Gary Olsen's "Master Path" - anybody familiar? (after-life, originate, atheists)

[Still_Kicking]

I remember that Sufism was often connected / correlated to the MP and its teachings, I wanted to share what I recently read from another former Sufi teacher about spiritual teachers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As soon as possible this teacher [should dismiss] the disciple, who becomes his own man of wisdom, and then he continues his self-work.

False masters in Sufism, as everywhere else, have not been few. So the Sufis are left with the strange situation that whereas the false teacher may appear to be genuine (because he takes pains to appear what the disciple wants him to be), the true Sufi is often not like what the undiscriminating and untrained Seeker thinks a Sufi should be like.

... The false teacher will pay great attention to appearance, and will know how to make the Seeker think that he is a great man, that he understands him, that he has great secrets to reveal.

... Sufism is something that happens to a person, not something which is given to him. The false teacher will keep his followers around him all the time, will not tell them that they are being given a training which must end as soon as possible, [and will not give them the opportunity to] taste their development themselves and carry on as fulfilled people.

Idries Shah, The Sufis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Think for yourselves

[end_of_faith]

Originally Posted by Still_Kicking

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As soon as possible this teacher [should dismiss] the disciple, who becomes his own man of wisdom, and then he continues his self-work.

False masters in Sufism, as everywhere else, have not been few. So the Sufis are left with the strange situation that whereas the false teacher may appear to be genuine (because he takes pains to appear what the disciple wants him to be), the true Sufi is often not like what the undiscriminating and untrained Seeker thinks a Sufi should be like.

... The false teacher will pay great attention to appearance, and will know how to make the Seeker think that he is a great man, that he understands him, that he has great secrets to reveal.

... Sufism is something that happens to a person, not something which is given to him. The false teacher will keep his followers around him all the time, will not tell them that they are being given a training which must end as soon as possible, [and will not give them the opportunity to] taste their development themselves and carry on as fulfilled people.

Idries Shah, The Sufis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Think for yourselves

Bravo!

The false guru is a smarmy salesman (or trickster) that subtly manipulates the seeker from engaging any penetrating scrutiny of the path or guru. Their real talent seems to be in their ability to obfuscate the attention from rational analyzing of the veracity or authenticity of the ‘guru’ or the ‘path’ by turning it back on the seeker. And they call it "absolute truth."

Earlier in this thread, a poster said that he could not state one way or another if the guru is true or not.

Why would anyone want to follow a so-called guru when there is no way to know if he is true…and simultaneously, surrender to "his unfailing direction" to prove yourself worthy. If a man is going to claim that he is the Word made Flesh, a natural born Saint of the highest order, etc.... then I say: prove it!

[Still_Chealaing]

Originally Posted by end_of_faith

Why would anyone want to follow a so-called guru when there is no way to know if he is true…and simultaneously, surrender to "his unfailing direction" to prove yourself worthy.

Because I choose to. It works for me, it enriches my life and addresses my spiritual side.
Isn’t that enough?

Look at this another way, from the Unknowing Sage:

I say that wherever or in whomsoever you have faith think that He is a Perfect Man and Omni-potent [and] your purpose shall be served. If my form manifests itself and helps those who have faith in me, then the form of other gurus also manifest themselves to their disciples and helps them. Leave aside the Saints, you put a wicked and immoral person on the seat of a Guru, develop faith in him, his form too shall manifest and help you like the manifested form of the great Saints. You are not helped by any Saint or Guru, but by your own faith and belief.

In light of this, does it really matter if Sri Gary is ‘real’ as you call it?

Whatever form mani-fests to you it is the form of your own faith and belief.

In fact, aren’t you in some, indirectly of course, by weakening and attacking the faith and belief of the Chela’s robbing or weakening of this process? If its my own faith and belief that is important, where does that put you who are attempting to weaken my faith and belief? Ok a silly point, but interesting in some way. If what actually matters most is my personal beleifs, faith, the practice - not the 'form' I use in the practice - the where does that place you who's goal is to awaken me to my delusions and false faith and errouneous beliefs?

