John Major Jenkins

[GregoryJ]

With regard to JMJ's comments/emails and the article in reply: http://www.sott.net/article/251921-John-Major-Jenkins-The-Mayans-2012-and-all-that-Jazz

I've been very careful to treat the matter impeccably. The logic in the article was simple and direct, but I also presented a balanced view of Jenkins – showing his good qualities as well, and not just shattering him. As I have said, FACTS are what interest me, not character assassination. I got the distinct impression from his correspondences that his issues are really with himself, and not anything I said.

This means, now, he can't attack without calling a fair assessment invalid. This automatically destabilizes him – were he to attack. Also, I laid a few traps – which I don't think I need to itemize – things he may not have liked, but cannot argue, because he knows where it will lead... unless he is truly dense, in which case we still turn out fine because we have the data to back the claims – much of which I'm sure Jenkins would prefer to keep on the low. In any event, everything goes back to him. And hey, even that is what he wanted from the beginning. ;)

There's a strong chance that pushing further at this point could give him an advantage of something new to attack and ignore my statements, which could only hurt him of course – because we'd use it to again point out the cherry-picking tendency – but may also cause a knee jerk reaction with unpleasant consequences. And, we always have to give people a chance for things to set in. Who knows, he may be in the throes of reformation ;)

He's pretty exposed at this point. We have to remember that this is a BIG year for book sales. He doesn't want to be discredited – which is likely what prompted his defensiveness to begin with – but he also doesn't want this to get out of hand – i.e. taken to the cleaners.

If he is smart (or has smart friends to advice him – a publicist, maybe) he will by now have researched SOTT, Laura, etc., and be under the influence of the realization that we are a Network – the bottom line – and exposing the truth is what we do. The recognition of facing this abyss and its consequences will most likely have quelled Mr. Jenkins concerns.

And besides, we'll all be Enlightened in a couple months, so what could possibly be worth the fuss at this juncture? ;)

 

[anart]

With regard to JMJ's comments/emails and the article in reply: http://www.sott.net/article/251921-John-Major-Jenkins-The-Mayans-2012-and-all-that-Jazz

I've been very careful to treat the matter impeccably. The logic in the article was simple and direct, but I also presented a balanced view of Jenkins – showing his good qualities as well, and not just shattering him. As I have said, FACTS are what interest me, not character assassination. I got the distinct impression from his correspondences that his issues are really with himself, and not anything I said.

This means, now, he can't attack without calling a fair assessment invalid. This automatically destabilizes him – were he to attack. Also, I laid a few traps – which I don't think I need to itemize – things he may not have liked, but cannot argue, because he knows where it will lead... unless he is truly dense, in which case we still turn out fine because we have the data to back the claims – much of which I'm sure Jenkins would prefer to keep on the low. In any event, everything goes back to him. And hey, even that is what he wanted from the beginning. ;)

There's a strong chance that pushing further at this point could give him an advantage of something new to attack and ignore my statements, which could only hurt him of course – because we'd use it to again point out the cherry-picking tendency – but may also cause a knee jerk reaction with unpleasant consequences. And, we always have to give people a chance for things to set in. Who knows, he may be in the throes of reformation ;)

He's pretty exposed at this point. We have to remember that this is a BIG year for book sales. He doesn't want to be discredited – which is likely what prompted his defensiveness to begin with – but he also doesn't want this to get out of hand – i.e. taken to the cleaners.

If he is smart (or has smart friends to advice him – a publicist, maybe) he will by now have researched SOTT, Laura, etc., and be under the influence of the realization that we are a Network – the bottom line – and exposing the truth is what we do. The recognition of facing this abyss and its consequences will most likely have quelled Mr. Jenkins concerns.

