Talk:Toltec (Castaneda)

Propaganda

There is a huge positive bias to Castaneda's points of view and beliefs in this article, and based on unreferenced claims. For example, the following paragraph:

"Castaneda’s accounts are largely dismissed as being fiction, largely because the Toltec reality map is an uncompromising contradiction of conventional spiritual and secular beliefs."

Also, i think that the writing style is very aggresive and full of personal judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.164.14 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anthropologists and other researchers,[1] along with other less-qualified individuals, have made various indignant claims of fraud. Interestingly, none of the ferocious detractors review the techniques and their effectiveness, but instead concentrate on whether Castaneda has been entirely truthful, despite his open admission in the opening pages of the first book that he lied shamelessly to the Nagual Juan."

Fantastic unbiased article 10 / 10 A+++ No but seriously someone should probably clean this up you know? 94.6.205.186 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't fit in

The following didn't fit into the disambig page of stalking (disambiguation), because a disambiguation page is not an article. Maybe use it here?

<quote>In Toltec (Castaneda) learning, stalking is defined as follows: "Stalking is quite simply a type of manipulation that is carried out with the express purpose of getting the other person to do what you want him or her to do but so that you will both benefit from that act. Ordinarily, plain manipulation means forcing another person into doing your bidding for your own self-centred gain, but at the other person's expense. However, stalking means getting the other person to co-operate with you intelligently, so that both of you can benefit, and therefore win." (from This Darned Elusive Happiness by Theun Mares)<unquote>

why not

I think why not include it, but it comes from a secondary source without a context. In Castaneda's universe, stalking was used in a particular way, in a multidimensional reality that implied more than just being a social pest. Perhaps someone can find it in his books and flesh it out. Julia Rossi 10:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Recapitulation (Castaneda) → Toltec (Castaneda).

Propose merge, per my reasons outlined at Talk:Recapitulation (Castaneda). No real strong feeling on this one, but given the apparent inter-relation between the two I wonder really whether there's any need for a separation. Dunno if we need separate articles on each neologism or recycling of terms used by Castaneda as labels for his concepts. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your merge suggestion at Talk:Recapitulation (Toltec). Neologism is an apt description. I think it might be valuable to have individual pages on the different concepts because it provides the opportunity to demonstrate the actual sources of Castaneda's concepts as suggested by various investigators, so I would argue that the recapitulation article should stay but be renamed Recapitulation (Castaneda). Mmyotis (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An Opinion

To say that Castaneda devised recapitulation is an opinion and as such should be stated as such, not as a fact. Kristopher Raphael, for example, studied with the mother of don Miguel Ruiz who was much older than Castaneda, and spoke about recapitulation techniques passed down from don Miguel Ruiz's grandfather.

Victor Sanchez, who lived with the native Mexican Wirrarika also speaks about procedures he learned from them that are similar to recapitulation.

It may be that no one knows for certain the original roots of recapitulation, and as such stating that it was created by Castaneda is misleading.

References

Carlgerber (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Castaneda originated the term 'racapitulation' or only popularised it, I don't know. The main point however is that the concept of 'recapitulation' as he describes has no authentic basis in precolumbian Mesoamerican cultural beliefs, but is a product of a latter-day esoteric world-view championed by Castaneda, and others of note no doubt. It needs to be written about in that context. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your statements it should be noted that Recapitulation is in no way specific to Castaneda. There are many such written references to practices dating back to around 200 years but it was called by other names.It was practiced long before that and had its birth in the Mystery Traditions. Eastern cultures have the same thing as would any spiritual tradition focused upon spiritual experience instead of passive believing. AntrygWindrose68 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Toltec

There are too many authors speaking of Toltecs and their body of spiritual beliefs and practices to ascribe them to just Carlos Castaneda. Don Miguel Ruiz, for example, speaks to how his grandfather was a Toltec and taught him the Toltec knowledge and spirituality.

Victor Sanchez is another example of someone who lived with indigenous Mexican natives, whom he called the remaining Toltecs, who had traditions and practices in the Toltec Tradition.