I wonder if your words are confused? Does Sri Gary, the outer master, claim to be unfailing? as in not making mistakes? I thought the teaching was that inner master was the unfailing 'entity' Would you clarify for me?

Originally Posted by end_of_faith

If a man is going to claim that he is the Word made Flesh, a natural born Saint of the highest order, etc.... then I say: prove it!

That is of course a fine standard by which to run your life and I don’t fault it at all. What sticks in my craw is the judgment made of those of us who decide to move with provisional faith and not some form of unfailing measured/documented proof.

Originally Posted by Still_Kicking

These behaviors that people have observed by Gary and reported here, despite the source doesn't make the observation any less true.

The source of a claim doesn’t reflect on its integrity, validity and truth? Is that what you where saying? I don’t particularly believe that and am actually surprised that a rational person would say this. Which makes me curious if I am completely missing the point?

This type of misdirection is typical of cults, and those they have brainwashed.

Oh come on now, the tact of misdirection, of red wheels, false arguments is common EVERYWHERE. It’s a human tact if anything. Im watching well known scientist do the same thing when it comes to discussions about natural selection – every and any discussion about it faults gets misdirected to a God and intelligent design discussion. There are skeptics here who can’t answer a straight question, etc. My point is I find it disingenuous of you to label this as something typical of ‘only’ Cults or brainwashed individuals.


OH, and by ‘Cults’ can I assume you only mean Harmful/Destructive Cults? Those that would practice in ‘brainwashing’? Why wouldn’t you say so if this is the case? Or are you lumping all Cults together?

The bottom line is that the real comparison is that no one on this blog is creating a religion or asking anyone to join it, or selling anything either.

Gary Olsen on the other hand is, he is the one who benefits, as the old saying goes, follow the money...see who benefits by these statements and then you will be one step closer to the truth.

Is Sri Gary creating a Religion? I suppose this might be true if we define religion the right way. What would your definition be, just to get us on the same page.


Who benefits from MP? Me, I do. Most practicing Cheala’s I know say they do. My familly beneifits in a seconadary way.
So perhaps we differ on the word benefit? Is monetary gain the only form of benefit you were focused on? Does my employer benefit from my services? Does my college benefit from my tuition? Yes but don’t I receive value back from them? Why wouldn’t you view MP as a two way exchange? You seem to present this as a one way exchange?

instead of answering the question directly

Ok but to be fair, Richard wasn’t answering any question posed to him. He was I believe simply expressing his opinion. So it’s a bit of misdirection on your part to paint him this way. It’s like taking a specific, isolated, individuals view and twisting that into a generalization of a whole class of people, don’t you think?

I remember that Sufism was often connected / correlated to the MP and its teachings,

I don’t remember that at all. I believe you mean Sihkism? Ani Grath and all that? Much more mentioned in MP then Sufism by far. Im not even sure I can recollect being copared to Sufism at all.

Yeah that was thing that I pulled from "The Unknowing Sage" article. That all of these impressions are creations by the individual reinforcing what they believe into and onto their own minds about what they choose to believe in who is god.

The precursor is that you have to believe that Gary, or whomever, is a god-man. If you don't believe that then it this will fail in one's attempt to have inner experiences with a "god". If anything positive happens for the individual it is their faith and belief that actually creates it, not any innate power that Gary has.

Gary by his statements is actually taking credit for each individual's actual capabilities and passing them off as his own. That is a lie that he uses to take advantage of people and get their money and/or their worshiping him.

Anyway the whole thing is based on the individual impressing their own mind, essentially programming it, this is called thought reform, in order to create the inner experiences that people say what they have when they have them with Gary's image, but it is because they believe that he is a representative of god.