And besides, we'll all be Enlightened in a couple months, so what could possibly be worth the fuss at this juncture? ;)

That's all very logical and it would be great if human beings work that way, but they usually don't. Depending on his state of mind, he might react any number of ways, but usually people go on an emotional attack despite the facts or the impeccability of the report. Often for people like this, and their followers, facts mean nothing. They can be presented with all the data in the world (and have been in several different instances by us) and still cling desperately to the lie they want to believe. So, it's probably wise to expect attack on this one - not based in fact, but attacks rarely are. I think it's good work you're doing by connecting all these dots and informing people - it's very important - I'm just pointing out that if pathological people actually followed the thought processes you've outlined here, then Laura and the SOTT page wouldn't have undergone the incessant attacks and even the law suits that we have. Ultimately, pathological attack has nothing to do with data, it's all about ego, reputation, rage and blind followers. So, we'll see - at the very least, it should be interesting! :)

 

[Joe]

That's all very logical and it would be great if human beings work that way, but they usually don't. Depending on his state of mind, he might react any number of ways, but usually people go on an emotional attack despite the facts or the impeccability of the report. Often for people like this, and their followers, facts mean nothing. They can be presented with all the data in the world (and have been in several different instances by us) and still cling desperately to the lie they want to believe. So, it's probably wise to expect attack on this one - not based in fact, but attacks rarely are. I think it's good work you're doing by connecting all these dots and informing people - it's very important - I'm just pointing out that if pathological people actually followed the thought processes you've outlined here, then Laura and the SOTT page wouldn't have undergone the incessant attacks and even the law suits that we have. Ultimately, pathological attack has nothing to do with data, it's all about ego, reputation, rage and blind followers. So, we'll see - at the very least, it should be interesting! :)

I tend to agree. Based on the data I have not expectation that JMJ will understand anything from what we are writing about him other than we are wrong and he is right. I don't expect a meeting of minds or anything like that. He has long since put his stall out and revealed what he is all about, and it's nonsense. Our job, on the other hand, involves being the support team for the truth. Which is why we published another Focus on JMJ and 2012

http://www.sott.net/article/251981-Is-John-Major-Jenkins-a-New-Age-COINTELPRO-Patsy#

 

[Esote]

...
So indeed, NAM vs. true Esoterica is the name of the game, so to speak – the polar opposites which are at a glance relatively indistinguishable. ...though to those who Know, obviously moving an entirely opposite direction.

What is relevant is: on the Path, we come up against this dynamic in many forms and all the time – it is the inbuilt trap at the gate, you see. "The camel will not fit through the eye of the needle." We must be willing to release preconceived notions or half-understandings as we pass into new Knowledge. Only herein do we Realize that Knowledge IS the Living One rather than something that "I" possess. Gate vs. trap.

Very good formula, AFAIK.

The trap: believing there is One Truth "I" may possess
The gate: Knowing...

... People lie to themselves every day about what it is they "know" and most never move past that to even the smallest degree because to sincerely question ones own thinking is too painful - that's the most fatal trap, to my understanding...

Yes, the Path is very dangerous to follow, because the "I" is meant to appear in the light of its lies and disappear in the "recognition of facing this abyss and its consequences".

Very interesting, indeed...

 

[GregoryJ]

For sure, there are a lot of things like this, where things seems similar/indistinguishable (see idea vs. experience/Knowing) but are actually opposites. There are a lot of misguided, albeit sincere people out there. This is another reason why people must understand psychopathy and narcissism (self-importance), because they CAN look quite a bit similar to Enlightenment – the difference being Clarity, of course, but if the People are not clear, how would they ever know the difference?

Think about it... a narcissist can't tell the difference between himself and everything else – he is the center of the world (which is oversimplifying things, but bear with me). Likewise the Enlightened one is both the Individual ONE and the Center of the ONE Whole within his awareness. Of course that ONE Center is quite versatile and omnipresent. The problem being that many narcissist pose as "teachers", and pull it off! ...the ruse, that it. See "NAM" (I like the abbreviation, BTW).

I think you might be missing the idea that a truly enlightened individual does not present himself/herself as such. Anyone who says they are 'enlightened' has already given themselves away. Whether that is due to pathology of some sort or just good old fashioned hypnotized ignorance is really situation-dependent.

I basically agree with your statement, Anart – with the main difference being that it was something missed (though noting the space in your statement for this variable). ;) It was not that I missed it, only that I wasn't stating it here, because I didn't feel it overly pertinent to the topic of the thread. But sense you brought it up, being an admin, I don't suspect I can get cited for noise at this point, so...

