Master Path - Gary Olsen

[Zeeker]

just because a person is getting results does not mean the teacher is the source.

I whole-heartedly agree. In fact results can only come from the individual’s own efforts and consciousness, if they would only be open to that realization. Not Gary in the flesh and garji floating about in the higher realms claiming to access and guide up to a billion individuals at once. That’s what I have issue with. Gary makes no attempt to correctly inform and guide his followers to believe in them self, but leads them to isolation within in his teachings and become dependent on him.

Fancy selling members his portrait photographs to contemplate on and worship. Doesn’t that say it all? Gary says he can access the Akashic Records to check out a member’s integrity. Another claim to his supernatural powers, if ever I’ve heard it. If he is that proficient in knowing anything, how come he "bombed out" so incredible with his Bird Flu predictions of 2006; then to resorted blaming his chelas for following his advice after nothing eventuated? He could have had a field day on his 2012 Mayan Calendar Prophecy presentation; but no, not a word on how to prepare this one. Once bitten, twice shy? Gary must have learned his lessons from the Flu episode, and knows he can’t predict anything much beyond the sun rising tomorrow. Any one of us can do that!

 

[apophenia]

@apophenia, thank you.

You are welcome. Of interest perhaps - I practiced inner light and sound meditation for some years after reading about it in a book by Alice Bailey. Her work, from the 1920s, spawned a lot of New Age teachers in the west. A lot of her work is incomprehensible, I would even say psychobabble, other parts are extraordinarily lucid and useful. I suspect 'she' was a group effort, following on from Helena Blavatsky and the creation of the Theosophical Society in 1875. There is a history to groups like Master Path that you may find interesting to investigate at some point.

It began at the Kumbha Mela festival in 1875 ...

Cheers

 

[kaleidoscope]

I have some questions for Vichar.

I am a spiritual seeker who learned to meditate at a young age. I have during my life spent time with five different spiritual teachers, mostly from India from the Hindu tradition, but also one American teacher and one German. I also had a friend, years ago, who followed Radhasoami, or Sant Mat. I have come to this forum to seek some perspective on Masterpath, because for the past three years I have been in a relationship with a woman who is a disciple of Gary Olsen, who, among other things, claims to come from the tradition of Sant Mat.

The first thing that puzzled me about Masterpath was the secrecy: my friend made me promise never to read any of the books or other materials that she had all over her house, except for one beginning book meant for the uninitiated. Vichar, I have never encountered such a thing in any other tradition, including Sant Mat. All the teachings of all genuine teachers I have met have been freely available to all seekers, initiated or not. Can you explain why Masterpath is different?

Second, followers of Sant Mat must be vegetarians. How does Gary explain that there is no karma in killing animals for food, when that seems contrary to reason, and goes against all other spiritual traditions that I have encountered, including the one he claims to follow?

Third, Sant Mat requires abstention from all drugs and alcohol. Yet I read in these forums (I have no way to verify this) that Gary partakes liberally of marijuana, or has in the past. How is this compatible with the spiritual journey?

Fourth, satsang, with every other spiritual master I have met, is always free. I have always been taught, and I believe I have read this also in the Sant Mat literature, that teachings that cost money are not genuine, and that one way to judge a spiritual teacher is whether he charges money for his teachings. I have encountered gurus who charged money for weekend intensives, but who made themselves available at no charge for weekly satsangs. They also mingled freely with disciples and other seekers at the intensives they did charge for. My impression is that Gary Olsen does not give his disciples anything that he doesn't charge for, that he keeps well separate from them even at his seminars, and that between seminars he is not available to them in person at all. He also gives a new "initiation" to every disciple every three years, for which he also charges money. To me it is outrageous to charge money for an initiation, and unheard of for there to be more than one initiation between guru and disciple in a lifetime. It seems to me, from the outside, that everything that Gary does is designed not to teach, but to make money, and to prevent too much scrutiny by outsiders, or even disciples. Am I way off base?

Finally, Vichar, I gather you were with Gary at the time of the bird flu episode. I only know about it from reading about it on these forums. But how did he explain that afterwards, to your satisfaction?

 

[Vichar]

Before I attempt to answer your questions, let me re-iterate that my only affiliation with Gary and the MasterPath is as a student. Therefore I may give answers that Gary or the path might not have given themselves, or might actually not approve of. Still, I'll do my best. You could probably ask the woman you mention about the path; she will probably give similar answers.

The first thing that puzzled me about Masterpath was the secrecy: my friend made me promise never to read any of the books or other materials that she had all over her house, except for one beginning book meant for the uninitiated. Vichar, I have never encountered such a thing in any other tradition, including Sant Mat. All the teachings of all genuine teachers I have met have been freely available to all seekers, initiated or not. Can you explain why Masterpath is different?

I don't have any experience with Sant Mat, so I didn't know that they allow others to read material only meant for the initiated. My answer is only a guess which I already stated earlier in this thread. I believe that some of the works will hit students the wrong way if they encounter them too early. Gary is very explicit in some of the works about our attachments to things like ways of thinking, material objects, relationships with others. I think that early students have a tendency to view this as a direction to give things up, like cars or houses or significant others. Actually, the direction is to relax our attachment to them, but this is very poorly understood by beginning students (for example, what is attachment, anyway? What is attention? What is attitude?) I could give other examples but I believe this is the reason why it's a bad idea to share discourses with people that are just starting out or have no affiliation with the path.

Second, followers of Sant Mat must be vegetarians. How does Gary explain that there is no karma in killing animals for food, when that seems contrary to reason, and goes against all other spiritual traditions that I have encountered, including the one he claims to follow?

There is karma for just about everything we do. I understand that killing animals for food generates karma. However, being a vegetarian will not in and of itself make a person any more spiritual. In time, the desire to eat meat falls off naturally. I believe Gary understands how the Western mind is indoctrinated -- by attempting to ask people to stop doing something, they will either gravitate towards another habit or just cling all the more tightly to something, like eating meat. You can't stop doing something by thinking more about (stopping) it. That's like trying to stop hiccups by thinking about hiccups. The key is to put attention elsewhere (like the inner guru), and the desire for meat or other addictions will eventually fade.

Third, Sant Mat requires abstention from all drugs and alcohol. Yet I read in these forums (I have no way to verify this) that Gary partakes liberally of marijuana, or has in the past. How is this compatible with the spiritual journey?

I have never observed Gary taking marijuana. I don't know if he still does, since I have no way to verify what he does at all other times when he's not giving a talk. My answer to drugs and alcohol is the same as my answer to eating meat: the student doesn't try to stop partaking. The student focuses on concentrating attention on the third eye and the inner master and these urges themselves will eventually fade. Gary, in some talks however, does make it very clear that "hard" drugs (like cocaine, etc.) are unacceptable and the student must work to get off of these before he will be allowed further ingress into the inner planes.

