A study and critique of mysticism

[obyvatel]

I have been trying to understand the phenomenon of mysticism for some time. I grew up in a culture that celebrated this phenomenon and considered it to be a higher state of being, something that every person should aspire towards. Only in recent years I got some exposure to the study of the phenomenon of mysticism and the conclusions I have tentatively drawn so far is very different from my initial ideas. Laura alluded to the mystical states in the Wave series and wrote that these by far were states of neurochemical bliss. Use of external substances to generate these states are detrimental to personal development, and there have been detailed discussions on that aspect elsewhere in the forum. My interest is geared more towards understanding mysticism and such states which are arrived at without external material agencies, through some form of inner discipline and work. ISOTM and Gnosis have some snippets of information related to this. Lost Christianity goes into this phenomenon in some detail which helped put the snippets from ISOTM and Gnosis into proper perspective. So here is a collection of some of the stuff I have been able to put together.
For me the starting point for the study of mysticism has been the understanding of different states of consciousness as laid out in ISOTM and Gnosis.

States of Consciousness
[quote author=ISOTM, Chapter 8]
"In all there are four states of consciousness possible for man" (he emphasized the word "man"), "But ordinary man, that is, man number one, number two, and number three, lives in the two lowest states of consciousness only. The two higher states of consciousness are inaccessible to him, and although he may have flashes of these states, he is unable to understand them and he judges them from the point of view of those states in which it is usual for him to be.
"The two usual, that is, the lowest, states of consciousness are first, sleep, in other words a passive state in which man spends a third and very often a half of his life. And second, the state in which men spend the other part of their lives, in which they walk the streets, write books, talk on lofty subjects, take part in politics, kill one another, which they regard as active and call 'clear consciousness' or the 'waking state of consciousness.' The term 'clear consciousness' or 'waking state of consciousness' seems to have been given in jest, especially when you realize what clear consciousness ought in reality to be and what the state in which man lives and acts really is.
"The third state of consciousness is self-remembering or self-consciousness or consciousness of one's being. It is usual to consider that we have this state of consciousness or that we can have it if we want it. Our science and philosophy have overlooked the fact that we do not possess this state of consciousness and that we cannot create it in ourselves by desire or decision alone.
"The fourth state of consciousness is called the objective state of consciousness . In this state a man can see things as they are. Flashes of this state of consciousness also occur in man. In the religions of all nations there are indications of the possibility of a state of consciousness of this kind which is called 'enlightenment' and various other names but which cannot be described in words. But the only right way to objective consciousness is through the development of self-consciousness. If an ordinary man is artificially brought into a state of objective consciousness and afterwards brought back to his usual state he will remember nothing and he will think that for a time he had lost consciousness. But in the state of self-consciousness a man can have flashes of objective consciousness and remember them.
"The fourth state of consciousness in man means an altogether different state of being; it is the result of inner growth and of long and difficult work on oneself.
………………..
"The two higher states of consciousness—'self-consciousness' and 'objective consciousness'—are connected with the functioning of the higher centers in man.
"In addition to those centers of which we have so far spoken there are two other centers in man, the 'higher emotional' and the 'higher thinking.' These centers are in us; they are fully developed and are working all the time, but their work fails to reach our ordinary consciousness
……………………
But man does not know of the third state of consciousness or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Facts that contradict that, he considers to be accidental or temporary, which will change by themselves. By considering that he possesses self-consciousness, as it were by nature, a man will not of course try to approach or obtain it. And yet without self-consciousness, or the third state, the fourth, except in rare flashes, is impossible. Knowledge, however, the real objective knowledge towards which man, as he asserts, is struggling, is possible only in the fourth state of consciousness, that is, it is conditional upon the full possession of the fourth state of consciousness. Knowledge which is acquired in the ordinary state of consciousness is intermixed with dreams.
……………………………..
All these 'mystical states' and so on are wrong definitions but when they are not deceptions or imitations they are flashes of what we call an objective state of consciousness .

