Dandy comment. What is a ‘path’?

Comment from Danny

Thanks for your comment, a good question. I am not another guru, and I am backed into the need to answer a question about ‘paths’, guru style. I can’t or won’t answer such questions, but my statement effectively does answer them, in a way. There is such a proliferation of ‘paths’, my point was to clarity two possibilities, the simple passage of time and experience, and the passage beyond. You are right that this seems to relate to the buddhist style of world renunciation. A path in time exists mathematically but it is very hard for ordinary man to realize his own ‘will’, and he is usually kidnapped by a larger religion.

It is not an easy situation.

My remarks actually were very general, based on a statement by Bennett about the Kwajagan, who showed the influence of Buddhism in Central Asia. My consideration was that lurking behind the obscurity of ‘sufi paths’, many of them hidden, many of them claiming extraordinary knowledge which they won’t reveal, to the confusion of seekers, there is a rough and brutal reduction of the question based on 1. history and 2. a statement about the dubious claims of many lost in the interstices of that history.

We can simplify the issue by looking at the streamlined history of religion, noting the peaks that stand out, and approaching the chaotic middles with a certain skepticism.

Gurdjieff claimed a great deal about lost knowledge, but those claims are undocumented, and dubious the more we learn about them. Many of these secret sufis were comparatively ignorant men, and prone to the mystical deviations that beset those who approach spiritual issues without metaphysical discipline. Gurdjieff is an adventurer, and much of his esoteric lore, if we can understand him, seem bogus. In any case, the so-called ‘path’ he proposes amounts to zilch, and has produced nothing in his followers. The behind the scenes action of insiders, I don’t know. But his outer ‘path’ is an exploitation, and a lot of dangerous people are making claim on it.

Disengage at once from such people, and consider my streamlined summary, dispensing with mystifications of ‘path peddlers’.

3 thoughts on “Dandy comment. What is a ‘path’?”

  1. “Thanks for your comment, a good question. I am not another guru, and I am backed into the need to answer a question about ‘paths’, guru style.”

    “Humbling” yourself down to the rank of guru will not inflict you any harm, if it could benefit your own younglings.

    “I can’t or won’t answer such questions, but my statement effectively does answer them, in a way. There is such a proliferation of ‘paths’, my point was to clarity two possibilities, the simple passage of time and experience, and the passage beyond. You are right that this seems to relate to the buddhist style of world renunciation. A path in time exists mathematically but it is very hard for ordinary man to realize his own ‘will’, and he is usually kidnapped by a larger religion.”

    Riddle solved, finally.(?) I hope I got it right because it is a spontaneous guess, push me back in line if I miss the mark. The idea is known to the *consolidate primordial lore* (a possible term to alternate “fourth way”, if you care to adopt it) practitioners as the objective and subjective ways. Men working on themselves in time are on the objective way. They ultimately aim at the great goal of self-completion but are doing so naturally, using their own means, tools and strengths, without external aid, while paying no regard to time or pace of advancement, even without knowing specifically where they are heading at. The way outside time appears as an anomaly intruding life from essence’s point of view in injecting synthetic means and methods – such as higher objective knowledge and or withdrawal from life in favor of work on oneself – to achieve the results much quicker.
    Still, I do not understand what is the “path of negating the will”, as you said. could you say a few more words on this subject please?

    “It is not an easy situation.”

    Wait, is there a balance and justice in the universe? Or that life are absurdly meaningless?

    “My remarks actually were very general, based on a statement by Bennett about the Kwajagan, who showed the influence of Buddhism in Central Asia. My consideration was that lurking behind the obscurity of ’sufi paths’, many of them hidden, many of them claiming extraordinary knowledge which they won’t reveal, to the confusion of seekers, there is a rough and brutal reduction of the question based on 1. history and 2. a statement about the dubious claims of many lost in the interstices of that history.

    “We can simplify the issue by looking at the streamlined history of religion, noting the peaks that stand out, and approaching the chaotic middles with a certain skepticism.”

    Through you didn’t explicitly explained it here, I think I understand theoretically the meaning of what you talk about, the relation between the small scale and large scale processes, one occurring on an individual scale of a single human life, the other at the eonic effect scale of humanity. “Who is this ‘man of will’ and what would be his place in history?” you proposed a question long back. The answer is that an element performing a shock to the interval on a large scale process will considerably appear as a sufficiently unique enigma on a smaller scale (Jesus, etc). it works in this way that the task of making things happen as they are meant to happen is entrusted to someone from below (even if he is not so fortunate so as to understand the big picture).

    “Gurdjieff claimed a great deal about lost knowledge, but those claims are undocumented, and dubious the more we learn about them. Many of these secret sufis were comparatively ignorant men, and prone to the mystical deviations that beset those who approach spiritual issues without metaphysical discipline.”

    I can imagine what it means: confusion concerning what is of primary importance and what is secondary, being sidetracked by trivials of mysticism while ignorant about what constitute the main issue, then rather then exploring it be done with the concrete (but) insubstantial things.

    “Gurdjieff is an adventurer, and much of his esoteric lore, if we can understand him, seem bogus.”

    Well, maybe so, but – Pardon me, Please… at least some of his ideas are unerringly gifted with merit, like the idea of centers, essence… and few else more. It is essential to have abounds of common sense, sharp wits and inexhaustible hunger for development plus willingness to unrelentingly experiment with those ideas to discover where exactly the value glints hidden in them. It is better to say, if anything, that Gurdjieff himself was a bogus (if you can back up this statement), for the ideas, taken a bit (or a lot) further can generate a spiritual path, a first line of work.

    “In any case, the so-called ‘path’ he proposes amounts to zilch, and has produced nothing in his followers.”

    Are you referring to the attempt to follow the consolidate primordial lore path in time, that is, without withdrawing out from the world – a supposedly extra-hard task because a man has to try and break up internally his chains while externally suited in the conditions of a prison?

    “The behind the scenes action of insiders, I don’t know. But his outer ‘path’ is an exploitation, and a lot of dangerous people are making claim on it.

    “Disengage at once from such people, and consider my streamlined summary, dispensing with mystifications of ‘path peddlers’.”

    I will add: it is not hard to distinguish the true path from the false path. The false is likely to taint its well-known, mean language, of singular egocentric interests. The true path? It is deep inside you.

    Danny

  2. There is a lot of material here, get me some time. I will answer the question about ‘negating will’ first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s