Again the "The Unknowing Sage" article really spells all of that out, the other stuff about denial, and related subjects essentially showed me how the mind can be so easily molded in a particular direction once one accepts one or two precepts that offered up to it. A slippery slope for sure, at least IMO. Faqir Chand really had said it best when he said that guruism was a sham to make money.

Yep Gary can't do the type of experiment you suggest anyway it is not within his power to create, not unless he can get people to believe it of course.

For me at least it doesn't matter anymore, these guys are charlatans plain and simple, and hence if reincarnation does exist, Gary will be back to be duped in another life to learn that lesson.

Lets start at the end. Where did Chand say that ‘all’ guruism was a sham to make money?


“I feel that most of the past mahatmas and the present gurus by keeping the secret Truth unrevealed/undisclosed have been unfair to the public and have often exploited them.”


Faqr Chand did believe in Guru’s he had one himself - “Thus I have come here to pay my respects to Tara Chand Ji, a True Form of my Sat Guru.” Unless he denounced his own Guru in there and I’ve not read it yet.

I believe the article makes the case for a gradient, a continuum of guru awareness of the chela’s inner visions. From unaware to Fully Aware and with partially aware in between. It does claim the Fully Aware gurus are a small bunch and offers a subjective statement of like 1%. The article doesn’t address those that are sometimes, partially, when they need to be, in emergency, situations.


I agree that a heavy % of the experiences that Chela’s are likely not in the awareness of the chela’s outer master. I believe that the inner master is ‘aware’ of them all, by definition. I can also accept that some % may be experiences that are driven by the chela’s mind, by kal, or other forces.


This said, I have questions about the logic of Faqir’s revelation

- The Chela has an ‘experience’ of the inner master and the outer master is not aware
- The conclusion is the Chela’s mind ‘made up’ the experience


What is not spoken about is the inner master may, and likely does, work through the Chela’s mind. In other words the fact that the mind is involved does not rule out the inner master being involved.


It also stands that Ka or other ‘forces’ could work through the mind and appear to come from the mind.

So in light of this article how does it apply to Sri Gary? I have to go look at Sri Gary’s statements of knowing of Chela’s inner visions, does he claim that the outer master knows or that inner master knows. Does he claim the inner master reveals all to the outer master? I simply don’t know right now, I’ve never thought to keep that distinction in my head while listening, I will going forward.


Though I do have to ask so what? If my own faith and belief are the key thing, is it harmful if my faith and belief are shored up a bit?

I wonder when I study the lives of these Saints and mahatmas and doubt whether these mahatmas did any justice to their ignorant disciples. They did not disclose the total Truth as they knew it, possibly due to the paucity of true seekers or due to their selfish motives of name, fame and wealth. But if a disciple does not feel indebted to the Guru who imparts him True Knowledge then that disciple is most ungrateful

I am a most Grateful Chela. My $30 a mointh is well worth it to me and doesnt take food from my childredns mouth.


I appreciate the article and for myself found nothing in it that has of yet proven to me that Sri Gary is a fraud or more importantly I am not finding much of anything that conflicts with Sri Gary’s teaching and practices. I certainly am not seeing the ‘proof’ that you do.


By the way, I have to ask. Does anyone that uses Faqir Chand’s work to support their anti-Guru stance, do you also follow his recommend practices for daily living? What view should we have of folks that sorta ‘cherry pick’ – pulling from the work that which supports their case, but leaving the rest?

Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss.

[Still_Kicking]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Still_Kicking
These behaviors that people have observed by Gary and reported here, despite the source doesn't make the observation any less true.

The source of a claim doesn’t reflect on its integrity, validity and truth? Is that what you where saying? I don’t particularly believe that and am actually surprised that a rational person would say this. Which makes me curious if I am completely missing the point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes you are missing my point, what I am saying is just because the tactic of "takes one to know one" is used, it is a specious one, meant to distract, and force the discussion back upon the mind of the questioner who is raising issue with Gary's behavior without bearing on the truth, the only attempt is to shut up the questioner.