[/quote]

 

[obyvatel]

G says that the “right” way towards objective consciousness is through the development of self-consciousness. Apparently there are ways and means to briefly experience the objective state of consciousness (4th state) without being firmly grounded in the state of self consciousness (3rd state). My current understanding (shaped to a large extent from Needleman’s Lost Christianity), is that the phenomenon of mysticism commonly encountered belongs to this category where the 4th state of consciousness is briefly experienced without the going through the process of developing self consciousness.
While talking about the development of the food, air and impression octaves within the human organism in ISOTM, G talks about two voluntary or conscious shocks – one that is triggered by self-remembering at the instant when impressions enter the human organism and the other that is related to the work on the transformation and transmutation of emotions. Regarding the second shock, G writes that
[quote author=ISOTM]
"The practice of not expressing unpleasant emotions, of not 'identifying,' of not 'considering inwardly,' is the preparation for the second effort.
…..
"The effort which creates this 'shock' must consist in work on the emotions, in the transformation and transmutation of the emotions.
[/quote]
The transmutation of emotions is of interest in alchemy. Regarding this, G says
[quote author=ISOTM]
This transmutation of the emotions will then help the transmutation of si 12 in the human organism. No serious growth, that is, no growth of higher bodies within the organism, is possible without this transmutation. The idea of this transmutation was known to many ancient teachings as well as to some comparatively recent ones, such as the alchemy of the Middle Ages.
…………….
"Alchemists who spoke of this transmutation began directly with it. They knew nothing, or at least they said nothing, about the nature of the first volitional 'shock.' It is upon this, however, that the whole thing depends. The second volitional 'shock' and transmutation become physically possible only after long practice on the first volitional 'shock,' which consists in self-remembering, and in observing the impressions received. On the way of the monk and on the way of the fakir work on the second 'shock' begins before work on the first 'shock,' but as mi 12 is created only as a result of the first 'shock,' work, in the absence of other material, has of necessity to be concentrated on si 12, and it very often gives quite wrong results . Right development on the fourth way must begin with the first volitional 'shock' and then pass on to the second 'shock' at mi 12.
[/quote]
And what could be these “wrong results”? Needleman talks about this in Lost Christianity.

[quote author=Lost Christianity]
The idea here is that ultimate religious experience, “mysticism”, brings man into the higher realms [objective consciousness] but is not in itself the fulfillment of his possible being.
[/quote]
Here Father Vincent is talking about his exposure to the so called mystical experiences
[quote author=Lost Christianity]
….And thereafter I had several strong religious experiences in my prayers and in the recitals of the Office. Yet something completely bowled me over: I definitely experienced – not once, but a dozen times at least – that my identity did not even exist during these religious experiences.
Now, this is where I get into trouble talking with people. People say, ‘Yes, yes – the ego vanishes. The ordinary self disappears into the love of Christ’ – or something along these lines. …..
I can’t ever explain, I gave up trying to explain, that the identity disappeared in the same way it disappeared when I rammed into that Buick. The same way it disappeared and was disappearing a hundred times a day in every petty annoyance or emotional outburst.
I was disgusted with myself in a way that I had never before experienced. This not existing is despicable, it is not anything transcendent or anything mystical. If it is mystical, then you know what you can do with the mystics.
[/quote]
Here, Father Vincent seems to be saying that the so-called dissolution of the ego as a result of a mystical experience is the same as what G called the state of “identification” in which a man habitually lives.
[quote author=ISOTM]
Identifying is the chief obstacle to self-remembering. A man who identifies with anything is unable to remember himself.
……………..
The difficulty of struggling with identifying is still further increased by the fact that when people observe it in themselves they consider it a very good trait and call it 'enthusiasm,' 'zeal,' 'passion,' 'spontaneity,' 'inspiration,' and names of that kind, and they consider that only in a state of identifying can a man really produce good work, no matter in what sphere. In reality of course this is illusion. Man cannot do anything sensible when he is in a state of identifying. If people could see what the state of identifying means they would alter their opinion. A man becomes a thing, a piece of flesh; he loses even the small semblance of a human being that he has.
[/quote]