Fourth, satsang, with every other spiritual master I have met, is always free. I have always been taught, and I believe I have read this also in the Sant Mat literature, that teachings that cost money are not genuine, and that one way to judge a spiritual teacher is whether he charges money for his teachings. I have encountered gurus who charged money for weekend intensives, but who made themselves available at no charge for weekly satsangs. They also mingled freely with disciples and other seekers at the intensives they did charge for. My impression is that Gary Olsen does not give his disciples anything that he doesn't charge for, that he keeps well separate from them even at his seminars, and that between seminars he is not available to them in person at all. He also gives a new "initiation" to every disciple every three years, for which he also charges money. To me it is outrageous to charge money for an initiation, and unheard of for there to be more than one initiation between guru and disciple in a lifetime. It seems to me, from the outside, that everything that Gary does is designed not to teach, but to make money, and to prevent too much scrutiny by outsiders, or even disciples. Am I way off base?

Regarding charging for seminars, someone has to pay the venue. They don't occur weekly, by the way. There used to be a talk every month but even that had a physical location where Joy would give a talk (so a place had to be rented). Gary rents out an entire ballroom at a hotel, and it's not cheap. Most of the work is done by volunteers but the hotel is not going to suddenly give us the room for free. It's $40 for a talk, but I know renting out a room like that from a hotel costs thousands of dollars.

Also, there is no additional fee for initiation. You have to pay for the talk where the initiation is given (again, rooms have to be rented), but aside from that there isn't an "initiation fee". If you were told that it's simply not true.

Regarding "making money", I've stated and provided a link for how you can confirm that masterpath is non-profit. Their salaries are open for all to see. I know that mp is still a non-profit as well because dues and such are still tax-deductible (count as donations to a non-profit org). Honestly, I sometimes can't help but think that detractors are bad at math, or don't think about what they are claiming from a logical perspective. At times critics have accused Gary of "making lots of money" but then tried to argue with me in another post that there weren't that many chelas. Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time. So I think the accusations are simply an emotional reaction, and not a reasoned one. I have already said that I have a friend that sometimes volunteers at the mp office, and she observes first hand how frugal they are there. There simply isn't a lot of money to be made from collecting $30 a month from each student. The offices have to be rented, toner purchased, salaries paid, materials like envelopes and electronic media have to be purchased, etc. I wonder that people think these items should be free. Where would the money for these come from?

Finally, Vichar, I gather you were with Gary at the time of the bird flu episode. I only know about it from reading about it on these forums. But how did he explain that afterwards, to your satisfaction?

I thought Gary at the time made if VERY clear that the bird flu was just another kind of karma that might come down, but wasn't certain. Actually, I am something of a scientist and conducted my own research. Not only is what Gary says entirely within the realm of possibility, it has happened several times in the past already. The Spanish Flu was one such example (look it up). The avian flu is still not far from evolving into something that might be more virulent in humans. The flu generations are so much shorter, they reproduce so much faster, that their ability to adapt is so much greater (than mammals, for example). So the possibility is always out there.

Gary did not give a subsequent talk about the bird flu except to mildly chastise chelas for going overboard with their preparations. I thought he was very clear that the flu was possible, not definite. If specific students did anything drastic like sell homes or move, well, that was their decision. I wouldn't recommend that myself. The information about the flu is readily available, and experts have the same opinion Gary has. Gary, in my opinion, simply brought that opinion to people's attention. The information was already available on sites like the world health organization. But you know, this is a good example of why it's not a good idea to share talks or works with everyone, or beginning students who won't understand. If someone says something that's true, and people decide to panic as a result, well, that's not good. Gary probably thought highly enough of his students that they wouldn't panic or do anything rash, but some of them did anyway. Until we attain realization, our viewpoint is necessarily clouded and we don't always make sound decisions. I think that, more than anything else, is why Gary doesn't want his talks, books, and discourses in open circulation. It just encourages people to misinterpret him more because they are not tuned into spiritual vibrations. They are still consumed with earthly (material) concerns and desires.

I did my best to answer your questions, and I hope in the places where I guessed I wasn't too off base. I would encourage you to ask your woman friend the same questions and compare our answers; she may surprise you with a different viewpoint on things.

 

[Vichar]

You know, I'm glad Kaliedescope brought up the karma incurred from killing animals for food. The karma for that is relatively minimal compared to the karma a person would incur if they attempted to cheat people out of their money by offering false teachings. Seriously, who could be that stupid? Gary talks about it in his talks: he considers people that would do that to be the "lowest of the low", and he acknowledges how much karma would be involved with attempting to do so.

So there's only a few possibilities here:

1) Gary is so stupid and ignorant that he doesn't himself believe in karma, spiritual truth, his own teachings, and so is therefore able to continue being a "spiritual fraud" as people in this thread are putting it.

2) Gary thinks he's a true spiritual teacher, but is himself confused.

3) Gary is a true spiritual teacher.

I find it laughable that people are going about accusing Gary of being a fraud without considering this. Maybe they are the ones that don't believe in karma or multiple lifetimes. In which case the spiritual teachings aren't going to help them anyway.

I can tell that the works Gary puts out these days are his own writing; if nothing else he still has a curious turn of phrase that reveals that he doesn't have a formal writing background. The works have too much truth in them--I think it's impossible that Gary himself thinks he's cheating people. After you've been around the block enough, you realize what a whammy that would do to you karmically. Nobody in the know would be that stupid. Seriously, trying to trick people into thinking you're a guru with false teachings is probably the highest spiritual crime you can commit. No one would be dumb enough to trade that for a few bucks that you can't take with you when you die, anyway. The claims that gary is a fraud are ludicrous, unless you are convinced reincarnation and karma don't exist. In that case, don't bother investigating masterpath any further because it won't have value for you.

 

[kaleidoscope]

Vichar,

I am impressed by the thoughtfulness of your answers.

My friend who is a chela has been with Gary for a lot longer than you. She had been abused as a child, had serious psychological problems, and therapy took her only so far. Masterpath gave her a stabilizing focus that she needed. However, she continues to become more and more depressed, while still believing that Masterpath will solve her problems, even if not in this lifetime. From the outside I see that Masterpath also could take her only so far -- because it is not a genuine path, and because Gary, I am convinced, is far from an enlightened being.

The first things my friend said to me about Masterpath, after she told me she was a chela, was "this is not a cult," and "don't ever read the materials you see in my house." I had no idea about Masterpath at that time. As someone who had been on a spiritual path myself for forty years, both of those statements struck me as bizarre.

But they fit with Gary's history as I have since been able to glean it. He was once a follower of Eckankar. If he was born enlightened he certainly never told anybody so at that time. He encountered Scientology, an undoubted cult, and he encoutered the Radhasoami tradition. At some point he cobbled together the teachings and techniques from all three, reinvented himself as an enlightened master and accumulated a following in Fargo, North Dakota -- until he was virtually run out of town for being a cult leader -- no doubt why his disciples are so defensive about their path not being a cult, and why they are sworn to keep his teachings from the eyes of outsiders.