For example, if I were someone else investigating a spiritual path, and its leader, I would want to know if he was a narcissist. Frankly who would give a crap if I personally am a narcissist when I am providing the information, the only concern would be is the information true.

As far as misdirection goes your statements start to sound like... "its out there, it's common human tact [did you mean trait]", and that you don't seem to have a problem with the Gary, the MP or chelas using such tactics. I do have a problem with these misdirection tactics. You can support that approach all you want, I believe it is unethical, and very telling indeed for a supposed spiritual path purported to be of the highest where such behavior would even be condoned.

Re: the MP being a religion and what Gary is trying to create,"Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", so that we are on the same page.

Re: the value of the MP, for most who have posted here, we have not gotten value that was stated we'd be getting by actively participating in. OK you say you get value, and you state some other's do too, OK but what value is that specifically?

You haven't stated that, lot's of defense, or offense, but no statement of value gained? that might be more helpful here for all concerned. Every chela I have asked to state what the specific value is, well it's not been forthcoming in clear and concise manner.

As for Faqir Chand and what he had to say about guruism, his condemnation of it, in combination with my own experiences and the experiences shared by others helped me to arrive at my own conclusion that Gary is not Sat.

re: your cherry picking comment, what do you mean? What are specifically getting at? I could say the same about your comments that you've pulled from "the Unknowing Sage". Careful there's a word for that, they call it hypocrisy.

Hey just because you haven't heard of the connection / correlation to Sufism it doesn't mean that it hasn't been made in the past.

Certainly it should reasonably cause one to pause since I have not heard a single chela deny that Gary has actually made derogatory statements about people who leave the MP, or that they're screwed, or do you stand alone as the one who says that hasn't ever happened? Why would a "master" ever have a need to do that? Now that isn't rational, that is a fear tactic if there was ever was one.

For those who don't know that another Light & Sound master has outright stated that the creation of these religious "estates" funded by their students earnings was not a dharmicaly correct course of action. The MP is in direct contradiction to that direction.

Hey listen if you want to follow Gary and the MP you go for it, more power to you, truly, really, knock yourself out.

[Still_Chealaing]

+++ Yes you are missing my point, what I am saying is just because the tactic of "takes one to know one" is used, it is a specious one, meant to distract, and force the discussion back upon the mind of the questioner who is raising issue with Gary's behavior without bearing on the truth, the only attempt is to shut up the questioner.

Ok, so you agree that if someone makes a claim, 'Gary is a fraud', that the 'source' of that claim, the person, does have a bearing on the integrity and truth of the claim? If I see you have lots of narssistic traits yourself, and you tell me you see narssism in others, sure Ill be suspect of your judgement. I cant tell you how many times in life I have seen people that complain about the faults in others that they don't see in themselves. If you tell me that Sri Gary is a sham, and it becomes apparent that your an athiest who beleives all Gurus and all religion is a sham, sure that will affect my view of the veracity and context of your statement, shouldnt it?

I have a problem with anyone that can't deal with the facts and is misdirecting, on purpose. I dislike being in a dsicussion and a person repeatedly and apprently purposefully can't address the point. My reaction was to your misinformation to paint this as 'common' to Cults, what ever those are, in blanket generalization. Its common everywhere, even here, by you and by me (meaning Ive been accused of it)

Which rasies the point that it is also a common tactic of people to blame others of misdirecting as a tactic. Continue reading and you'll see what I mean. So who's to prove if someone was guilty of this 'unethical 'practice or the responder was focused on a point important to them? How do you know that the one person, Richard was it, was engaged in some unethical, purposed tactic? Perhaps he was just expressing his viewpoint as he understood it?

++and that you don't seem to have a problem with the Gary, the MP or chelas using such tactics.