 

[obyvatel]

The state of self-consciousness arrived at by the practice of attention and self-remembering is equated with the development of “soul” in Needleman’s language.
This is how Father Sylvan speaks of mysticism in Lost Christianity
[quote author=Lost Christianity]
When I meet a great religious leader I see his soul, to the extent I can see. But his mysticism and Christian morality may be greater than his soul; that is his direction. It is not my direction. That is his aim. It is not my aim. He does not seek to become a soul; he seeks only to serve God and man. For that he is great, greater by far than the rest of us. He does not know and does not wish to know that he has become able to serve God. It is because of the formation of the soul in him. He does not know the laws of the progression into God and into moral power in him. He has arrived somewhere, but he does not know how he arrived. ……..
Because he does not know the process by which he has moved toward salvation he cannot intentionally lead another toward God. …
Many will enter this path of salvation and many will begin the formation of the soul, but it will not go far. Exclusive concern with the inner being will bring that process to a halt.
And here lies the danger, the danger of the second dispersal of the soul.
[My comment: the first dispersal of the soul in this context is when the energy of attention which could be used in self-remembering is wasted in the state of identification through the agencies of the moving, emotional and intellectual centers. OSIT]
Having drawn the energy of attention away from the body
[My comment: Father Sylvan includes ordinary thoughts, emotions and sensations when he says body] and having gathered the beginning of the soul in themselves, these men of salvation walk the earth like explosive devices ready to be set off at random. Their energy can combine with impulses in human nature, and in themselves, which they have not seen and understood or which, at the time of their activation, they are not concerned to see and accept. They have become accustomed to the experience and the laws of the inner being deep inside themselves, and have relatively little in themselves to reconcile the inner being with the body. This is mysticism without a soul, roughly speaking. They have known God, but there is nothing, or relatively little, in themselves that can transmit God to their own body.
……………………
A certain inner force is gathered through ascetic morality or through commitment and personal sacrifice to a noble ideal or individual.
[My comment: This seems to correspond to what G said about the ways of the fakir and the monk.]
But in the absence of the intermediate principle in man [which is the soul developed through self remembering], this force eventually combines with the elements of the “body” : emotional reactions, sensations and thought patterns. The result is a religious leader or a charismatic figure.
……….
The most dangerous people are those who have achieved inner being without the corresponding development of the soul.
[/quote]

Mouravieff talks about one class of charismatic religious leaders in Gnosis Book2 page 181-184. He says that this is the case of
[quote author=Gnosis Book2]
.. man 1 whose highly developed moving center completely dominates his emotional center. The latter is awake and even quite developed, but it is under the sway of the motor center and as a result it is richly nourished by usurped sexual energy. The intellectual center is not entirely asleep: the negative part of this center is paralysed but the positive part is completely under the domination of the motor center. That is why this type of man feels no doubts. This fact provides him with extraordinary strength and endows his psyche with a suggestive, hypnotic dynamism.
Though unbalanced in its development, this personality has lost all its anarchistic characteristics: it is subjected to an iron discipline exercised by the motor center in the place of the magnetic center. This kind of man can acquire certain powers, but their nature differs from that of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which interior men acquire.
[/quote]
The influences emanating from this type of man easily brings under his sway esoteric seekers who are looking for the "marvellous".