References

Carlgerber (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether Castaneda is only one (albeit, most likely the most well-known) among several who use the term 'toltec' in this particular way, the main point to get across is that this contemporary esoteric usage has nothing really to do with the concept of the Toltec as understood in conquest-era Aztec mythologies, nor with the concept as debated in ethnohistoral sources and circles. The 'Toltecs', if there ever really was such a group, were long-gone by the time we have any written reports that might provide information about their belief systems. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why merge with Toltec? It would be misleading. Castaneda notes that don Juan himself disavowed that his way of knowledge derived from a specific anthropological lineage. Returnagual (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point Returnagual. Anyhow, the merge suggestion was made back when the Recapitulation article was inappropriately and confusingly called Recapitulation (Toltec). At this point, I see no one arguing for a merger, so I will remove the tag. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

To the authors of "Toltec (Castaneda)". For well over a year I worked on this article .... Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda) [1]. ( On a personal note, "Mmyotis, I see your interest in Nagualism continues".) It is available here [2]. I would suggest that anyone involved in it be impeccable in its creation. That a careful review of the wiki's deletion policy is very important before continuing. I would also suggest that an extensive body of secondary and tertiary citations/references regarding its content be created before you continue. That the article be as objective as possible and avoid the vaguest resemblance of bias and exclude all buzz words. A careful review of other esoteric beliefs in the Wiki deletion archives might be done as well. This is not an article to be created by novices or the inexperienced in Wiki standards and policy. And that the page be closely monitored over time.

This except speaks volumes:

NAGUALISM. A STUDY IN Native American Folk-lore and History. BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M.D., LL.D., D.Sc.,

chapter one, page one, first paragraph. Published in 1894

The words, a nagual, nagualism, a nagualist, have been current in English prose for more than seventy years; they are found during that time in a variety of books published in England and the United States, yet are not to be discovered in any dictionary of the English language; nor has Nagualism a place in any of the numerous encyclopedias or “Conversation Lexicons,” in English, French, German or Spanish.

Daniel Garrison Brinton [3]

And there is a reason why its practice is not included in encyclopedias and it has nothing to do with scholarship of its merits as a noteworthy subject then or now.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As a Castaneda reader for over 30 years, I found the essay providing new insight into Castaneda's work. I especially liked the mention of the constraints of social order and the caveat of holding only one particular world view. I thank the author! JosephCampisi (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Possibly from here [4] , Time magazine article [5] , The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Volume 5: 1997-1999. Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002 , Don Juan the Sorcerer - Carlos Castañeda interviewed by Theodore Roszak, 1969 interview with Carlos Castañeda on Pacifica Radio [6] , (maybe) The Power of Intention, Wayne Dyer, A contemporary work by Mr Dyer referencing and building on Castaneda's work with Intent. ,

Relavent Authors

Taisha Abelar and Florinda Donner-Grau , Felix Wolf , Donald Barthelme , Victor Sanchez The Toltec Path of Recapitulation. (Bear & Company: Rochester, Vermont 2001), p. 7, ISBN 1-879181-60-6 , Miguel Ángel Ruiz , Amy Wallace , Ken Eagle Feather , Theun Mares , Graham Kane , Jon Whale ,

Other Sources

http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Carlos_Castaneda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..

Context Matters:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

With this information in mind, I shall remove the cited reference [1] from this article, which points to an unreliably-sourced website article, plugging an unrelated book and which is, as such, an inappropriate and unreliable source. The context involved is:

Quote: "Anthropologists and other researchers,[1] along with other less-qualified individuals, have made various indignant claims of fraud. None of the detractors review the techniques, but instead concentrate on whether Castaneda has been entirely truthful.."

NB "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This page should be removed, in my opinion.

89.240.160.7 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it as Salon.com is considered a reliable source. The word 'indignant' is clearly editorial comment, and the next sentence is original research which is obviously unsourceable so I've removed that. Of course is a clearly reliable source did state that and it was a significant opinion per WP:NPOV then it could be replaced in the article with a quote and attribution. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of salon.com article reference.

Quote Dougweller: "salon.com is considered to be a reliable source.."

This statement on its own is debatable, but when one examines the referenced article in question, one sees that it is a submission by a freelance journalist which uses self-published and unsubstantiated data references originating from another website (Sustained Action/Reaction) which is a self-published source and therefore unreliable under Wiki rules. The salon.com article also references data from another freelance journalist on an independent news website (Pahrump Valley Times) which not only has been shown to be without substantiation (no Police nor Coroner's records to support the allegations of the death of P. Partin) but which also may be in contravention of International Privacy Laws.

In the light of this information, the references concerned and the data referenced thereto should be removed.

89.240.170.15 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)