His teachings and methods I find equally bizarre. He claims to have inherited the mantle of Radhasoami, yet abondons its most important teachings. Chelas need no longer be vegetarians. Meditation is no longer necessary. But monthly dues must be paid in perpetuity.

What happens when a chela stops paying dues? A master/disciple relationship is sacred and lifelong -- maybe even lasting into future incarnations. It is not dependent on monthly dues. An initiation -- one only -- is a permanent bond between disciple and teacher.

Gary's chelas do not meditate. I do not intrude into my friend's practice with questions she would not answer, so I do not know the exact technique. But I have seen that it involves reading and occurs with eyes open, and I gather from these forums that what Gary teaches are well-known hypnotic techniques, which I gather Gary also at one time studied. When my friend ends her morning rituals, she is no more calm and centered than when she begins them. They are not furthering her spiritual journey.

She, like you, insists that killing animals creates no "bad" karma, and she does not mind eating them. However, she is terrified of taking on karma from any fellow human being. Vichar, both animals and humans have souls. Every living being is a teacher. We must not cut ourselves off from animals by belittling them, or from other humans by being afraid of them.

My friend occasionally repeats bizarre "facts" about history or the world that she got from Gary and that I recognize as coming from Eckankar, Scientology or some other disreputable source, including sensationalistic stories from the news media. She believes everything he says as gospel. If I had known her at the time of the bird flu fiasco I would have set her straight.

 

[Vichar]

In an effort to keep my post under the 10,000 character limit, I will have to paraphrase some of your post.

But they fit with Gary's history as I have since been able to glean it. He was once a follower of Eckankar ... and accumulated a following in Fargo, North Dakota -- until he was virtually run out of town for being a cult leader -- no doubt why his disciples are so defensive about their path not being a cult, and why they are sworn to keep his teachings from the eyes of outsiders.

I know that Gary grew up in Fargo. He does not try to hide this. I rather doubt he was run out of town; I think he just moved. I have yet to find a confirmed source that indicates he was "run out of town." I myself have lived in several cities in my lifetime. We are not sworn to keep teachings from the eyes of outsiders, per se. There are introductory materials that are, as far as I'm concerned, very similar in vibration to the discourses we are asked not to show other people. But I've mentioned that already in this thread.

His teachings and methods I find equally bizarre. He claims to have inherited the mantle of Radhasoami, yet abondons its most important teachings. Chelas need no longer be vegetarians. Meditation is no longer necessary. But monthly dues must be paid in perpetuity.

What happens when a chela stops paying dues? A master/disciple relationship is sacred and lifelong -- maybe even lasting into future incarnations. It is not dependent on monthly dues. An initiation -- one only -- is a permanent bond between disciple and teacher.

Gary's chelas do not meditate. I do not intrude into my friend's practice with questions she would not answer, so I do not know the exact technique. But I have seen that it involves reading and occurs with eyes open, and I gather from these forums that what Gary teaches are well-known hypnotic techniques, which I gather Gary also at one time studied. When my friend ends her morning rituals, she is no more calm and centered than when she begins them. They are not furthering her spiritual journey.

I know a little bit about Radhasoami. As far as I can tell, the teachings are very similar in essence. But I suppose that's just my opinion. Gary has mentioned numerous times that Radha is a legit path and that its teachings are real, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Also, Gary constantly says that the bond between student and master is permanent, exactly as you say. I grow weary of repeating that the dues, which are $30 a month, are simply there to provide the resources needed to mail discourses to students and take care of other administrative costs. I grow tired of hearing that spirituality should be "free". Library books are not free, nothing in life is free, the sooner you realize this the better off you'll be. No, love is not free, not the love (lower attachment) most people think of. It's either biological imperative or codependence. The only love that's free is spiritual love, which requires a realization of what spirit, soul, and god really are.

Some chelas actually do not pay the full dues, because Gary works out special arrangements for them if they claim they cannot pay. So once again, listening to hear-say about the path and understanding what is actually happening is important.

I cannot speak to what effect your friend's morning exercises have for her. For me, they have a profound effect. It is not clear to me that every student is equally disciplined or follows the teachings correctly. Regarding meditation: Gary says that if you want to meditate as a student, you can; it's simply slower, being the passive compared to contemplation. Here is the core of the teaching that so few people seem to understand: any true path is about Soul and about God. If it has any other goal, it's not a true path. People think that spirituality is some new-agey thing that improves your life or outer circumstances, but that is never the goal of a TRUE path. In fact, if you are on a true path, you may experience some hard times in your outer life if you are stubborn or if you have that karma to work through. Looking for the outer life to affirm your spirituality is going about things backwards. True spirituality deals with consciousness, discovering one's true identity as soul. So much of this thread focuses on the outer circumstances that I wonder if people even know what they mean when they use that word "spirituality."

Contemplation is centering attention on God. Since we are too far removed from God, the focus of contemplation is the inner master. The outer master, Gary, is just there to provide outer teachings so that the mind can learn to focus inwards. Gary is not the true master, and he says this all the time.

She, like you, insists that killing animals creates no "bad" karma, and she does not mind eating them. However, she is terrified of taking on karma from any fellow human being. Vichar, both animals and humans have souls. Every living being is a teacher. We must not cut ourselves off from animals by belittling them, or from other humans by being afraid of them.

I did not say that killing animals creates no bad karma. And of course animals have souls; when did I claim they did not? Scroll up on this page and you will see me agreeing with you that killing animals creates karma. A lot of actions in this life create karma. Just about everything we do, actually. That's why life is so hard before one becomes self-realized; we have no idea how to live or think or what we should be putting our attention on.

My friend occasionally repeats bizarre "facts" about history or the world that she got from Gary and that I recognize as coming from Eckankar, Scientology or some other disreputable source, including sensationalistic stories from the news media. She believes everything he says as gospel. If I had known her at the time of the bird flu fiasco I would have set her straight.

It's unfortunate that your friend focuses so much on the outer world. That's not the teachings I know. Gary occasionally talks about these things, and perhaps your friend chooses to focus her attention on them because it's easier for her. The esoteric aspects can be difficult for most to comprehend, so rather than attempting to center herself and allowing the true meaning to reach her she may attempt to struggle with her mind. I cannot say, not knowing her or what she's going through. Or perhaps you misunderstand what she's trying to tell you? After all, you seem to think that I believe killing animals creates no karma, when I said exactly the opposite.

The more I see responses in this thread, the more I'm convinced people have a problem with masterpath mainly because they do not understand the teachings. Kaleidoscope, you've been very polite and reasonable in this thread, so I hope you don't interpret what I wrote as some kind of criticism. But if you say things that contradict the teachings then I feel justified in correcting you or clarifying.

