body, he lies on it, mouth to mouth … holding it in his arms … After a certain time the corpse begins to move. It stands up and tries to escape; the sorcerer, firmly clinging to it, prevents it from freeing itself. Now the body struggles more fiercely. It leaps and bounds to extraordinary heights, dragging with it the man who must hold on … At last the tongue of the corpse protrudes from its mouth. The critical moment has arrived. The sorcerer seizes the tongue with his teeth and bites it off. The corpse at once collapses. Failure in controlling the body after having awakened it means certain death for the sorcerer. The tongue carefully dried becomes a powerful magic weapon which is treasured by the triumphant ngagspa [priest]. The Tibetan … needed all his strength to hold it … If he failed to conquer it the horrible being would kill him. (David-Neel, 1932, p. 135)

DeMille claims Castaneda derived the following three passages from the above account:

When a man is facing the ally (he) must wrestle the spirit to the ground and keep it there until it gives him power. (Castaneda, 1972, pp. 282-283)

After I grabbed it … the ally made me twirl, but I didn’t let go. We spun through the air … Suddenly I felt that I was standing on the ground again … The ally had not killed me … I had succeeded … I jumped up and down with delight. (Castaneda, 1972, p. 306)

The jolt that one gets from grabbing a ally is so great that one might bite off one’s tongue. (Castaneda, 1972, p. 305)


There is certainly a similar idea shared by these passages – enough for Furst’s similarity of shamanism – but not enough for DeMille’s claim. This serves as the standard method for the alleglossary’s ‘proof’ of plagiarism. The alleglossary does not present any cases where Castaneda directly copied material, although DeMille implied as much in earlier chapters.

Disproof

. Since mystical systems cannot be understood without personal experience, the only empirical proof there can be for Castaneda’s accounts is replication. In other words, an investigator must wholeheartedly attempt to duplicate Castaneda’s experiences using don Juan’s techniques. However, failure to replicate would not constitute disproof since failure could be due to differences in the attitudes, expectations, and experimental methods of the investigator. Still, the only account I have seen of any researcher, other than Castaneda, using don Juan’s techniques, reported positive results (see Faraday, 1974).
. Those of Castaneda’s critics examined here, in addition to judging Castaneda without experiencing don Juan’s system, make the mistake of believing that our present day scientific body of knowledge is complete – there are not more unknowns. For instance, Covello finds don Juan’s belief system too abstract to have its roots in an ancient culture, saying that it is not what one would expect an ancient mesoamerican teaching to look like. Similarly, Merkur argues that since don Juan is not a “widely known, revered and feared shaman” he cannot exist outside of fiction. Thus, both Covello and Merkur argue that Castaneda presents the unexpected and they fallaciously conclude that he therefore must be lying. On the other hand, DeMille accuses Castaneda of plagiarism because don Juan’s shamanism is too similar to other accounts, while Merkur accuses Castaneda of confusing psychotropes and psychedelics. Yet, in the final analysis, both Covello and Merkur accept DeMille’s arguments as ‘proof’.
. It is unfortunate that some readers may have accepted DeMille’s assertions secondhand, for had they examined his books they would have found them more than unconvincing. DeMille presents no evidence that can be considered unequivocal; there are not witnesses claiming to have seen Castaneda in a library when he should have been in the desert with don Juan. Nor does DeMille show us where Castaneda directly copied another work. Instead he utilizes fiction and ad hominem arguments to deride Castaneda.
. Nor does DeMille argue from the grounds of cultural anthropology. He could, for example, point out that don Juan does not use Genita Canariensis flowers as do traditional Yaqui shamans (Schultes, 1977), or that don Juan does not use Ololuc (morning glory seeds) as do many modern Mexican shamans (Furst, 1977). However, such an argument would inadequately disprove Castaneda’s account, for Castaneda has never identified don Juan with any particular cultural group (Reno, 1975), nor is it surprising to find superficial differences between shamanic systems. DeMille’s mapping of don Juan’s ideas to may other esoteric, mystical and philosophical works only supports Furst’s contention regarding the similarity of shamanic systems.
. Readers may have formed the impression from the reviews of The Eagle’s Gift that DeMille’s ‘proof’ is widely accepted and don Juan is believe to be fictional. In fact, many scientist and philosophers dealing with consciousness and the supranormal have accepted Castaneda as a legitimate sorcerer’s apprentice (e.g. Capra, 1975; Faraday, 1974; Furst, 1972; Harner, 1978; Nordstrum 1980; Ornstein, 1972; Pearce, 1972, 1974; Pelletier, 1977, 1978; Tart, 1977; Weil, 1977; Zinburg, 1977) as did, of course, his doctoral board. The latest arguments against Castaneda are insufficient to change Castaneda’s legitimate position as a major figure in modern anthropology.