So this is where my current understanding regarding mysticism stands. I was intrigued by a comment in Henry's article on Maharaj ji where he mentioned that mysticism was a form of passive contact with higher realms. In the light of what is said in Lost Christianity and what G said in ISOTM, it seems to make sense to me now. This topic of mysticism however is vast and complex and these posts perhaps just scratch the surface.
fwiw

 

[ana]

So this is where my current understanding regarding mysticism stands. I was intrigued by a comment in Henry's article on Maharaj ji where he mentioned that mysticism was a form of passive contact with higher realms. In the light of what is said in Lost Christianity and what G said in ISOTM, it seems to make sense to me now. This topic of mysticism however is vast and complex and these posts perhaps just scratch the surface

I think your explanation and integration of Lost Christianity and Gurdjieff is remarkable! I've also been thinking on it lately.

The so-called mysticism of today seems to be the result of constant inwardly directed attention without the essential balance with outwardly attention.
Those working on inner attention through continued meditative states and abstinence are able to reach higher states but they do renounce to participate in creation, they are mere passive spectators of Maya.

On the other side the work of true Christianism seems to be the constant work of attention outside and inside. Attention as directed energy, Untill we reach the state of "perfect attention".That's how we participate of creation, osit

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

"When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam, and when
you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will move."

What is called dualism, the idea of a good and evil force in the universe, is con-nected with the task of discriminating different directions of en-ergy, and of recognizing that the struggle for inner perfection in-volves cosmic principles that operate within and outside of human nature.

 

[Leo40]

perhaps it would be helpful to read some works of so called mystics.
One I found very helpful is Meister Eckehart. There is an English translation available.
Then there is Hildegard von Bingen who was imo almost a Renaissance women who did not isolate
herself but worked on Healing and also was Abbess.

 

[obyvatel]

perhaps it would be helpful to read some works of so called mystics.
One I found very helpful is Meister Eckehart. There is an English translation available.
Then there is Hildegard von Bingen who was imo almost a Renaissance women who did not isolate
herself but worked on Healing and also was Abbess.

I have read the works of quite a few eastern (asian) mystics and mystical traditions. I have very cursory familiarity with Meister Eckhart - so I am not qualified to comment on his teachings. My general experience with mystical teachings has been that they are not helpful to me at the level I am currently in. I think Needleman is spot on in his analysis of the mystical teachings and mystics - what they say or teach is not conducive to waking up. Sometimes what mystics say possibly reflect the flashes of objective consciousness that they are periodically able to access. While such information may be sometimes beneficial for the modern mind that is completely caught up in materialism as it at least talks about a different world, it does nothing to help a man strive towards that higher state and more often than not has the effect of exchanging one set of illusions for another and driving a man much deeper into sleep.
A lot of the virtues spoken about by mystics or such teachings are a result of the state of a higher consciousness. What is needed is not a description of the virtues of the higher state (which is very often distorted to imply that cultivation of these virtues is the path towards the higher state) but a stress on the methods to reach such a state. It seems that the situation is somewhat analogous to telling a child about how great the life of a astronaut is without telling him how to practically go about becoming an astronaut if he wants to. A child needs to go to school, get the right education, get into the right institutes for getting trained to be an astronaut. Just thinking about being an astronaut and trying very hard to imagine being in zero gravity and hearing about the astronaut's virtues will in effect only result in fantasies. The only good thing that may result from such ideas is that it may help the child get motivated and seek for a way towards the goal of becoming an astronaut. This is a very crude analogy but I hope it makes the point. Most (not all) mystics are unable to guide people in a practical way towards the higher consciousness because according to Needleman (or rather Father Sylvan), they themselves do not understand the mechanics of how to get there. This is what distinguishes mysticism from esotericism and is related to what Gurdjieff said about the 3rd state of consciousness being the right way of approaching the 4th state of objective consciousness. Mystics by and large seem to skip a step on the way and so are unable to really guide others and they themselves may fall under the influence of entropy due to this. Esotericism on the other hand is about the study of energies within (and also outside) and such study is possible only with the development of attention which helps in reaching the 3rd state of consciousness or the state of self-remembering.
Here is another quote from Lost Christianity distinguishing between mystical and ontological love:
[quote author=Lost Christianity]
Mystical love or religious love may be defined as the caring for the inward-directed or internal aspect of human nature. But such love often ignores or denies the physical and emotional desires of the other and therefore communicates an ideal of inner perfection with no practical means of leading the other to the attainment of that ideal. The result is a form of communication that encourages religious fantasies which , when combined with the volatile and repressed energies of sexuality and emotion and with the automatisms of the isolated intellect, may lead to social and personal disintegration.
............
Ontological love may be defined as the transmission to another of conditions of living, thinking and experiencing that foster the growth of the intermediate principle in human nature: the soul.
[/quote]

