I would suggest that in presenting your take on Castaneda's teachings you avoid imprisoning them with any word ending in "ism". In the history of the world,  it seems that whenever a movement, no matter how worthwhile, reaches the stage of becoming an "ism", it's original pulse is weakened and it starts to die. There are various reasons for this. People end up taking "isms" and making them the sole sources of truth. Many people derive a sense of identity from being followers of "isms" even if they don't know anything about their deeper meanings. "Isms" often end up being causes to which  people must be converted. Rather than being paths with heart or bridges to truth, they become engines for domination which contribute greatly to our being "trapped inside the bubble of perception." I don't know, maybe when something worthwhile becomes a tightly wrapped noun it's easier to capture and less demanding of discernment.

I'm sure this is not your intention and I present these thoughts with respect. And I know that what I've expressed is not true across the board. Communism and capitalism both reached extremes of exploitation and greed after noble beginnings. Taoism and Buddhism seem to retain their essential beauty and compassion on the world stage. It's just that I hope that Carlos Castaneda's teachings never become a "movement", no matter how many people set out to apply the teachings. To me Castaneda's teachings are dynamic...a verb rather than a noun. 

Rather than suggest a label I suggest you avoid a label. I think a better way to distinguish Castaneda's teachings and reflect their essence and intent is to refer to them as Carlos Castaneda's Teachings.

Keep up the good work!