References

Beg, M.A. (1983). Towards a reinterpretation of consciousness: A study in humanistic psychological theory in the perspective or oriental mystic thought. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 4, 61-73.
Boyd, J.W. (1793). The teachings of don Juan from a Buddhist perspective. Christian Century, 90, 360-363.
Capra, F. (1975). The tao of physics. Boulder: Shambala.
Castaneda, C. (1968). The Teachings of don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowledge. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Castaneda, C. (1972). Journey to Ixtlan. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Castaneda, C. (1981). The Eagle’s Gift. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Copi, I.M. (1982). Introduction to logic (6th edit.). New York: Macmillan.
Covello, E.M. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 353-355.
Covello, E. (1984). Lucid dreaming: A review and experiential study of waking intrusions during stage REM sleep. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 353-355.
Cravens, G. (February, 1973). Talking to power and spinning with the ally: The glossed Carlos Castaneda. Harpers, pp. 91-94.
David-Neel, A. (1932). Magic and mystery in Tibet. London: Drown.
DeMille R. (1976). Castaneda’s journey: The power and the allegory. Santa Barbara: Capra Press
DeMille R. (1980). The Don Juan papers: Further Castaneda controversies. Santa Barbara: Capra Press.
Drury, N. (1978). Don Juan, mescalito and modern magic. London: Routledge and Kega Paul.
Faraday, A. (1974). The dream game. New York: Harper and Row.
Furst, P.T. (1972). Flesh of the gods: The ritual use of hallucinogens. New York: Praeger, 1972.
Furst, P.T. (1977). “High states” in culture-historical perspective. In N.E. Zinberg (Ed.), Alternate states of consciousness (pp. 158-219). New York: The Free Press
Garfield, P. (1974). Creative dreaming. New York: Ballantine Books.
Harner, M.J. (7 May 1978). The New York Times Book Review, p. 45.
Hughes, R. (5 March 1973). Don Juan and the sorcerer’s apprentice. Time, pp. 36-45.
Jung, D.G. (1938). Psychology and religion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kasulis, T.P. (1981). Zen action/ Zen person. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Keen, S. (December 1972). Sorcerer’s apprentice. Psychology Today, pp. 90-102.
La Berge, S. (1979). Lucid dreaming: Some personal observations. Sleep research, 8, 153.
Merkur, D. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 459-463.
Nordstrum, L. (1980). Zen and karman. Philosophy East and West, 30, 77-90.
Ornstein, R.E. (1972). The psychology of consciousness. New York: W.H. Freeman
Pearce, J.C. (1971). The crack in the cosmic egg. New York: Julian Press.
Pearce, J.C. (1974). Exploring the crack in the cosmic egg. New York: Julian Press.
Pelletier, K.R. (1977). Mind as healer, mind as slayer. New York: Delacourte/Seymour Lawrence.
Pelletier, K.R. (1978). Toward a science of consciousness. New York: Delacourte Press.
Reno, S.J. (1975). Castaneda and don Juan: Some preliminary observations. Religious Studies, 11, 449-465
Schultes, R.E. (1972). An overview of hallucinogens in the western hemisphere. In P.T. Furst (Ed.), Flesh of the gods: The ritual use of hallucinogens (pp. 3-54). New York: Praeger.
Schuon, F. (1975). The transcendent unity of religions (P. Townsend, transl.). New York: Harper and Row.
Tart, C.T. (1977). Putting the pieces together. In N.E. Zinberg (Ed.), Alternate states of consciousness (pp. 158-219). New York: The Free Press
Well, A.T. (1977). The marriage of sun and moon. In N.E. Zinberg (Ed.), Alternate states of consciousness (pp. 37-52). New York: The Free Press
Zinberg, N.E. (1977). The study of conscious states. In N.E. Zinberg (Ed.), Alternate states of consciousness (pp. 1-36). New York: The Free Press