So what kind of 'argument' was that? sounds specious to me. It was cedrtainly a misrepresentation if not convolution of my words.
Did I agree that these tactics are being used in intentional malicous, practiced way by Richard, MP, Gary? No. Never mentioned a word about it or how I felt abouit it. But yet here you are twisting out that statement to make me sound unethical and such. What kind of debate/argument tactic would you call that?

As far as the rest if that rant about how pitiful it is that a spiritual path would do an unethical thing. Again, false conclusion derived from incorrect assumptions. Garbage in, Garbage out. But hey it sounds good and feels really heavy in a ' isn't it sad that such exists in the world' kind of way.

And how did we go from a single person making a comment that your just guessing was based on some practice you feel is unethical, a stretch, and now have mapped it on to all of MP, and Gary, ex? Where is your proof that such has happened, on a practiced, purpose intent to deceive?

++ "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", so that we are on the same page.

I am not sure I can go with all beliefs systems are Religions. An atheist has a belief system, does that make atheism a religion?
Nor can I go with the idea that all matters of faith are religious.

Your going to have to have another definition before I'll agree that MP is a Religion or that Gary is creating a Religion

To be specific, is Gary trying to 'create' a belief system or is he teaching others a pre-existing belief system? All I see Sri Gary creating is a unique way to practice and a way of teaching that is more aligned with his audience.

++Re: the value of the MP, for most who have posted here, we have not gotten value that was stated we'd be getting by actively participating in. OK you say you get value, and you state some other's do too, OK but what value is that specifically?

++ Every chela I have asked to state what the specific value is, well it's not been forthcoming in clear and concise manner.

You raised the issue of who gets value and incorrectly stated, implied, it was just Sri Gary. You left out a very important fact that it was a two way street, with value flowing in both directions. Do you agree that you left that viewpoint out? Are you clear now on who gets value from MP? Its unclear in your response since you jump in on another issue of describing my personal value/experience.

It would be good to close one subject before starting another, help mne do the same as well.

Gotta say it seems like misdirection, a specious argument, for you want me to delve into personal issues? Please explain its relevance to the discussion of who gets value in MP? Perhaps you were simply segway into another point. Thats fine except you didnt address at all the error and correction to your statement.

Tell you what, ask EOF, endofaith, what value she was getting out of MP for the first 10 or 15 years, whatever it was before she lost her faith. I mean I assume she stayed in so long because there was value, until there wasn't. Id like to hear about her inner experiences, did ever have night dream, experience the inner form of the master, hear sounds? Did she get any value from there practice of inner reflection, emotional honesty, self awareness, etc? I am at a loss as to how someone allows themselves, tricks themselves to stay so blinded to such a humongous lie for so long?

You mentioned value to all of the readers by such disclosure. I agree I think it would be an incredible learning experience for everyone, including current chelas if she would go into this subject. In a forthcoming, clear and concise manner of course.

+++As for Faqir Chand and what he had to say about guruism, his condemnation of it, in combination with my own experiences and the experiences shared by others helped me to arrive at my own conclusion that Gary is not Sat.

Thats cool. No questions about your personal decisions or process. You do leave me with the impression that Faqir Chand by himself doesn't support a guideline by which we can conclude if a Sat Guru is true or not? which I agree with.

+++your cherry picking comment, what do you mean? What are specifically getting at? I could say the same about your comments that you've pulled from "the Unknowing Sage". Careful there's a word for that, they call it hypocrisy.

I asked if you would consider using specific quotes/insights from a man whom you don't follow or believe in his other recommendations - like how to live a right life - would that be akin to cherry picking? For me I find it a bit disingenuous, or opportunistic for someone to quote a Master when they have no other connection or belief in that Master. It may be hypocritical, but all I did was ask you your opinion of that situation. Did I accuse anyone of Cherry picking, don't think so. For myself I find that his recommedned daily practices are pretty much part of my life already. So no I don't find my taking specific points that were relevant to answer a specific question, as cherry picking. I guess we could have a discussion about the difference from extracting points relevant to an argument in progress and cherry picking from sources.