 

[Leo40]

Hi, obyvatel:

I am well aware of the fact that there are two kinds of "Mystics" and as you mentioned most of their writings are
based largely on hallucinations and wishful thinking.
Therefore, in contrast, I suggested Meister Eckehart as an example of an erudite and one might say
intellectual "Mystic".
The book I was referring to is: "Meister Eckhart, a modern Translation", by Raymond B. Blakney.
To give just one example:
Eckehart teaches, among other very practical things, disinterest or non-identifying similar to Gurdjeff. His term is "Gelassenheit", which means something of the nature of "letting go" of the "I" and calling everything "mine", i.e. identifying.
Basically my post suggested "not to through out the baby with the bathwater".

 

[ana]

To give just one example:
Eckehart teaches, among other very practical things, disinterest or non-identifying similar to Gurdjeff. His term is "Gelassenheit", which means something of the nature of "letting go" of the "I" and calling everything "mine", i.e. identifying.

It seems you are misunderstanding Leo, identifying is not calling everything mine, it is getting lost forgeting ourselves, wich means that there is not a conscious directed energy (attention) but a lost of it..

It has nothing to do with disinterest.

Have you read ISOTM?:

" 'Identification' is so common a quality that for purposes of observation it is difficult to separate it from everything else. Man is always in a state of identification, only the object of identification changes.

"A man identifies with a small problem which confronts him and he completely forgets the great aims with which he began his work. He identifies with one thought and forgets other thoughts; he is identified with one feeling, with one mood, and forgets his own wider thoughts, emotions, and moods. In work on themselves people are so much identified with separate aims that they fail to see the wood for the trees. Two or three trees nearest to them represent for them the whole wood.

"'Identifying' is one of our most terrible foes because it penetrates everywhere and deceives a man at the moment when it seems to him that he is struggling with it. It is especially difficult to free oneself from identifying because a man naturally becomes more easily identified with the things that interest him most, to which he gives his time, his work, and his attention. In order to free himself from identifying a man must be constantly on guard and be merciless with himself, that is, he must not be afraid of seeing all the subtle and hidden forms which identifying takes.

"It is necessary to see and to study identifying to its very roots in oneself. The difficulty of struggling with identifying is still further increased by the fact that when people observe it in themselves they consider it a very good trait and call it 'enthusiasm,' 'zeal,' 'passion,' 'spontaneity,' 'inspiration,' and names of that kind, and they consider that only in a state of identifying can a man really produce good work, no matter in what sphere. In reality of course this is illusion. Man cannot do anything sensible when he is in a state of identifying. If people could see what the state of identifying means they would alter their opinion. A man becomes a thing, a piece of flesh; he loses even the small semblance of a human being that he has.

"Identifying is the chief obstacle to self-remembering. A man who identifies with anything is unable to remember himself. In order to remember oneself it is necessary first of all not to identify. But in order to learn not to identify man must first of all not be identified with himself, must not call himself 'I' always and on all occasions. He must remember that there are two in him, that there is himself, that is 'I' in him, and there is another with whom he must struggle and whom he must conquer if he wishes at any time to attain anything. So long as a man identifies or can be identified, he is the slave of everything that can happen to him. Freedom is first of all freedom from identification.