I'd like to add (with a sight on it being relevant to the thread, in general) that we cannot REALLY discuss what an enlightened person would or would not do, especially not without defining "enlightenment", which is itself a trap, IMHO. I've never known an enlightened person to say, "I am Enlightened". It is a cause for contradiction, immediately, and can only really serve to mislead, one way or the other. If it is said, the student or sceptic must embark on a campaign to make the claimer prove it – at least define it. On the other hand, were the enlightened one to deny his/her enlightenment – on whatever grounds – especially if he/she was a teacher of the Path to Enlightenment, would this not be cause for doubt in the validity of the method? Either way, it remains best not to say one way or the other, if simply that the statement would give rise to conflict in others. What manner of Enlightened Being would this person then be? And, well, even here, it depends.

What is most relevant, I feel, is that unenlightened persons are necessarily ill-equipped to place a condition on an enlightened person about what he/she must do and not do, say and not say. Again, while I have never know an enlightened person to say, "I am Enlightened", I have know enlightened people to state evidence toward it, in certain situations and in certain company – or in an effort to "point the finger at the moon". This is for the good.

Obviously, there is cause for alarm when one is running amok professing his/her "enlightenment" as a means of impressing his/her "teachings" onto others. This is unfortunately the case in many New Age circles. And I think what is mostly the problem as well, is that enlightenment has become redefined as something far less than it IS in actuality. Surely it is a hardly definable to begin with, by nature, and with its own layers of advancement therein – of which, also by nature, unenlightened persons will remain unaware.

I think that sums it up, though I would add that the internal dynamic is exactly the same and much more tricky than the external one. People lie to themselves every day about what it is they "know" and most never move past that to even the smallest degree because to sincerely question ones own thinking is too painful - that's the most fatal trap, to my understanding. I actually think the degree that one is open to following/buying into these newage hucksters/experience chasing is directly proportional to the degree that they lie to themselves about their own level of thinking/thought processes/understanding/emotions - one naturally follows the other. fwiw.

I agree completely with your second point, and indeed I was referring to both internal AND external dynamics, as referenced in my statement: "...we come up against this dynamic in many forms and all of the time". The allusion in your point being that the New Agers ought to be shown where they are lying to themselves, I presume, if those who are not lying to themselves are to be truly compassionate and forthright. We then run into "All to those who ask" interpretations. ;) It's all Gate vs. trap... ALL of it.


And I'll get to your other comments later... have to step out. Thanks for contributing. :)

 

[anart]

I'd like to add (with a sight on it being relevant to the thread, in general) that we cannot REALLY discuss what an enlightened person would or would not do, especially not without defining "enlightenment", which is itself a trap, IMHO. I've never known an enlightened person to say, "I am Enlightened". It is a cause for contradiction, immediately, and can only really serve to mislead, one way or the other. If it is said, the student or sceptic must embark on a campaign to make the claimer prove it – at least define it. On the other hand, were the enlightened one to deny his/her enlightenment – on whatever grounds – especially if he/she was a teacher of the Path to Enlightenment, would this not be cause for doubt in the validity of the method? Either way, it remains best not to say one way or the other, if simply that the statement would give rise to conflict in others. What manner of Enlightened Being would this person then be? And, well, even here, it depends.

I think the whole problem with discussing this is that I don't buy into the idea - at any level - of "Enlightenment" as it is promulgated by the newage crowd. The Fourth Way isn't about 'enlightenment', per se - it's about waking up, being less mechanical and fusing many little 'i's into one individual I in order to Be and to be able to Do - in order to grow an immortal soul. In our context, to be able to Do is directly related to service to others, not the self.

Enlightenment as you seem to be talking about it is more about getting something for the self - "is this method valid to 'get myself' enlightened?' - that's a ridiculous question to a Fourth Way mind. To a person involved in Fourth Way Work, there simply is nothing else to do - there is no other 'path' because they've been through all that and come away disgusted with it all. There is no 'enlightenment' to gain, all there is is lessons and learning how to control ones machine and how to actually be Real.