So do we agree, people that take a few quotes but don't follow the mans recommended life practices would be hypocritical? I mean that was my question. Why are you constantly changing the subject,answering questions with questions and seemingly misdirecting things?

In any case, was there some specific part of Faqir Chands points that you feel I left unnoticed or unaddressed that are important for me to know and consider?

++Hey just because you haven't heard of the connection / correlation to Sufism it doesn't mean that it hasn't been made in the past.

Hey, that wasn't your point, you used words like often and frequently, implying a relationship between the two. Your simply incorrect on that.

This is important to the discussion because you then used sufisms to make a case about MP/Gary, as if MP/Gary was violating another L&S/related practice. Sufism is NOT consider a L&S based practice.

I did not say that Sufism was never mentioned in any lecture, satsang etc. I'm sure it has been when talking about the 'Word' and those beleifs based on the word of god. But as a practice and as a Light and Sound based teaching, is much closer to MP. It is a L&S derivitive, Sufism is not. Are you having resistance to simply saying 'whoops your right?' Do you care that this completely undercuts the point you were making?

++Certainly it should reasonably cause one to pause since I have not heard a single chela deny that Gary has actually made derogatory statements about people who leave the MP,

Heh? the fact that I (as in any chela) cannot atest to everything Gary has ever said to anyone about a chela, in or out of MP, means all claims are true? Come on that has to be one of the most self serving, if not idiotic proofs I've ever heard. Let me walk through this, EOF makes such an assertion. No one else is around, certainly no one posting here, so no one can refute that claim by EOF. Therefore its logical to you to conclude it must, by lack of evidence to the contrary, is true? Please tell me I am misunderstanding or I will loose faith - in your ability to reason.

>>Why would a "master" ever have a need to do that? Now that isn't rational, that is a fear tactic if there was ever was one.

So you've reached the conclusion that telling a chela that leaving the path can be, or even will be, harmful to them is clearly a scare tactic? You reached this conlcusion because you cannot 'see' any other reason for it? Basically in absence of a reason you like, you chose the worst view and assumed malicious intent? Do you do that with everything? Assume the worse when you cant see any rational reason yourself? I've found a phrase in my life, never assume malicious intent for something that can be chalked up to ignorance.

For me, I simply assume that such warnings are based on truth, from love for the chela, etc. Can you prove they weren't? Considerer that I just gave my daughter a ration of warning about going out in the icy roads, warned her and everything. Why would I do that? was it malicious?

++For those who don't know that another Light & Sound master has outright stated that the creation of these religious "estates" funded by their students earnings was not a dharmicaly correct course of action.
The MP is in direct contradiction to that direction.

Please do yourself a favor, expand your critique. There is TON of stuff in the way MP is practiced that is extremely different from other L&S paths, especially the more traditional ones from India. The lack of vows such as celibacy and vegan and 2+ hours of meditative practice a day, those are sacrilege to other Sat Gurus.

So be clear, there are other Sat Gurus that would specifically critique much of MP as not being true L&S. There is no reason to limit this to just money.

Outer masters will disagree, they have different cultural values and background. Many Sat Guru masters of the west, or is it east, are stooped in values that go back a 1000 years or so. So applying what some other Sat Gurus said as valid practice has to be taken in that context.

Does your case depend on you seeing this other guy as a real Sat Guru? I mean if your using him as an authentic source worth listening to, you must be asserting they are a Sat Guru. Or are you just finding something that supported your case and throwing it out there?

By the way which one? Please provide the name, some reference, anything I would love to see the discussion in context, inquiring minds want to know.

Please Please don't say Julian Johnson the author of Path of the Masters. You will come off badly, for starters he wasn't a master, just a chela.

Hey listen if you want to follow Gary and the MP you go for it, more power to you, truly, really, knock yourself out.