Occultism is not Science: A Reply to Kootte
Richard de Mille
Santa Barbara, California

While contending that Castaneda’s critics, notably de Mille (1980), have failed to prove a hoax, Kootte (1984) argues selectively, tendentiously, and unscientifically, misreading de Mille and misplacing the burden of proof. Siegel’s (1981) psychopharmacological refutation of Castaneda’s psychedelics is cited. De Mille’s meeting with Castaneda is reported.


In an attempt to refute criticisms of Carlos Castaneda by Covello (1981), Merkur (1981), de Mille (1976, 1980), and Sebald (1980), Kootte (1984) leaves a false impression of my arguments, which I feel obliged to correct. To show that Castaneda’s purported accounts are fiction, I presented three kinds of evidence - textual inconsistency, contradiction of independent knowledge (as of the nature of the desert environment or the psychopharmacological effects of drugs), and examples of apparent ethnographic plagiarism - stating that the first of these kinds of evidence has the greatest weight, while the third has the least (de Mille, 1976, p. 166); 1980, p. 392). Despite this explicit, conventional ranking, Kootte mistakenly declares: “DeMille’s greatest claim … is that he has documented the sources that Castaneda plagiarized” (1984, p.105). Having thus shifted my emphasis, he then unaccountably confines his argument to Castaneda’s environmental contradictions and ethnographic correspondences and says not a word about his textual inconsistencies, which were at that time the weightiest part of the proof, as I made clear in my books. His argument is, therefore, incomplete, unbalanced, and easily suspected of insincerity.

Kootte accuses me of incoherence, but the incoherence is in his reading rather than in my writing. He says I contradict myself by calling Castaneda’s tales both too well written and not well written enough. That is nonsense. What I said was that Castaneda’s tales were quickly recognizes as story-telling by professional story-tellers but were not good enough story-telling to stand on their own feet in the fiction market and had to be sold as fact. That is not in any way a contradiction.

Kootte says I contradict myself by saying that Castaneda’s tales are both too different from and too much like legitimate ethnographies. Again, the paradox arises from uncomprehending reading. Numerous critics have said that Castaneda’s supposed Amerindians are not enough like the Amerindians we already know to be credible, and I agree with those critics. At the same time, Castaneda’s language echoes the texts of well-known ethnographies with a frequency, piquancy, and sequentiality that make one think of libraries more often than of deserts. It follows, therefore, that Castaneda’s tales are both culturally too different from well-known ethnographies and literarily too much like them to be credible. That is not a contradiction but a complementarity.

Kootte apparently believes that 5000 copies is a small run for a university press, but it is a large run. He thinks the University of California Press cherished The Teachings of Don Juan (Castaneda, 1968) as a work of scholarship or science, whereas the record suggests they cherished it as a commercial publishing venture, despite advice against it from the senior relevant scholar on campus, who was Ralph Beals (de Mille, 1980, pp. 123-124, 133-135).

Kootte implies that hoaxers deceive to avoid work or difficulty, whereas anyone who has studied hoaxers knows they deceive because deceiving fills them with a joyful feeling of power and superiority. I have discussed this thoroughly (de Mille, 1980) in a book Kootte affects to have read, though he misidentifies its publisher.