It's very different from the idea that "if I follow these steps, I'll be enlightened and thus a 'master'" and all that nonsense. A person who is well along the staircase of the Fourth Way realizes, every second of every day, how vast their lack of knowledge is, no matter how far they've come, so to ever describe themselves as enlightened would just be silly, if not stupid. That's really my point.

What is most relevant, I feel, is that unenlightened persons are necessarily ill-equipped to place a condition on an enlightened person about what he/she must do and not do, say and not say. Again, while I have never know an enlightened person to say, "I am Enlightened", I have know enlightened people to state evidence toward it, in certain situations and in certain company – or in an effort to "point the finger at the moon". This is for the good.

I think we're using different dictionaries. There are teachers and there are students, but any teacher worth their salt sees themself - always and in everything - as a student.

I agree completely with your second point, and indeed I was referring to both internal AND external dynamics, as referenced in my statement: "...we come up against this dynamic in many forms and all of the time". The allusion in your point being that the New Agers ought to be shown where they are lying to themselves, I presume, if those who are not lying to themselves are to be truly compassionate and forthright. We then run into "All to those who ask" interpretations. ;) It's all Gate vs. trap... ALL of it.

Actually, the newagers shouldn't be shown anything they're not interested in. That's also the crux here, that any sort of spiritual growth HAS to come from within and Free Will is paramount. Personally, (and for most people here) I'm simply not interested in dreaming anymore - wasted too many years that way and it is repellant to me now. The whole 'feel good' aspect of newage teachings is poison to a mind striving to awaken from a fitful sleep. There IS objective truth and there IS a way to approach an understanding of that and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'enlightenment' as the newage crowd pushes it. Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on, I just think that we are likely using different dictionaries. Have you read much Gurdjieff?

 

[Joe]

without defining "enlightenment", which is itself a trap, IMHO

On the contrary, if we are going to use the term "enlightenment" then it must be defined, especially for a medium such as this forum.

 

[Denis]

There are teachers and there are students, but any teacher worth their salt sees themself - always and in everything - as a student.

This is my understanding as well. No matter where we are on our path/journey, what level of knowledge and what level of being we are at, we are all students of life- as long as we are here in 3D plane, this means there are still more lessons to be learned. OSIT

 

[Bernhard]

It should be fairly clear by now that the self-improvement movement, New Age and 2012 hype
are all exercises in mind control. See podcast:

_http://gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-09-21T11_08_09-07_00

Yes, Jan Irvin's work is truly impressive and revealing. I cited it in my article: http://www.sott.net/article/251816-The-2012-Collective-Shift-the-Secret-History-of-End-Times-Prophecies along with the text: "Mark my words, this is a well-planned, highly orchestrated manipulation specifically designed to distract the world from what is really going on - and the rabbit hole is likely to be far deeper than most of us realizes, or can comprehend."

Fwiw, I started a thread about Jan Irvin's work here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29287.0.html

So indeed, NAM vs. true Esoterica is the name of the game, so to speak – the polar opposites which are at a glance relatively indistinguishable. ...though to those who Know, obviously moving an entirely opposite direction.

What is relevant is: on the Path, we come up against this dynamic in many forms and all the time – it is the inbuilt trap at the gate, you see. "The camel will not fit through the eye of the needle." We must be willing to release preconceived notions or half-understandings as we pass into new Knowledge. Only herein do we Realize that Knowledge IS the Living One rather than something that "I" possess. Gate vs. trap.

I think that sums it up, though I would add that the internal dynamic is exactly the same and much more tricky than the external one. People lie to themselves every day about what it is they "know" and most never move past that to even the smallest degree because to sincerely question ones own thinking is too painful - that's the most fatal trap, to my understanding. I actually think the degree that one is open to following/buying into these newage hucksters/experience chasing is directly proportional to the degree that they lie to themselves about their own level of thinking/thought processes/understanding/emotions - one naturally follows the other. fwiw.

Very good point. For the most part it's not about the external information that people reject, but they can't "receive" it to begin with because of cognitive dissonance, not questioning their own "thinking". This also ties into this whole "resonating" nonsense in the New Age. I lost count how many people have rejected factual knowledge in "discussions" (not really a discussion) because it didn't "resonate" with them or they "resonate" with stuff that is "not even wrong", so to speak, but just dreamy castles in the air that confirm their inner landscape based on lies to the self.