I would say the same back, if you want to believe in something else, including nothing, feel free, really knock yourself out. I am here because it is intellectually stimulating and a subject near to my heart and soul. Its helping me expand my perspective and knowledge. I appreciate the ability to ask, explore and learn.

[Still_Chealaing]

Originally Posted by Still_Kicking

PM21,
Since in the end you're betting the farm that he is what he says he is.

Just curious, in what way am I 'betting the farm'?

Do mean financially? My farm is bigger the a few hundred a year.

Do you mean my immortal soul? How so, if SGO is a not a Sat Guru, how
has anything been been compromised?

A very unclear but ominous sounding statement

[Still_Chealaing]

[quote]It's interesting that the conclusions of those of us who see Gary as a false guru are not considered valid or real. While the conclusions of those who see him as a true guru are viewed as spiritually enlightened. [/qoute]

Heh? Where? Here at this site?
Isnt this a matter of perspective?

The MP Chela's the few that are here do suspect, see flaws and dont accept a great deal of the 'facts' presented by thiose folks that call MP is a Destructive Cult lead by a very bad person.

The non Chelas, the majority isnt it, lable the Chelas as dupes, cult followers, unenlightended, etc etc.

So either 'camp' is guilty of not beleiving and invalidating the other.
That I can buy

But to spin this as onesided as you have seems - i dont know manipulative, biased. Doesnt it?

[Still_Chealaing]

Hi AnonChick, I mean Violet.

--the unfounded claims .. mystical power or ability to transmit consciousness experiences to students

Can you point me to this claim? Thats not meant as a challenge but because I find that these points often need to be reviewed in context. Do you know if Gary made the claim that he the man could do this or that he as the inner master can do this? As a Chela the distinction is important to me, though I doubt it makes much difference to others.

Personally in my experience so far I've no recollection of Gary ever claiming that he the man could like sit down and transmit an experience into my head.

Also, one of the things that attracts me to MP is the focus on sidestepping psychic powers/experiences, including OBEs - As they Upanishads teach these are available but ultimately traps along the way. I am not all that interested in paths that seek such experiences. So again, I don't remember claims that Gary had such powers, other then an enlightened ability to connect with the inner master.

A personal question, what is it that bothers you more, the claim of such abilities or the fact that its unsubstantiated, or both?


++What actions did you yourself take after hearing the 2006 bird flu seminar?

I cant answer the other questions, but to this one, nothing. This felt like Gary talking and not Sri Gary, and I find I tend to tune him out a bit when he starts going into physics and stuff like that. Fortunately I don't find him going off on these non spiritual tangents very often. And actually last year he spoke about the swine flu and showed a somewhat impressive command of details. It appears to be something he feels strongly about, being prepared.

Since the 2006 bird flu lecture, not because of it, I have stocked my basement with 6 months of food and water for 4 people. I think that is a prudent course.

[Still_Chealaing]

A god-man is an ideal right?

This is very interesting question to me, for a long time

What would an enlightened being 'look' like.

What I mean by look is how would they be perceived?
Any physical traits? Clothing, attire?

What about behavioral traits? Would everyone perceive them as kind, compassionate, charismatic, gentle, humble?

Could some folks perceive them as grumpy, stand offish, or even mean?

Would everyone on earth perceive them as a God man or would some folks not?

And of course as much basis for those claims/views the better.

It just seems that we have some unspoken assumptions, usually derived from an idealistic view of Jesus or some other prophet. I'm just poking at those assumptions.


I was in a conversations with some Christians over the holidays and they spoke of family values and some idea of how Jesus was a model for that. I asked them if they had ever read the bible, because frankly the bible I read Jesus comes off a testy, short with his disciples, even a bit demeaning and impatient. He was also pretty dismissive to his mother and lastly there is the case where he speaks about killing ones family, leaving them behind, all the kinds of stuff we here as bad in destructive cults. And this doesnt even touch the old testiment and lal the child sacrifces, burning kids because God met some prayer, etc.