 

[end_of_faith]

After all the discussion since that post, and all you focus on is the plagiarism. You are really hung up on it. You don't understand that the lower worlds are a mental construct, merely an illusion, and that there aren't any original ideas in the illusion. But I can predict that you won't understand that statement, so there's no point I suppose for me to go further in that direction. At any rate, Gary has since understood the law and corrected the works accordingly. He probably didn't realize he was doing anything wrong, and when it was pointed out to him he corrected it. But you expect more, for some reason.

First, you brought up the plagiarism in your: ”let’s address the plagiarism” post preceding my response. Second, it remains a point of discussion since plagiarism IS the foundation of the MP teachings.

Third, it is absurd to state that Gary “probably didn’t realize he was doing anything wrong, etc.” His wife has a master’s degree in English so the premise of his innocent lack of awareness of his action is preposterous. He specifically instructed a chela to take an Eckankar dictionary and create an MP dictionary with this directive: “change & substitute certain words so that it doesn’t look like a copy.” Those are not words from a man not knowing what he is doing. I don’t think the student fully realized “what he was doing.” But as far as Gary, yes, he knew exactly what he was doing. Not only did he plagiarize the MP Books and discourses, he consciously invoked the devotion & sincerity of a student to do his dirty work on the first MP dictionary.

And if having his wife & staff repeatedly edit (cover) the plagiarism is a hallmark correction of his lack of realization….well, then,… you are right in that I did and do “expect more for some reason”….from a man claiming to be a Saint.

Your idea of perfection is a human ideal. Perfect action, by your standards. What if Gary is just a human being like the rest of us, that makes human mistakes. I don't really care about his human mistakes--for example, he makes grammatical errors in speaking all the time. What I care about is the effectiveness of his teachings in my consciousness. And the effects for me are profound.

Is there a question there for me ... or you? I have no doubt he is a human being like the rest of us, so perhaps it is you that thinks he is beyond the human consciousness.

You are incorrect in that my “idea of perfection is a human ideal.” If my idea of perfection were a human ideal, I would express unbridled enthusiasm extolling the illusory efficacy of his plagiarized writings.

Why don't you ever talk about spirituality in this thread, end_of_faith? Why don't you ever make positive statements? The path has a lot of real value for a lot of people. I would say that you lacked the discipline to get results, but that's probably not even true. What's more likely and amazing to me is that you've probably had lots of spiritual experiences on the path, but now that you're off of it you probably have rationalized that these experiences had nothing to do with Gary.

How I view or relate to spirituality is no longer defined by, or confined within the MP borrowed dogma, doctrine, or discipline. It is wonderful that the MP offers relative value for people. From my perspective there are many teachings in the world that offer the same value to people. They also believe they are studying the Word of God, the absolute truth, the key to all keys, the transcendence of the lower worlds, etc.

Tens of thousands relate to Eckankar, Scientology, RSSB, and Christianity in much the same way as you. In my opinion, MP is a just another form of marketing a hi-jacked version of RSSB teachings fused with Eckankar psycho babble, interspersed with co-opted interpretive dogma of the Christian doctrine while claiming to be the one true holy way.

What about all the Eckankar initiates claiming to be the Master or Guru: Paul Twitchell (plagiarized RSSB), Darwin Gross (2nd initiate when passed the "mantle" by Gail), Gary Olsen (12 yr initiate of Eckankar), John-Roger (MISA), et al. What say you? Seems like a "profound" number of men claiming to be "realized masters" sprung from Eckankar.


Finally, in the above statement you chastise me for not crediting Gary for my spiritual experiences...

Oh, and it's funny how you didn't address my point that Gary is always telling his chelas that he's not the true master. He just wants to introduce us to the real master, inside. Conveniently ignored it, just like you conveniently ignore anything that doesn't directly support your crusade to discredit him.

...and in the next you chastise me for not addressing your point that "Gary is always telling his chelas that he's not the true master."

Not conveniently ignored.

How can a man lead you to that which he has not realized? A student is required to surrender the ego to the idea that the teacher is a master of the consciousness of which he claims realization or attainment. A “profound effect” in consciousness is not a fail-safe method or determining mark of a man claiming to be a guru or saint.

Thousands experience profound effects through association with the teachings of Wayne Dyer and Michael Beckwith, but tell me, do you view either man as a bona fide guru or saint? And they write their own books. What a novel idea: men that write from their own internal experience while living in the physical world of illusion where nothing is original.

 

[Vichar]

Finally, in the above statement you chastise me for not crediting Gary for my spiritual experiences...



...and in the next you chastise me for not addressing your point that "Gary is always telling his chelas that he's not the true master."

Not conveniently ignored.

How can a man lead you to that which he has not realized? A student is required to surrender the ego to the idea that the teacher is a master of the consciousness of which he claims realization or attainment. A “profound effect” in consciousness is not a fail-safe method or determining mark of a man claiming to be a guru or saint.

Thousands experience profound effects through association with the teachings of Wayne Dyer and Michael Beckwith, but tell me, do you view either man as a bona fide guru or saint? And they write their own books. What a novel idea: men that write from their own internal experience while living in the physical world of illusion where nothing is original.

You wrote the above in response to me reiterating that Gary says he's not the true master, who is the inner master, but that Gary is necessary to introduce one to the inner master.

Skipping over the verbal fencing (which is going nowhere), I'm just going to address actual spiritual points with you from now on.

In the following discussion, I'm not going to try and figure out what you specifically believe.

First, some people don't believe in God. This discussion does not pertain to them.

Among those that believe in God, I would say the great majority of them are worshipping some ascended master as a personality. As in, for example, Jesus was literally the son of God, and was worshipped after his death as a diety.

Some, I would say a fewer number, believe that the Eternal Master (son of God) is a conscious entity but also a force. If Anami is the supreme diety, the master is a manifestation of that diety inside of us. This master is single, eternal, and always the same. This is what light and sound paths refer to as the "true master".

Now among this last group, there is a great division in belief. Some believe that you can contact this eternal master without any outer help whatsover, be it from reading books or meditating or whatever other procedure. Some believe that an "outer master" is required for a number of reasons (which can be discussed in more detail if someone is curious about that).

OK, so with this background information out of the way, Gary is very adamant about saying he's not the true, eternal master. And most people on the masterpath believe that some outer representative (someone who can talk to you or, yes, copy books) is needed to initiate you back into the sound so you know which way to go on the inner planes.

It's clear that a lot of people think that no outer master is needed, and furthermore, Gary is a fraud and his works are a bunch of bunk. Everyone saying that in this thread has made that abundantly clear.

The only point I was trying to make at the end there, eof, was that amongst this last group of people, very little of their discussion in this thread is focused on spiritual topics. There is no talk about what their practice actually entails, what they study instead, what they have found, what they believe in now, or what methods / practices they have found to be effective for them. All I see is a bunch of written attacks without any cited evidence to back them up. It's pretty much opinion, but even without the benefit of "this can't be true because this is true instead." That is really the point I'm trying to make. If these attacks really aren't just an emotional reaction or a fear of being "taken" by a "confidence man", then where is the positive aspect in all of this? Where is the discussion about alternate philosophies? To see an example of this, just scroll up and read apophenia's posts. He is at least interested in a real discussion.