However this relates not only to "New Agers" but literally EVERYONE in varying degrees as we all are subjected to lies since birth. I've fallen into this trap myself, especially in the early days, where I thought I "know" and have "figured it out", not very discerning about certain information and not seeing myself clearly. I remember when I first started getting into the UFO topic and came across Steven Greer's "Disclosure Project". I believed all of it and even shared that information with others (essentially spreading disinformation). I WANTED it to be true and that emotional charge is what I mistook for "resonating". Thankfully I then came across Laura's work and the network. That started a process which has "stripped me to the bone" and it certainly was/is not easy at times, but the only way out is through. It's the necessity of disillusionment before we can actually "do" as it has been so well written by Timothy C. Trepanier in http://www.sott.net/article/244527-The-Necessity-of-Disillusionment

For that reason I'm not even remotely interested in "enlightenment" (I wouldn't even know how to define it) and certainly not in anyone who proclaims to be so, regardless of what "title" he/she has. There are countless "Masters" and "Teachers" promoting all kinds of teachings that promise this or that (most of it relating to "enlightenment"). It was the disappointment and dead ends in all of that which lead me to the 4th way and Gurdjieff's work. It teaches me to go step by step, the foundation and all there is are lessons every single day in every day of life, watching my mechanicalness and predator. I just came back from a trip seeing my parents. Boy, what a test for one's state of Being/Knowledge/Understanding in relation to "the Work" with all what that implies: External consideration, conscious suffering, etc... That alone is a challenge. Far more challenging than sitting on a mountain top and meditating/chanting Om.

This reminds me of this excerpt from the foreword from "The Stellar Man" by John Baines, titled "Message from Isis":

Do not believe that in the world there exist only the once born and the twice born; unfortunately the once and a half born and the aborted ones also exist. Beware not to be taken in by their convincing lies and machiavellian language. These beings live neither in this world nor the next. They are neither initiates nor laymen, but imitators of Masters, semi-sages, sowers with unclean hands, the followers of dead scrolls, and black magicians who covet me and boast of my love when they are not even worthy of my smile.

Some may wear saris or tunics; others, collars and aprons; others, the Rosicrucian attire; some proclaim themselves the only possessors of the truth, believing that they actually possess this monopoly. All of them claim my friendship, but are only beggars who plead to me for crumbs of wisdom. You do not achieve second birth by standing on your head or meditating, nor in the coffin of purely symbolic ceremonies, nor by good works or the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I've been reading ""Strangers to Ourselves - Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious" lately, which is also a real eye-opener. There is a review on the forum here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26247.0.html
It shows how mirroring and networking is crucial in "the work" to evolve, wake up and truly get to know ourselves and the world, facing the lies we tell ourselves as we all have our blind spots. I think the hardest realization for anyone engaged in the Work (or in life in general) is to face to that we cannot truly trust our own thinking and alone we can do nothing.

That's the problem with all the researchers out there, including John Major Jenkins as we see here. Richard Dolan would be another example. Most of them are great when it comes to digging into external information, but the question is, how they take in the information and how are they unconsciously misinterpreting it because of their emotions, subjectivity, self-importance, etc.?

If all the researchers out there (everyone in their respective field) would lay aside their personal ambitions based on self-importance or career goals and come together to seek TRUTH together sincerely without agendas, but with the sole intent to find out truth, no matter what it is, understanding that this process also includes sincere self-work, we'd make a true shift in consciousness. But for now that is just wishful thinking. It would entail for Jenkins and Dolan (for example) to admit to themselves that they are/have been wrong about some things. However, this realization will conflict with their career and book sales, opening a can of worms, which may lose them some of their "fans", status and money.

For that reason most of the COINTELPRO "agents" are not consciously aware that they are spreading disinformation, but become "useful idiots" and tools for the matrix, despite their well-meaning intent.