This is what I mean by idealized views of what a God man would look like.

[Still_Chealaing]

Originally Posted by Violet11

You are choosing NOT to put Gary above all, and I respect that. What I was questioning was why you chose MasterPath as a method of opening your third eye, and yet do not follow the method as prescribed by the master.

Sorry for so many posts. I am reading things from latest and going backwards and finding some things that interest me.

How does the board/group deal with claims/spin/phrasings such as the above that are to me and my understanding, simply inaccurate, misunderstandings of the teachings?

Violet, do you appreciate that there might be subtleties to the teachings that you don't get? Would it matter or would you see these 'subtleties' as just some evasion or double speak by a chela?




I am not trying to mince or pick apart words as some distraction but the phrasing or usage of this aspect of focus bothers me. As example:

When it comes to priorities
Firstly I believe I am spirit having a human experience. I believe in the whole wheel of live, great cycle of being and the basic idea that my overall purpose is to evolve, to go back home so to speak.

If I really believe that then walking my talk would to make my spiritual journey, growth, be a priority in my life. It just seems to me that I would be disingenuous, not putting my money where my beliefs are to do anything less. This just makes sense to me but perhaps there is an argument that this is flawed thinking?

I have heard Gary explain this 'master first' as you call it in much the same way. Though more often Ive heard it about making spiritual practice/exercises be a priority and how much you do this is a measurement of how much one has the conviction of their beliefs.

And Ive always heard this against the background of the human tendency to let life get in the way. To let other things rob you of the time you spend in spiritual exercises each day.

Thats the context I ve heard and feel around this. Spiritual path is a priority, do you exercises daily, don't let other things in life be a priority.

The singular sound byte of Master first, above all others is probably the most negative, expression I've heard of it and it seems laden with imagery of narcissism and other claims. Like spend money on MP before buying flowers for your wife, or food for your kids. Not that anyone made that claim, but the Master first is laden with that imagery.

The descriptor of the as to put 'Gary first, Gary above all, is so off the mark that its either indicative of a real misunderstanding by those that use it, or a purposed intent to spin things as negatively as possible.

Where is your attention? 3rd eye blind
The third eye focus is out of context and unrelated to the master first. Not sure if you were or were not trying to draw them together? The third eye practice is simple, its a matter of centering, awareness/ attention, of drawing energy to the third eye area, as a regular practice.


++The beyond warm fuzzies/sparkling mind you experience with new ideas coming out of nowhere...how is this unique to MasterPath and why do you credit Gary with it?

These same experiences are felt by others on other paths and under different conditions. If you find one that works for you stick with it.

I personally don't credit it to Gary at all, I credit it to myself, my choices, my level of practice, devotion etc. I don't feel that Gary then man hand anything but an indirect influence (by teaching me, leading me to the exercises, etc)

++You'll note that the geniuses and great minds of the world, and the greatest spiritual leaders/philosophers in history have never heard of the MasterPath.

I am unclear on the point of this? is this a pre-req in your view for someone to make a choice of spiritual path?

Originally Posted by end_of_faith

"if you're a second initiate (and above) and this question was posed to you, and you put FAMILY BEFORE the MASTER, then, you're in tinseltown."

So I went back to find the discussion on circular logic that was mentioned above and ran into the above, I am editing it in here so as not to start a new thread.

EOF, what do you find wrong about the above quote? I mean I find it to be true, I agree with the sentiment and meaning of it, I tried to explain my context above. You cast it as some rambling of a megalomaniac. Can you explain where my interpretation is gone astray?

Note that the context of the question wasn't about day to day or even normal circumstances. The context was your about to die. If I was about to die, preparing for what comes after death would become very important to me. If I was a Christian or had such leanings I would spend more time making sure I was square with Jesus then comforting my wife. Anyway I just don't get where your negative spin on this question/answer comes in.