Edit: added one more ISOTM quote

 

[Leo40]

Hi, Ana: Yes, I have read ISOTM, but I should read it again.

Identifying has many forms. Possesiveness is one. If a thought cames into your mind do you not
call it "my thought" or "I am thinking this ot that"? Should one not rather say "it thinks"?
Perhaps one could understand "Gelassenheit" as the opposite of "self-importance" which also
implies non-identifying? Have you ever tried to speak without using "I"? This is a very difficult exercise
but very revealing.

 

[ana]

Identifying has many forms. Possesiveness is one. If a thought cames into your mind do you not call it "my thought" or "I am thinking this ot that"? Should one not rather say "it thinks"?

Is not me, a conscious unit receiving and processing, then how is that saying I becomes a question of possesion?
One thing is saying I am thinking and another thing is being identified with what I am thinking, at least that's how I see it.

Perhaps one could understand "Gelassenheit" as the opposite of "self-importance" which also implies non-identifying?

If you do relate "Gelassenheit" with non-identification then self-importance is not the contrary how can be so? They are just different terms.
I think it would be a good idea to read ISOTM again, I do make new realizations each time I read it.

Have you ever tried to speak without using "I"? This is a very difficult exercise but very
revealing.

We are on third density, How can there be you without I and vice versa? :)

 

[Buddy]

{...}
A certain inner force is gathered through ascetic morality or through commitment and personal sacrifice to a noble ideal or individual.
[My comment: This seems to correspond to what G said about the ways of the fakir and the monk.]
But in the absence of the intermediate principle in man [which is the soul developed through self remembering], this force eventually combines with the elements of the “body” : emotional reactions, sensations and thought patterns. The result is a religious leader or a charismatic figure.
……….
The most dangerous people are those who have achieved inner being without the corresponding development of the soul.

Mouravieff talks about one class of charismatic religious leaders in Gnosis Book2 page 181-184. He says that this is the case of
[quote author=Gnosis Book2]
.. man 1 whose highly developed moving center completely dominates his emotional center. The latter is awake and even quite developed, but it is under the sway of the motor center and as a result it is richly nourished by usurped sexual energy. The intellectual center is not entirely asleep: the negative part of this center is paralysed but the positive part is completely under the domination of the motor center. That is why this type of man feels no doubts. This fact provides him with extraordinary strength and endows his psyche with a suggestive, hypnotic dynamism.
Though unbalanced in its development, this personality has lost all its anarchistic characteristics: it is subjected to an iron discipline exercised by the motor center in the place of the magnetic center. This kind of man can acquire certain powers, but their nature differs from that of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which interior men acquire.

The influences emanating from this type of man easily brings under his sway esoteric seekers who are looking for the "marvellous".[/quote]


Hi obyvatel. This is very interesting. When I was reading the above quoted passage, I was reminded of something in another thread. Could the following quote be applicable to the type of person described above as "The most dangerous people" because of having crystallized on a wrong foundation?



[quote author=ISOTM]
"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is.

"But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.'

"But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. 'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

"Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still. Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved.

"In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it? A man of this kind becomes an 'immortal thing,' although a certain amount of consciousness is sometimes preserved in him. But even this, it must be remembered, occurs very rarely.[/quote]

 

[obyvatel]

Hi, obyvatel:

I am well aware of the fact that there are two kinds of "Mystics" and as you mentioned most of their writings are
based largely on hallucinations and wishful thinking.

