We've asked simple questions re: the efficacy of the guru that PM21 (or any chela) should be able to answer after 15 yrs of devotion and discipleship. And IMNSHO, the testimonial of the "greatness and glory of the guru" should be more provocative and intriguing than "he looks the same on the inner as he does on the outer."
Unfortunately, MasterPath is teaching students that the authenticity or veracity of the path or the Master is not the most critical issue to be considered or contemplated by a beginning student.
It begs the question: how can the veracity and authenticity of the path or master not be crucial when the foundation of the belief system is based on the absolute necessity of a bona fide sat guru? The “path and master” demand obedience, complete surrender, and adopting the viewpoint of the guru as the most expedient means for ascending to the “higher states of consciousness” within your own body. Yet, the veracity & authenticity of the “path and master” are not crucial issues according to Gary Olsen/MasterPath.
Below are a few quotes culled from the 2009 newly edited and revised MP Volume I book.
Page: viii: MasterPath Volume I
“Naturally, the majority of seekers are most concerned with the integrity of the path and the Master, and while this is understandable and highly recommended, it is not the most crucial issue according to the Living Masters of the past or present. The readiness and spiritual fitness of the seeker supersede all other requirements.”
If the integrity of the “path and Master” is not the most crucial issue for a seeker to consider before enjoining a path then why do paths like MP promote the “Master” as a centerpiece of the teachings, promoting him as a Param Saint, a bona fide guru, the Emissary for God, “God is Manifest in the Master”, etc.
Also, who are these past masters being referenced? And besides the self-proclaimed Gary, who are these other present masters that say the integrity of the path and master is not the most crucial issue?
Page 23: “The seeker of truth is usually more concerned about the integrity of a path than the integrity of oneself, and while this is natural, a great illusion can remain in place through this misconception. The illusion involves the path being held up for investigation and penetrating scrutiny, while the inner condition of the seeker is ignored or entirely forgotten.” ……
So, penetrating scrutiny and investigation of the path is an illusion due to misconception on the part of a seeker?
If the integrity and authenticity of the path is questionable or corrupt, then, how in the world is that path beneficial for the seeker in spiritually transcending his/her “inner condition?”
And further down on the same page in MP book I….
”Therefore, if the seeker searches for a path without fully realizing one’s own personal dilemma, a false self-certitude can come into play, followed closely by arrogant assumptions, which can make it very difficult to adequately deal with the task at hand. Thus, it is the seeker’s dilemma that demands attention at this time, and not the authenticity or veracity of the chosen path. The chosen path is certainly important, but the path of choice can only administer to the seeker’s self-perceived dilemma, and without understanding one’s personal dilemma, how could any endeavor or path hold any real or lasting spiritual value?”
Well, first off, most seekers search for a path because they do realize their personal dilemma. Namely, their desire for purpose and meaning. I strongly disagree with this spiel of rubbish written in Book I.
The authenticity and veracity of the path demands the seeker’s attention first and foremost. Then the seeker’s dilemma may be adequately dealt with.
If the path is not authentic, and the leader/s do not understand his/their illusion and misconceptions how can it/they spiritually, truthfully, and realistically administer to the seeker?
I see the above statement as an example of circular logic that offers nothing of real or lasting spiritual value.
But I guess according to the author/s, folks like us are simply exercising false self-certitude, arrogant assumptions, and not understanding our own self-perceived dilemmas. Oh well, I much prefer my personal dilemma to the grandiose illusion of gurudom.
Or, I would ask this question: if you are claiming to be a path representing the “Supreme Being” of the universe…is that Supreme Being so inadequate that it cannot administer to the seeker despite the seeker’s personal dilemma? Those quotes make no good sense except in serving the “master and path” from being subjected to penetrating scrutiny and investigation by the seeker.
Or, how about this question: a seeker comes to MP from another path that he/she realized was a total sham with a false guru that deceived, mislead, and abused.
So, was it the “seeker’s self-perceived dilemma” that was being administered to by that path and guru? What's worse: playing the role of false guru, or being a sincere seeker duped into believing something untrue? Which one is experiencing the greater self-perceived dilemma? Which one is more arrogant? Which one is dealing with greater illusion?
And I believe it is relatively safe to say that all of the various “paths and masters” claiming to be the "highest and purest" probably told seekers a similar rap about the veracity and authenticity not being the most crucial issue.
Regrettably, the
issue of authenticity and integrity doesn’t become
crucial until a person wakes up from the “personal dilemma” in unquestioningly placing one's faith and trust in a man (or woman) claiming to be a true guru only to realize he is a fake.