 

[Vichar]

You are welcome. Of interest perhaps - I practiced inner light and sound meditation for some years after reading about it in a book by Alice Bailey. Her work, from the 1920s, spawned a lot of New Age teachers in the west. A lot of her work is incomprehensible, I would even say psychobabble, other parts are extraordinarily lucid and useful. I suspect 'she' was a group effort, following on from Helena Blavatsky and the creation of the Theosophical Society in 1875. There is a history to groups like Master Path that you may find interesting to investigate at some point.

It began at the Kumbha Mela festival in 1875 ...

Cheers

I have indeed been digging around to learn about the history of light and sound teachings. I find it fascinating that, for example, Lao Tzi's poetry reaffirms what I understand to be light and sound teachings without being as explicit. This was something written thousands of years ago, and yet the vibration is the same. I would say the same of other things I've read, like gnostic christianity. I read a book by a Taoist monk and his spiritual practice and beliefs were surprisingly similar, going so far as to describe in detail some phenomena I myself have experienced.

So I'm convinced that whatever people want to call it, spirituality is spirituality. And the mind is the mind. Navigating the tricky path to distinguish the two is the difficult part.

Thanks again for your very calm and appropriate responses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where is the discussion about alternate philosophies? To see an example of this, just scroll up and read apophenia's posts. He is at least interested in a real discussion.

Hi Vichar, you deserve full marks for your faith in and support of GO /MP on this thread. Whether such faith is warranted is another matter and perhaps if we open this thread to the wider discussion of alternate views/teachings, it may be revealed that there is very much more to it than MP addresses in its teaching. Not that this proposed discussion is meant be just about MP, but rather a discussion along the lines you suggest you and apophenia had been engaging in.

Now assuming that the realization of enlightenment or its equivalent is the ultimate goal of devotees of all religions, what is your general understanding of this concept 'enlightenment'?

It is my understanding that the realization of enlightenment is a concept that represents the Cosmic evolutionary transition of consciousness whereby the illusionary nature of the mortal dualistic perception of Reality gives way to merge with the preexisting omnipresent non-dual awareness of the ONE that is all.

Opinions?

 

[Vichar]

It is my understanding that the realization of enlightenment is a concept that represents the Cosmic evolutionary transition of consciousness whereby the illusionary nature of the mortal dualistic perception of Reality gives way to merge with the preexisting omnipresent non-dual awareness of the ONE that is all.

Opinions?

I have no problem admitting I don't have a good idea of what 'enlightenment' is exactly. It's a journey that I'm on and I haven't achieved what I would personally consider a very enlightened state. I guess I would say I've discovered / uncovered just enough to realize that I'm just a babe in the woods (so to speak) when it comes to such matters--my own ignorance is something that I'm coming to see more clearly.

What I have discovered for myself is that concrete realism (a label I'm assigning to the popular culture belief in a physical world) is incorrect (in my opinion). My own direct experiences have proven that out to me. I have an analogy for you. Imagine for a moment that we both thought the world was actually flat. Then I got into a space shuttle and looked down at the Earth. It would be a pretty compelling experience, suggesting that the Earth was in fact spherical. Now, it's possible to not understand what I'm seeing, but it's hard to doubt the experience itself.

My spiritual journey thus far has been similar. I no longer doubt, for example, that there is life after "death" of the physical body. I no longer doubt that the soul exists, and that the mind and body are themselves a kind of illusion. But they are not illusion in the sense that they themselves do not exist. They are illusion in that our concept about what they really are is flawed--we don't have the right idea about them. As an example, most people believe the Mind is a by-product of the body, and that consciousness is a by-product of the mind. I now know it's exactly the reverse--spirit is the central reality, and the mind is a sort of... illusion made up of spirit vibrating at a lower frequency, if you will. Or maybe we can talk about it as "dilluted" spirit.

As for the actual, exact nature of enlightenment, I think of it as a state of consciousness where I can see myself clearly as what I actually am, instead of relating to myself through the lens of physical senses or mental concepts. So, yes, the direct perception aspect you mentioned in your post is part of it. Another analogy: it would be like riding around in a submarine all my life, and associating with it so strongly I don't realize that I'm a human being riding around in a submarine. Beaching the submarine, climbing out, seeing the sunlight would be an example of transcending the body. Thus far what I have experienced is comparable to coming closer to the surface of the water, seeing the sunlight filtering down through the waves, but not actually getting out of the submarine.

Giving up dualistic perception, releasing the necessity of relating to the universe through the body, yes, this is part of it. I suppose I glimpse it in experiences where I am granted vision of what it is to experience being free of some of these perceptions, habits, and associations, and it is... indescribable. I wish sometimes I could adequately relate the difference I feel between my "inner" life and my "waking" or "outer" life. But there aren't any words really; I can only reach for them. I've spent a fair amount of time in "spiritual" forums or chat and for the most part, people refer to things like "living in the moment" or "realization" or "enlightenment" without ever really understanding the experience itself, for themselves. Emotional reveries, psychic endeavors, new age teachings... they are a poor substitute for real spirituality. And yet I'm always struck by the simplicity of the truth. It's not as if I'm learning something, but more like I'm jettisoning things I don't need anymore--the journey feels like getting rid of untruth or remembering things I once was.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have no problem admitting I don't have a good idea of what 'enlightenment' is exactly. It's a journey that I'm on and I haven't achieved what I would personally consider a very enlightened state. I guess I would say I've discovered / uncovered just enough to realize that I'm just a babe in the woods (so to speak) when it comes to such matters--my own ignorance is something that I'm coming to see more clearly.

What I have discovered for myself is that concrete realism (a label I'm assigning to the popular culture belief in a physical world) is incorrect (in my opinion). My own direct experiences have proven that out to me. I have an analogy for you. Imagine for a moment that we both thought the world was actually flat. Then I got into a space shuttle and looked down at the Earth. It would be a pretty compelling experience, suggesting that the Earth was in fact spherical. Now, it's possible to not understand what I'm seeing, but it's hard to doubt the experience itself.

My spiritual journey thus far has been similar. I no longer doubt, for example, that there is life after "death" of the physical body. I no longer doubt that the soul exists, and that the mind and body are themselves a kind of illusion. But they are not illusion in the sense that they themselves do not exist. They are illusion in that our concept about what they really are is flawed--we don't have the right idea about them. As an example, most people believe the Mind is a by-product of the body, and that consciousness is a by-product of the mind. I now know it's exactly the reverse--spirit is the central reality, and the mind is a sort of... illusion made up of spirit vibrating at a lower frequency, if you will. Or maybe we can talk about it as "dilluted" spirit.