Kootte argues quite speciously against Sebald’s evidence (Sebald, 1980) that don Juan’s desert is not the Sonoran Desert, and I think most readers of this journal will see through this argument. In the meantime, however, Siegel (1981) has offered striking new findings in the same category - contradiction of independent knowledge - which show that Castaneda’s purported experiences with mushrooms and Jimson weed are psychopharmacologically invalid and therefore not to be accepted as authentic.

A cornerstone of Kootte’s speciousness is his unscientific placing of the burden of proof on the community of scientists rather than on Castaneda, who made extraordinary claims for which he offered no proof whatsoever, let alone the extraordinary proof such claims require. If Kootte wishes to identify himself as a mystical or occult writer, well and good; he can write as he pleases; but in fact he talks constantly in scientific terms (scientists, observers, primary source, anthropological conclusions, scientific breakthrough, account, replication) and himself concludes that Castaneda is not by any means a charlatan bus has a “legitimate position as a major figure in modern anthropology” (p. 107). If, then, Castaneda and Kootte are going to be scientists rather than mystics or occultists, they must play by the rules of science, which so far they have quite failed to do.

One rule governing scientists, and indeed all scholars, is to quote accurately. It is, of course, flattering to be quoted at length, as Kootte has quoted me, but is not considered good form to omit 23 liens here and there from two quoted pages without giving the reader any sign that lines have been omitted. Though Kootte’s hidden omissions do not distort the sense of what is actually quoted, they transform a playful satire - whose playfulness is obvious to any reader with a sense of humor - into a serious interview. Thereupon, Kootte chastises me for misrepresenting Castaneda’s character, when it is Kootte who has misrepresented my satire.

In contrast with Kootte, Castaneda is known for an outstanding sense of humor. On 4 December 1981, he confided to me:

You know, those people that I’m working with in Mexico have forbidden me - absolutely forbidden me - to read anything that is written about me. So for that reason, I have not read your books. But I want to say that for me it is an honor - an honor - that anyone writes about me, even if he says that my books are crap.

And he looked up at me with a joyful smile, which on that occasion I took to express a feeling of inventive power, though not of deceptive superiority, since he surely knew I was only playing the don Juan game with him and did not believe a word he was saying.

References

Castaneda, C. (1968). The Teachings of don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Covello, E.M. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 353-355.
DeMille R. (1976). Castaneda’s journey: The power and the allegory. Santa Barbara: Capra Press
DeMille R. (1980). The Don Juan papers: Further Castaneda controversies. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson..
Kootte, A.F. (1984). A critical look at Castaneda’s critics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 99-108..
Merkur, D. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 459-463.
Sebald, H. (1980). Roasting rabbits in Tularemia, or the lion, the witch, and the horned toad. In R.de Mille R. (Ed.) The Don Juan papers: Further Castaneda controversies (pp. 34-38).. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson
Siegel, R.K. (1981). Inside Castaneda’s pharmacy. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 13, 325-331.

The de Mille review of The Second Ring of Power appeared in the American Anthropologist, 1979, p. 81.

From: "The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies" , chapter 12: "Validity Is Not Authenticity: Distinguishing Two Components of Truth" by Richard de Mille :

~LINK~

Posted with permission of The Journal of Mind and Behavior, and the approval of the author.

©The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Inc.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior
Autumn, 1984, Volume 5, Number 4
Pages 505-508
ISSN 0271-0137



                 Logic Is Not Occultism

                    Anton F. Kootte

                  University of North Florida


 Criticisms (DeMille, 1984; Paper, 1984; Sebald, 1984) of an earlier article by Kootte (1984) in which it was argued that DeMille has failed to prove Castaneda’s work to be fiction are refuted. Simply dismissing anomalous phenomena and attempting to place the author in the untenable position of anti-science through the use of false assertion and ad hominem attack, my critics reveal their own biases and delusions.

