More on ‘paths’
as far as non-answers go, that was an exquisite one, or several. a lot to think about. thank you.
From Is there a path?, 2008/09/06 at 4:41 PM
The question of a spiritual path could go on and on, amounting to not much. But, why not, let’s ‘go and on’ a bit on the subject, worthy of a blog.
I should add at least that I am not a spiritual teacher, so the question is, evidently, to the wrong person, and secondly I don’t have a spiritual path, so how would I know?
The question is frustrating because I have covered a lot of ground here, A LOT, and yet at the end, what is the result? Nothing. Look at it, the number of gurus and the rest of it in the last generation. If, after all of that, one comes away without a path, then as a veteran one should caution against facile notions of spiritual paths.
Update: To have a bad experience with one guru would be one thing, but many in the last generation have had that experience with all the teachers they approached. I know one case whose sequence was TM (Maharishi), Gurdjieff (books, and bad groups, not Gurdjieff in person, of course), E.J.Gold, Da Free John, Rajneesh, Muktananda, and Chogyam Trungpa, and then finally Andrew Cohen.
In every case there was a problem and the guru bombed. Such people can be forgiven for recoil in disgust at gurus.
Especially in the fourth way stream I would say, by and large you don’t have a path, armed with Ouspensky and various tidbits of gossip, mostly disinformation.
I said I have covered a lot of ground here, I meant it. I have penetrated the core of the ‘sufi path’, found that Big Secret, and the result: I want no part of it. I tried to give this info away free, once, at Darwiniana, to no avail. Noone will listen! Not that they should, it won’t help them. Check that out at Darwiniana.com under the search ‘sufi secret’. The account isn’t completely coherent since I learned of it in passing and don’t know its larger context (there are absolutely no public descriptions of this, as far as I know).
That secret is the ‘belly seed’ phenomenon, which most in the fourth way stream are unaware of. And I wonder if Gurdjieff was aware of it. Certainly Ouspensky gives not indication of any awareness of it.
Actually, that’s confusing! The ‘real’ path, it struck me, isn’t really a path, but a kind of Faustian bargain with hidden unknowns mediated by public fronts. The result could be robotization on a higher level, serving the interests of other hidden people. No pacts with the devil, please.
So, in that sense, forget the ‘real’ sufi path.
My experience was different: I penetrated the sufi veil, but managed to escape from being a sufi (I hope), a statement that might leave some puzzled.
And I must protest that thousands of people via Sufis and Gurdjieff are systematically given come on’s with false or too general information and waste all their time. So don’t trust the Gurdjeff legacy. Erase it from your candidates to find a ‘path’. Study it historically, undoubtedly, but move on.
That’s a lot to erase!!! If it’s that bad, talking about spiritual paths is probably hopeless.
It’s like asking if there are any honest men as you enter a jail.
And talking about a path someone else invented for you will not solve the issue. Further, look at people like E.J. Gold, if they find you on a ‘path’ they will try to destroy it. And you.
They have their ‘monopolies’ to maintain, and have to fight against upstarts. Devils at work.
So, I guess, it’s a liability to talk about it in public.
Is it hopeless? One way out was provided classically in the Buddhist emergent stream in the Axial Age. I put it that way because that was a long time ago, and the result in modern times, or even in, say, Tibetan Buddhism, is very different from that source.
But the point is that, if you study the eonic effect, you see a suggestion of what happens when the legacy of Indic religion intersected with the greater stream of Nature in the evolution of human civilization.
Many of the problems simply disappeared, because the result was done by honest men, was ‘open’, directly shown, practical, and actually built around one honest standard: the ‘path of Enlightenment’, which was put in writing. That’s clear, and even clearer than what we find in the rest of the Indic stream, which proliferates in the chaos of gurus and disciples, and the complexities of Hinduism, Brahmanism, and the rest of it.
Let me note that dabbling in Buddhism in modern times is not the same, although, I don’t reject it out of hand. But let me note that that required formal world renunciation, and much else, something the modern world isn’t going to allow, if you try it in public. Perhaps with good reason, the world has moved on… A lot to say there. But once you start adding this and that to the whole game, you end up with a mess of pottage, between Tantra and the later path of the Boddhissatwas, which does not lead to enlightenment. It can be another trap. And keep in mind that Tibetan Buddhism was a political structure, with the ‘truth standard’ sacrificed on the altar of the unknown designs of later Buddhists, so all of that is probably also part of the problem we have detected with Sufism. Who knows? I never figured out the arcana of Tibetan spiritual politics.
The ‘path of enlightenment’ is not the grand total here, it is a severe restriction on your future! The term ‘enlightenment’ should not be used. How about ‘historical termination’? Cessation from the round of rebirths, if there is such a thing. Anyway, it points to the possibility of streamlining your thinking and dispensing with all the baggage of disinformation that these other ‘paths’ have used to deceive you.
It was my indication nonetheless, that next to this ‘path beyond time’ there should be a ‘path through time’, but the question is precisely what has bedeviled all the ‘paths’ we see in our discussion of Gurdjieff.
It should be the ‘path of will’, but that’s a term so hopeless vitiated by impostors, that careful thought is required to know what one means. Perhaps more on that sometime later.