Very good friend Vichar, there is good prerequisite understanding present to delve deeper into the mystery of what constitutes enlightenment. However there is an essential reassessment ahead that most find very difficult to fulfill, and that pertains to the part the self consciousness 'I' plays in the realization of enlightenment. Most take 'what' and 'who' they are as the given self reference for the discernment of what is real and what is not. Few ever consider that while this approach works reasonably well for survival in the physical world, it does not work for apprehending the transcendent Reality.

So things may get somewhat esoteric if you've not contmeplated the sublime working of mind in states other than the waking state of a thinking mind.

As for the actual, exact nature of enlightenment, I think of it as a state of consciousness where I can see myself clearly as what I actually am, instead of relating to myself through the lens of physical senses or mental concepts. So, yes, the direct perception aspect you mentioned in your post is part of it. Another analogy: it would be like riding around in a submarine all my life, and associating with it so strongly I don't realize that I'm a human being riding around in a submarine. Beaching the submarine, climbing out, seeing the sunlight would be an example of transcending the body. Thus far what I have experienced is comparable to coming closer to the surface of the water, seeing the sunlight filtering down through the waves, but not actually getting out of the submarine.

Giving up dualistic perception, releasing the necessity of relating to the universe through the body, yes, this is part of it. I suppose I glimpse it in experiences where I am granted vision of what it is to experience being free of some of these perceptions, habits, and associations, and it is... indescribable. I wish sometimes I could adequately relate the difference I feel between my "inner" life and my "waking" or "outer" life. But there aren't any words really; I can only reach for them. I've spent a fair amount of time in "spiritual" forums or chat and for the most part, people refer to things like "living in the moment" or "realization" or "enlightenment" without ever really understanding the experience itself, for themselves. Emotional reveries, psychic endeavors, new age teachings... they are a poor substitute for real spirituality. And yet I'm always struck by the simplicity of the truth. It's not as if I'm learning something, but more like I'm jettisoning things I don't need anymore--the journey feels like getting rid of untruth or remembering things I once was.

First let me say that my perspective on enlightenment is the result of study and meditation over much of my life, and if my narrative appears to have an authoritive tone, it is not meant to be so, it's just the way one has evolved in expressing my present understanding.

Though each our respective understanding about enlightenment is different at present (..but that they will converge eventually is inevitable as there is ultimately only One Self), sooner or later on the path of realization of enlightenment these secondary aspects of Self (you and I) must merge with Self to be free from the distortion of perceiving reality from a dualistic perspective).

So fwiw, here is a brief explanation as to my present understanding of enlightenment for your perusal.

It is my experience that those who have not attained some degree of stilling of the mind from dhyana (still mind) meditation practice have no choice but to rely on opinions from others or make up there own idea as to what enlightenment really is. If you are one such aspirant, what follows is not meant as something to accept or reject (though of course you are free to do that), but rather consider it as 'finger' pointing in a direction that is not outside yourself, but perhaps not yet explored in full consciousness.

The reason why stilling of the mind is essential for the realization of enlightenment is that so long as the mind is in thought, the actual reality that lies on other side of the thoughts remains obscured/hidden. Thoughts are mental constructs/concepts that are created by the mind to represent aspects of reality as they are perceived by the mind in a process that involves a dualistic apprehension as in,..subject - object. But in the meditative state when the thought processes are relatively quiet, one catches glimses of the absolute indivisible oneness of the apparent mutliplicity of reality.

So the thinking mind using its inherent dualistic perception method divides the one reality into a duality,..there is 'me' on the one hand (subject), and all the rest of creation is 'not me' on the other (object). This is the beginning of a slippery slide downhill to the state of bewilderment and lack of understanding of the mind as to what is the Source of all that exists, seen and unseen. This is the unenlightened state of mind we mortal find ouselves in at some point.

So if true Reality is actually not a multiplicity (as it seems to the mortal mind's perception), but in fact the underlying unity of the maya of multiplicity, the only way to apprehend It is to approach It as an integral of the onenes, not through some conceptual dualistic perspective of being separate from IT as in the normal subject - object consciousness. But even the attempt to convey this by the use of the word 'approach' implies duality, the one who approaches and the one approached.

Nevertheless, when the mind is truly still, direct apprehension of Reality is! But also when the mind is truly still, the 'I' is not present (it is subdued as in sleep). Hence there is this irony that true Reality is obscured by thoughts, and especially thoughts about true Reality.

Still the mind and there is nothing else needs doing,...the mind is in a state of enlightenment.

The greatest (and most common) error that retards the progress of the aspirant is the ego/'I' believing itself to have experienced the state of enlightenment. The moment the 'I' re-emerges from it's quiescent state after a first time samahdi event, it truly thinks that it had the experience. For those for whom there was no adept/guru present to rebuke them when they first related the event to the guru, they will most likely live under the delusion for the rest of their life that they were enlightened or some such thing.

In enlightenment, there is no two, for the seeker and the sought are one. As Jesus said, ..the Father and I are one! Also in enlightenment, there is no 'my' enlightenment, there is only the eternal Divine awareness that is present everywhere.

 

[end_of_faith]

You wrote the above in response to me reiterating that Gary says he's not the true master, who is the inner master, but that Gary is necessary to introduce one to the inner master.

Skipping over the verbal fencing (which is going nowhere), I'm just going to address actual spiritual points with you from now on.

I was pointing out the contradiction within the span of a single post from one paragraph to the next. But for the sake of clear thinking, I’ll restate the point in a rhetorical question. Why would you chastise someone for not crediting a man for spiritual experience when the man supposedly teaches he is not the source?

More interesting than the contradiction is your response to it. Just to be clear about “skipping over the verbal fencing." A response is given to one of your key spiritual points but you are only going to address “actual spiritual points from now on?”

So, your “actual spiritual” point is: “Gary is necessary to introduce one to the inner master who is the true master.”

Ok, thank you for articulating the central tenet of the MP teachings. A "spiritual” principle repetitiously emphasized that subtly focuses and projects attention & devotion on the outer as “the” first step that leads to your inner self.

Promulgating the idea that Gary is an imperative intermediary for “the true inner master" underscores the obvious and unparalleled import (consciously, unconsciously, and subconsciously) placed on the outer personage of the man. How is that not a form of personality worship?

Where is it writ that this MP tenet is the ultimate design of God? Where is it writ that God appointed Gary as the key to your spiritual being? Where is it writ that what you say is “actual spirituality” and an opposing viewpoint is not?

In the following discussion, I'm not going to try and figure out what you specifically believe.

Specifically, I don’t believe your “master” is a guru or saint.

You are free to label my consciousness however you wish. You can call it delusion, illusion, lost, unevolved, not ready for the MP, undisciplined, messianic, etcetera, etcetera, and not to be excluded: etcetera.

Further, I am keenly aware that the centerpiece of L&S teaches that the individual cannot know God without first knowing the self, and cannot know the self without connection to the inner master, and cannot know the inner master without receiving initiation into the sound, and cannot receive initiation into the sound without meeting the outer master, your master.