 In response to critical book reviews (Covello, 1981; Merkur, 1981) of Carlos Castaneda’s The Eagle’s Gift (1980) wherein the authors espoused the belief that Castaneda’s work was fictional, I wrote a critical review of Castaneda’s critics (1984), pointing out fallacies and challenging their assumptions. Each reviewer had cited Richard DeMille (1980) as having proved (sic) that don Juan was a hoax. Therefore, much of my article focused on DeMille’s work. Hans Sebald, a contributor to DeMille’s The don Juan Papers, Demille himself, and Jordan Paper have chosen to respond. While I am aware that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents” (Planck, 1949, p.33), I believe a response on my part is called for.
 DeMille’s rebuttal presents yet another account of meeting Castaneda. He has Castaneda confide in him that “it is an honor – an honor – that anyone writes about me, even if he says my books are crap” (p. 225). Castaneda then gives DeMille “a joyful smile, which on that occasion I [DeMille] took to express a felling of inventive power, though not of deceptive superiority, since he surely knew I was playing the don Juan game with him and did not believe a word he was saying” (p. 225). Assuming DeMille actually met Castaneda, he should realize that “a joyful smile” may have many meanings other than “a felling of inventive power.” DeMille’s conclusion appears to be a delusion rather than valid inference.
 DeMille goes on to argue that Castaneda’s “Amerindians are not enough like the Amerindians we already know to be credible” (p. 224). As I have pointed out before (Kootte, 1984, p. 101), this is a type of argumentum ignorantiam and presupposes that our knowledge is complete. There are certainly other examples in anthropology that have gone against expectations. For example, certain practices in Tibetan Buddhism or Lamaism are far different than what one could predict from a knowledge of Therevada or Zen Buddhism (e.g., eating meat, drinking alcohol, belief in transmigration of souls; see David-Neel, 1932; Evans-Wentz, 1927/1960; Govinda, 1960). Would DeMille have argued that David-Neel’s Tibetans were not enough like the Buddhists we already knew?
 Sebald’s letter (1984) simply contradicts my assertion that DeMille has not proved Castaneda to be a hoaxer, and then proceeds to call me an occultist in a variety of ways. Indeed, the major difficulty with the acceptance of Castaneda’s work seems to be that it is more applicable to parapsychology than to cultural anthropology. The history of science can be viewed as a fight against superstition and ignorance. Most scientists are extremely skeptical (as they should be) when it comes to the supernatural or psychic. Despite such skepticism and the exposure of charlatans, psychic phenomena continue to present themselves for study. DeMille and Sebald simply deny the existence of anomalous phenomena just as the French Academy denied the existence of meteorites because there are no rocks in the sky. In other words to DeMille, Castaneda’s experiences are simply unbelievable.
 When it comes to parapsychology and the phenomena that it studies, it seems there are three types of people: (1) true believers – those who believe despite the evidence; (2) disbelievers – those who won’t believe despite the evidence; and (3) those who are willing to believe given sufficient evidence. Ideally scientist will fall into the latter group, their working paradigms guiding their vision, rather than blinding them. While Sebald would consign me to the true believer category, he reveals himself to be a confirmed disbeliever. He seems outraged at my use of the word ‘spirits,” proclaiming that I had “revealed my true colors” (p. 385), while in fact I did not imply that I believed in sprits, only that don Juan and possibly Castaneda do.
 Sebald asserts that if Kootte “insists on a scientific empirical and objective basis of his defensive pursuits, I fault him with gross confusion between the scientific approach and the speculative-occult-supernatural approach” (p. 385). Sebald apparently thinks that science must be empirical and materialistic to be science. In fact, I consider my earlier article an exercise in the non-empirical science of logic (Hemple, 1966). While Sebald accuses me of confusing science and occultism, I fault him with confusing logic and emotionalism. For how else am I to understand his ranting response.
 Apparently unable to refute my arguments, my opponents have used mistaken interpretations and false accusations in an attempt to place me in the indefensible position of anti-science. DeMille accuses me of placing “the burden of proof on the community of scientists, rather than on Castaneda” (p. 224). On the contrary, I place the burden of proof for a hoax on deMille, rather than on Castaneda and his doctoral board. In the same vein, Sebald asserts that I find “occult happenings to be true until proven wrong” (p. 385). I have never held such a belief.
 These tactics are carried to greater lengths by Paper. He would have his readers believe that I argue that “cultural comparisons are inherently anti-science, that knowledge is not built on previous knowledge, and that there are no viable non-personal methods for acquiring scientific understanding” (p. 502), while I “implicitly denied the validity of the social sciences, and … chose faith over reason” (p. 501). Of course I will not defend such beliefs, as they are not mine.
 Perhaps Paper’s distortions are not deliberate, but simply a result of inattentive reading, for he also claims that I present Castaneda as the “epitome of a ‘scientist’” (pp. 501-502) and as the “first Western scholar” (p. 503) to undergo shamanistic initiation. In fact I only referred to Castaneda as “perhaps the best known” anthropologist/shaman (Kootte, 1984, p. 99). Another indication that Paper misread my article is his surprise “that Kootte and others find remarkable that parts of Castaneda’s work read like the once popular translations and essays on Zen, Taoism, tantric Buddhism and Hinduism, etc.” (p. 503). For I quoted Jung (1938) and Furst (1977) to indicate that there is nothing surprising about finding similarities between Amerindian, oriental and European thought. In fact, it is DeMille who finds such similarities unexplainable except as plagiarism.
 My opponents seem to think that there can only be two positions. Either Castaneda is a hoaxer, or don Juan is heir to the secret magic of the Toltecs and really performs miracles. There are other positions. Perhaps don Juan is sharing an entirely delusional system through a process Castaneda called ‘special consensus” (Castaneda, 1968). There is evidence for the possibility of shared delusions (e.g., folie à deux, crowd behavior, adolescent gangs, etc.). Perhaps Castaneda misunderstands don Juan and is not presenting his system accurately. Perhaps don Juan is the hoaxer and Castaneda is innocent. All these are possible, but as there is no evidence of a hoax, there is no reason to doubt the judgment and integrity of Castaneda’s doctoral board.
 Although DeMille says nothing to justify his rebuttal’s title, Occultism is Not Science, I agree with the statement. The goal of science can be seen as bringing to light that which had been occult or hidden; therefore, occultism is a worthy subject of study for social scientists. Occultism is not science, but neither is DeMille’s venture into ad hominem and fiction. Should DeMille and his supporters turn out to be correct in their suspicion of Castaneda, I must credit their intuition; for as I have shown (Kootte, 1984) their arguments are fallacious, spurious and unconvincing.