While it is perhaps true that there are "pseudo- mystics" whose writings are based on hallucinations, that has not been the point of focus for me in this thread. I am more concerned about the genuine mystics and how their teachings, which could be based on some authentic flashes of objective consciousness, are not practically suited for the common man. The contention is that such mystical teachings actually lead to an increase in the illusions and wishful thinking in common man. This distinction is important imo and I intended to bring it out specially with the previous post that I made.
[quote author=Leo40]
Therefore, in contrast, I suggested Meister Eckehart as an example of an erudite and one might say
intellectual "Mystic".
The book I was referring to is: "Meister Eckhart, a modern Translation", by Raymond B. Blakney.
To give just one example:
Eckehart teaches, among other very practical things, disinterest or non-identifying similar to Gurdjeff. His term is "Gelassenheit", which means something of the nature of "letting go" of the "I" and calling everything "mine", i.e. identifying.
[/quote]
Disinterest is not the same as non-identifying imo. The withdrawal from external senses and concentrating on the internal aspect is a common mystical teaching. There could be some problems with an increased emphasis on the internal as is brought out in the Needleman quote about mystical and ontological love.
My contention is not that what genuine mystics say are wrong - the point is that their teachings are often oblique, they stress on the properties or virtues of a state which is beyond the reach of common man and so could be subjectively interpreted in a number of ways. When you interpret a mystic through the lens of Gurdjieff's Work ideas, a lot of things would perhaps make sense. But without that corrective lens, these teachings very often just lead to more illusions. OSIT

 

[obyvatel]

……….
The most dangerous people are those who have achieved inner being without the corresponding development of the soul.

Hi obyvatel. This is very interesting. When I was reading the above quoted passage, I was reminded of something in another thread. Could the following quote be applicable to the type of person described above as "The most dangerous people" because of having crystallized on a wrong foundation?

Hi Bud,
Yes, that would be my thinking too - applicable in special cases for some people who may have reached a very high degree of development. I also wonder whether this is the case of a 3D person preparing to ascend to 4D via the STS route. G may be talking about this in terms of reaching the stage of Man 5 without being Man 4 in ISOTM.
[quote author=ISOTM]
Man number five has already been crystallized; he cannot change as man number one, two, and three change. But it must be noted that man number five can be the result of right work and he can be the result of wrong work. He can become number five from number four and he can become number five without having been four. And in this case he cannot develop further, cannot become number six and seven. In order to become number six he must again melt his crystallized essence, must intentionally lose his being of man number five. And this can be achieved only through terrible sufferings. Fortunately these cases of wrong development occur very rarely.
[/quote]
Also in this context I found this quote from anart here quite interesting
[quote author=anart]
His mention of the Hindu state of 'bliss' - (which is really the ultimate in contraction/non-being) as a positive - as the primordial formless state borders on creepy, considering what we know about the importance of consciousness, awareness, creation and expansion.
[/quote]
The mystical teachings which aim towards this state of bliss or one-ness with God could be a path towards ascension to 4D via the STS path. In Darkness Over Tibet, Illion referred to the act of a created being trying to be at the level of God as a spiritual sin - one that propelled the entity forward in the descending current of spirituality (STS).

 

[anart]

The contention is that such mystical teachings actually lead to an increase in the illusions and wishful thinking in common man. This distinction is important imo and I intended to bring it out specially with the previous post that I made.

This is exactly the point and was made quite clearly in your previous post. Leo40, perhaps you could re-read his earlier post to get the gist more clearly?

 

[Leo40]

The contention is that such mystical teachings actually lead to an increase in the illusions and wishful thinking in common man. This distinction is important imo and I intended to bring it out specially with the previous post that I made.

This is exactly the point and was made quite clearly in your previous post. Leo40, perhaps you could re-read his earlier post to get the gist more clearly?

This discussion focusses on the practical value of "mystic" teachings vs. descriptions of higher states
that create illusions in the minds of common people, who have not done the necessary preparatory work.
In that context I mentioned Meister Eckehart and gave reference to a book in English.
This man preached to the common people of his time in a very down to earth practical way.
He was well aware of what later would be called the ego and how to practically in every day life
deal with it. It is easy to get lost in words: disinterest, detachment etc. The point is "to be in the world
but not of it". Since most respondents are not familiar with Meister Eckehart I will discontinue this point.