So, with that overview of sequential steps it is stupefying how primal significance can be attributed to the necessity of an outer master, and yet, questioning the authenticity of the outer master is relegated to the realm of negative activity by the mind. Therein lies the rub.

It is a system that establishes a foundation for unchallengeable authoritarian control over the mind of the individual. It is a system that fundamentally teaches subjective surrender to an objective form as a living embodiment of divinity that is confirmed as true only by surrender to it. In turn any uptick in consciousness becomes proof for the outer being true. What happens when the inner reveals the outer is false? Is the inner now untrue? Or, is it only true when in your view, as sayeth Gary so truth goeth? How is that not a form of personality worship? Or, do these musings travel where angels fear to tread?

The real pitfall (with groups like MasterPath) does not lie in critical thinking….it lies in not thinking critically enough. It lies in projecting and surrendering your most sacred love onto someone or something that does not deserve your faith or trust.

to be continued...

 

[Vichar]

It is my experience that those who have not attained some degree of stilling of the mind from dhyana (still mind) meditation practice have no choice but to rely on opinions from others or make up there own idea as to what enlightenment really is. If you are one such aspirant, what follows is not meant as something to accept or reject (though of course you are free to do that), but rather consider it as 'finger' pointing in a direction that is not outside yourself, but perhaps not yet explored in full consciousness.

The reason why stilling of the mind is essential for the realization of enlightenment is that so long as the mind is in thought, the actual reality that lies on other side of the thoughts remains obscured/hidden. Thoughts are mental constructs/concepts that are created by the mind to represent aspects of reality as they are perceived by the mind in a process that involves a dualistic apprehension as in,..subject - object. But in the meditative state when the thought processes are relatively quiet, one catches glimses of the absolute indivisible oneness of the apparent mutliplicity of reality.

Friend ben d, I completely agree with your points regarding stilling the mind. Stilling the mind is bulk of my daily spiritual practice. Those without the discipline to still the mind do indeed mistake any number of internal sensory phenomena with spiritual experience.

The greatest (and most common) error that retards the progress of the aspirant is the ego/'I' believing itself to have experienced the state of enlightenment. The moment the 'I' re-emerges from it's quiescent state after a first time samahdi event, it truly thinks that it had the experience. For those for whom there was no adept/guru present to rebuke them when they first related the event to the guru, they will most likely live under the delusion for the rest of their life that they were enlightened or some such thing.

In enlightenment, there is no two, for the seeker and the sought are one. As Jesus said, ..the Father and I are one! Also in enlightenment, there is no 'my' enlightenment, there is only the eternal Divine awareness that is present everywhere.

Agreed. It is hard to discuss self and spirituality because the language itself (English) is based within a dualistic world-view. The seeker and the sought are indeed one. And I agree that those without a guru can easily spend lifetimes delving the psychic arts, all the while thinking they are making real spiritual progress. You express the point very clearly, and I very much appreciate the accuracy and insight of your remarks.

 

[Vichar]

Specifically, I don’t believe your “master” is a guru or saint.

You are free to label my consciousness however you wish. You can call it delusion, illusion, lost, unevolved, not ready for the MP, undisciplined, messianic, etcetera, etcetera, and not to be excluded: etcetera.

You spend a lot of time defending yourself to me, and yet if you go back and look at my post where I am directly responding to you the only real thing I accuse you of is attacking others verbally online. Which, I believe I have quoted you sufficiently to demonstrate. As for the rest, you said it best yourself. You have nothing to prove to me from a spiritual perspective, so why are you so sensitive? I've never accused of of being "unevolved". You're free to have your opinion and viewpoint, so I don't think (and haven't claimed) that you are "deluded". If anything, you and others claim masterpath chelas are the ones that are deluded.

Further, I am keenly aware that the centerpiece of L&S teaches that the individual cannot know God without first knowing the self, and cannot know the self without connection to the inner master, and cannot know the inner master without receiving initiation into the sound, and cannot receive initiation into the sound without meeting the outer master, your master.

So, with that overview of sequential steps it is stupefying how primal significance can be attributed to the necessity of an outer master, and yet, questioning the authenticity of the outer master is relegated to the realm of negative activity by the mind. Therein lies the rub.

It is a system that establishes a foundation for unchallengeable authoritarian control over the mind of the individual. It is a system that fundamentally teaches subjective surrender to an objective form as a living embodiment of divinity that is confirmed as true only by surrender to it. In turn any uptick in consciousness becomes proof for the outer being true. What happens when the inner reveals the outer is false? Is the inner now untrue? Or, is it only true when in your view, as sayeth Gary so truth goeth? How is that not a form of personality worship? Or, do these musings travel where angels fear to tread?

The real pitfall (with groups like MasterPath) does not lie in critical thinking….it lies in not thinking critically enough. It lies in projecting and surrendering your most sacred love onto someone or something that does not deserve your faith or trust.

to be continued...

It seems like you have a real fear of "authoritarian control". And yet, Gary has done nothing to try and control my personal life. He doesn't instruct me to do anything except further my own unfoldment. He asks for no favors, doesn't tell me what kind of job to have, how to dress, where to live, who to like, what to say... none of it. He instructs me to let go of my current world view, and go within. Still the mind, focus attention on the inner master, concentrate the attention. Yep, he asks for $30 a month. People are either OK with this or they, like you, flip out about it. You keep going on about giving sacred love to something I shouldn't love or trust, but I'm not getting through to you that I'm putting my love and trust in the inner master, not gary.

Gary says over and over again that following his instructions, the bulk of which I just related to you above, is sufficient show of love to the outer master. If you do not understand that, or did not understand that in the past, that is not my issue. That's your issue. You clearly do not understand light and sound despite your written claims to the contrary. You're out to discredit one man in the physical plane, and that is the sum of your goal here in this thread. Maybe you want to worship an outer perfect someone (perfect by your mental standards), and good luck to you finding that. Maybe you don't think anyone anywhere has anything to teach you in the Pinda. Well, with an attitude like that, students in school would never get anywhere, and no one would ever learn anything outside of their comfort zone. Maybe you're just risk adverse and you don't like trusting someone without "proof" it's all going to turn out OK. Well, to be honest, life is risk, and taking risks is what it takes to make progress spiritually. The illusion of the body and mind and physical world is clever. It asks that you believe in the teachings of popular culture and the evidence of the senses. I've learned that I had to let go of my preconceptions in order to get anywhere. I have sympathy for your arguments regarding "critical thinking" and I just shake my head to myself. If you knew who I was, knew about my years of rigorous scientific training, you'd realize that there would be little to teach me about critical thinking. To be honest, now that I've been on the path for years in this lifetime, I think being very, very intelligent is a hinderance. Having a strong mental body doesn't help. It just makes it somewhat harder to still the mind when I need to. I applaud that you want to hold up clear thinking, but you don't see the false assumptions you are making and I doubt anyone can convince you otherwise. So I won't.