References

Castaneda, C. (1968). The Teachings of don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowledge. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Castaneda, C. (1981). The Eagle’s Gift. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Covello, E.M. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 353-355.
David-Neel, A. (1932). Magic and mystery in Tibet. London: Crown.
DeMille, R. (1976). Castaneda’s journey: The power and the allegory. Santa Barbara: Capra Press
DeMille, R. (1980). The Don Juan papers: Further Castaneda controversies. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson.
DeMille, R. (1984). Occultism is not Science: a reply to Kootte. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 223-225.
Evans-Wentz, W.Y. (1960). The Tibetan book of the dead. London: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1927).
Furst, P.T. (1977). “High states” in culture-historical perspective. In N.E. Zinberg (Ed.), Alternate states of consciousness (pp. 53-88 ). New York: Ballantine Books.
Govinda, A. (1960). Foundations of Tibetan mysticism. New York: Rider and Co.
Jung, D.G. (1938). Psychology and religion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kootte, A. F. (1984). A critical look at Castaneda’s critics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 99-108.
Merkur, D. (1981). Review of The Eagle’s Gift by C. Castaneda. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 459-463.
Paper, J. (1984). A critical look at “A Critical Look”: Castaneda recrudescent. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 501-504.
Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and others papers (F. Gaynor, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.
Sebald, H. (1984). A response to A. F. Kootte’s defense of Castaneda [Letter to the Editor]. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 385.