 

[GregoryJ]

With regard to JMJ's comments/emails and the article in reply: http://www.sott.net/article/251921-John-Major-Jenkins-The-Mayans-2012-and-all-that-Jazz

I've been very careful to treat the matter impeccably. The logic in the article was simple and direct, but I also presented a balanced view of Jenkins – showing his good qualities as well, and not just shattering him. As I have said, FACTS are what interest me, not character assassination. I got the distinct impression from his correspondences that his issues are really with himself, and not anything I said.

This means, now, he can't attack without calling a fair assessment invalid. This automatically destabilizes him – were he to attack. Also, I laid a few traps – which I don't think I need to itemize – things he may not have liked, but cannot argue, because he knows where it will lead... unless he is truly dense, in which case we still turn out fine because we have the data to back the claims – much of which I'm sure Jenkins would prefer to keep on the low. In any event, everything goes back to him. And hey, even that is what he wanted from the beginning. ;)

There's a strong chance that pushing further at this point could give him an advantage of something new to attack and ignore my statements, which could only hurt him of course – because we'd use it to again point out the cherry-picking tendency – but may also cause a knee jerk reaction with unpleasant consequences. And, we always have to give people a chance for things to set in. Who knows, he may be in the throes of reformation ;)

He's pretty exposed at this point. We have to remember that this is a BIG year for book sales. He doesn't want to be discredited – which is likely what prompted his defensiveness to begin with – but he also doesn't want this to get out of hand – i.e. taken to the cleaners.

If he is smart (or has smart friends to advice him – a publicist, maybe) he will by now have researched SOTT, Laura, etc., and be under the influence of the realization that we are a Network – the bottom line – and exposing the truth is what we do. The recognition of facing this abyss and its consequences will most likely have quelled Mr. Jenkins concerns.

And besides, we'll all be Enlightened in a couple months, so what could possibly be worth the fuss at this juncture? ;)

That's all very logical and it would be great if human beings work that way, but they usually don't. Depending on his state of mind, he might react any number of ways, but usually people go on an emotional attack despite the facts or the impeccability of the report. Often for people like this, and their followers, facts mean nothing. They can be presented with all the data in the world (and have been in several different instances by us) and still cling desperately to the lie they want to believe. So, it's probably wise to expect attack on this one - not based in fact, but attacks rarely are. I think it's good work you're doing by connecting all these dots and informing people - it's very important - I'm just pointing out that if pathological people actually followed the thought processes you've outlined here, then Laura and the SOTT page wouldn't have undergone the incessant attacks and even the law suits that we have. Ultimately, pathological attack has nothing to do with data, it's all about ego, reputation, rage and blind followers. So, we'll see - at the very least, it should be interesting! :)

Yes ...well aware of this, and I agree. What I meant was only that IF he attacks again, we have him over a barrel. ;)


As per our secondary discussion, yea, indeed we are using different "dictionaries". I am not a "Forth Way" practitioner, per se. But I have been on another esoteric path, under guidance, for over 15 years - though far less known. It is, however, ancient and reasonably intact. The reason I am here is largely because I have noticed greater colinearity with the Fourth Way in general than with any other method. I have admittedly not read all of the material, yet, but of that which I have read, I see that the only difference is really semantics and terminology – and the main consistency being that of Service to others as a driver, and changing the self to that aim. Though I presume it better to begin a new topic if we wish to further the discussion. Or perhaps, if you like, you can private message me on Facebook.

"Enlightenment" is a "naughty word" for us as well. The only reason we were discussing it was because I made a joke about the alleged "Collective Enlightenment" of 2012. It wasn't meant to become a serious subtopic. That said, what has been discussed furthers my point that it all depends on how you define "Enlightenment". In our Path, we too refer to "waking up" from the dream, more than anything else. ...Being Clear.

 

[anart]

Or perhaps, if you like, you can private message me on Facebook.

It's always best to keep discussions on the forum. It prevents emotional feeding and manipulation and more minds can chime in and learn from each other. It's cleaner that way, which is why we usually discourage off-forum conversations in general.

"Enlightenment" is a "naughty word" for us as well. The only reason we were discussing it was because I made a joke about the alleged "Collective Enlightenment" of 2012. It wasn't meant to become a serious subtopic. That said, what has been discussed furthers my point that it all depends on how you define "Enlightenment". In our Path, we too refer to "waking up" from the dream, more than anything else. ...Being Clear.