Notice my use of the word "maybe" in the above paragraph. I say maybe because I make no assumptions about you or your consciousness. All I have to go on are what you write in these forums. And your words in these forums demonstrate that you are vindictive and more interested in discrediting one man than having a talk about spirituality. Look at ben d's post on this very page. Look at the difference in your attitudes. If you're sitting around waiting for someone to prove to you that they know something about spirituality, then you can just go on waiting and see how that turns out for you. If you open your eyes and heart, you would see that I'm not trying to convince you to believe in Gary. I'm only holding up a mirror for you to see that your efforts at focusing your attention on discrediting him are pointless. Think of it like a breakup. Is it smarter to dwell on why your last relationship in a negative way, focusing on why your previous significant other was bad / mean / dishonest? Or is it better to focus your attention on what a relationship means to you, what would make you happy (better would be what would make you fulfilled), and how you should live your life? Seriously think about this before responding, because all I see so far is a person that is still bitterly angry over her previous "breakup" with her guru. You keep rehashing the same points over and over again as if somehow saying the same thing is going to get a different response. I say again: focus on your own spirituality, and stop worry about whether Gary is cheating other people or not. What does it have anything to do with your own life now?

(for the record, I think Gary is doing great as a guru as far as I'm concerned, but I have ZERO need to convince anyone to pick him as a guru. If anything, if Gary has fewer students it will drain his energy less--better for me, right?)

 

[end_of_faith]

You spend a lot of time defending yourself to me...

No, not really. Simply and directly engaging in responding to some of your statements. There is a difference. Interesting that you are unable to discern it.

It seems like you have a real fear of "authoritarian control".

It's the unchallengeable aspect that seems to escape the sublimity of your highly prized scientific training and finely honed critical thinking.

If you knew who I was...

Oh, okay... who are you? Please feel free to send a PM with the truth of your identity.

Notice my use of the word "maybe" in the above paragraph.

Well, I had to re-read the paragraph to locate the word "maybe" but I did finally "notice" it.

I say maybe because I make no assumptions about you or your consciousness. All I have to go on are what you write in these forums. And your words in these forums demonstrate that you are vindictive and more interested in discrediting one man than having a talk about spirituality.

It is not vindictiveness that allows me to state that Gary is not Sat.

I'm only holding up a mirror for you to see that your efforts at focusing your attention on discrediting him are pointless.

If stating the conclusion of my experience with your master is pointless, then why are you here?

Seriously think about this before responding, because all I see so far is a person that is still bitterly angry over her previous "breakup" with her guru.

I extend compassion and hope that in the stillness of your inner repose you may transcend your shallow mantra of defining me as bitter for realizing your guru is not Sat.

PS. You may anticipate further responses to previous posts if I am so moved.

:bow: say hi to your guru

 

[Vichar]

If stating the conclusion of my experience with your master is pointless, then why are you here?

You think you're stating facts about Gary, and I'm here to call bs. I don't care if you knew him for longer than I did in this lifetime.

Let's look at an example, shall we?

Tell me, when your master tells a person that she is deluded to think she is on the spiritual path IF SHE IS NOT ON THE MASTERPATH....what is that? True? Because he says so? Would you view it as audacious and negative, incurring karma, digging a deeper hole, insincere, extreme veering, attacking, denigrating the path of another? Or would you view/relate to his words as some deep spiritual insight beyond the person's mental capacity to understand? Just curious.

Remember saying that to me? OK. Gary repeatedly (as in, all the time) tells us in seminars that Light and Sound is the true path. Light and sound is not an outer teaching. It's a way of being. He talked about other light and sound paths like radhasoami and indicated they were true light and sound paths as well. So why would he think / say / claim that masterpath was the only way? It doesn't pass the common sense test.

Masterpath is just an outer institution that Gary created--it lets him set up a situation where he can satsang with his students. YOU want to claim he told your friend that she's "deluded to think she is on the spiritual path if she is not on the MasterPath", and I call bs. Gary wouldn't say that, it is very likely you and your friend misinterpreted him. Or you conveniently changed the words for your own purposes for this thread.

See? A clear example of where your claimed experiences and my experiences contradict very strongly. You can claim whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true. So a third person can look at what you claim, look at what I claim, and decide for themselves what's true and what's false.

 

[end_of_faith]

You think you're stating facts about Gary, and I'm here to call bs.

Let's look at an example, shall we?

Originally Posted by end_of_faith
Tell me, when your master tells a person that she is deluded to think she is on the spiritual path IF SHE IS NOT ON THE MASTERPATH....what is that?

Remember saying that to me?....YOU want to claim he told your friend that she's "deluded to think she is on the spiritual path if she is not on the MasterPath", and I call bs. Gary wouldn't say that, it is very likely you and your friend misinterpreted him. Or you conveniently changed the words for your own purposes for this thread.

See? A clear example of where your claimed experiences and my experiences contradict very strongly. You can claim whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true. So a third person can look at what you claim, look at what I claim, and decide for themselves what's true and what's false.

First, where in that statement do I refer to a "friend?"

Second, the "person" is me and it is not a claim. It is a FACT! Gary was speaking to me!

Third, you are speculating about something of which you have absolutely no knowledge, let alone awareness.

Fourth, that you think "Gary wouldn't say that" ... well, it just shows how little you know.

See? A clear example that you don't know fact from fiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Friend ben d, I completely agree with your points regarding stilling the mind. Stilling the mind is bulk of my daily spiritual practice. Those without the discipline to still the mind do indeed mistake any number of internal sensory phenomena with spiritual experience.

Agreed. It is hard to discuss self and spirituality because the language itself (English) is based within a dualistic world-view. The seeker and the sought are indeed one. And I agree that those without a guru can easily spend lifetimes delving the psychic arts, all the while thinking they are making real spiritual progress. You express the point very clearly, and I very much appreciate the accuracy and insight of your remarks.

Thank you friend Vichar, there is not much one can say once it is understood that the source of maya is the conceptual mind, except to be moved to spiritual practice of a kind that is predicated towards the realization of enlightenment. There obviously can't be anything said about enlightenment because it is a non-dual state of pure awareness.

Perhaps though, some clarification on my part may be in order concerning the Adept/Guru, not necessarily for you but speaking generally to all. Religious aspirants are not all involved in worldly organizations, many have a non-sectarian approach and so for them there is no particular script to follow, nor any 'Elders' to guide (given the apostate state of the bulk of the religious institutions in the world today, there is some merit in this approach), but some are sure to run into problems that require the intervention of an Adept. This intervention actually happens if the aspirant has shown to be worthy of 'divine' assistance (not talking about a visitation from Heaven, but an intervention in human affairs nevertheless), for within all communities there are spiritual adepts (though no one knows them as such, perhaps not even themselves are aware of their spiritual status), and they will be there at the right time when and if needed to help the aspirant through the difficulty. However to reiterate, the aspirant would need to be shown worthy of such intervention and so all aspirants should approach serious religious practice with the understanding that there are great and difficult trials ahead, and only the very humble will ever realize enlightenment.