Makes sense.

 

[GregoryJ]

It's always best to keep discussions on the forum. It prevents emotional feeding and manipulation and more minds can chime in and learn from each other. It's cleaner that way, which is why we usually discourage off-forum conversations in general.

That makes sense. My concern was that we were straying from the topic, but I didn't wish to shut the door on the matter, if you, or anyone else, wants to continue the discussion. :)

And thanks for the input, Bernhard (or am I supposed to call you "Spiral Out" here?). I agree that truly good research means having done the Work to a certain degree, to have obtained a measure of clarity and perspicacity which affords the researcher not only the means to assimilate properly but also to present it in the right direction and for the right reasons. This is indeed why I called Jenkins out as I did – because I had to show how and why the popular belief is erroneous, or at least unconfirmed subjective bias which does not align to the rest of the data being put forward. The best use I have found for Jenkins' books so far is a coaster for my tea. ;)

One thing I have to address in your statement, however:

[quote author= spiral out]Boy, what a test for one's state of Being/Knowledge/Understanding in relation to "the Work" with all what that implies: External consideration, conscious suffering, etc... That alone is a challenge. Far more challenging than sitting on a mountain top and meditating/chanting Om.[/quote]

I commend your persistence in the Work in the face of difficulty. Surely this is where most "meditators" go wrong. And I do not disagree that chanting – while perhaps servicing a purpose – is pretty damn easy (which is why I never bothered much with it). However, dear friend, I think you know little of the challenge of meditating on a mountain top. ;) ...meaning long periods of meditation in isolation. There is nothing easy about it, and if you think so, you don't really know what meditation is. It isn't just sitting for short periods and trying not to be bothered by your thoughts – which is mostly what is promoted today – and perhaps this is the type to which you refer. But in case you are misunderstanding, I'm offering clarification from experience. In fact, it is something that even the most experienced and achieved meditators continue to find challenging. Beyond the ardent work of dissolving the inherent discomforts of the process, and gaining lucid awareness and understanding of the internal dynamics (which are extensive), silencing the mind's incessant grasping and rambling and keeping it quite and yet fully open and conscious, is just about the most difficult thing imaginable.

Though admittedly, I still prefer it to hanging with my parents!

 

[GregoryJ]

Nice work, Robin: http://www.sott.net/article/251981-Is-John-Major-Jenkins-a-New-Age-COINTELPRO-Patsy

I think the link to Jay Weidner alone is pretty compelling. One thing for sure (from my observations), Jenkins isn't wired tight enough to be an active agent. But could very well be, and likely is, a patsy.

 

[anart]

However, dear friend, I think you know little of the challenge of meditating on a mountain top. ;) ...meaning long periods of meditation in isolation. There is nothing easy about it, and if you think so, you don't really know what meditation is. It isn't just sitting for short periods and trying not to be bothered by your thoughts – which is mostly what is promoted today – and perhaps this is the type to which you refer. But in case you are misunderstanding, I'm offering clarification from experience. In fact, it is something that even the most experienced and achieved meditators continue to find challenging. Beyond the ardent work of dissolving the inherent discomforts of the process, and gaining lucid awareness and understanding of the internal dynamics (which are extensive), silencing the mind's incessant grasping and rambling and keeping it quite and yet fully open and conscious, is just about the most difficult thing imaginable.

Sounds like you're a bit identified with it, Gregory, which is a sign of "dreaming you are a magician". You may not be familiar with Identification in the Gurdjieffian sense, but here is a succinct definition, though it is a complex subject. You also seem to be a little low on the humility scale, but perhaps I'm reading what you wrote incorrectly.

 

[Beau]

Beyond the ardent work of dissolving the inherent discomforts of the process, and gaining lucid awareness and understanding of the internal dynamics (which are extensive), silencing the mind's incessant grasping and rambling and keeping it quite and yet fully open and conscious, is just about the most difficult thing imaginable.

Frankly, I think it pales in comparison to real 4th Way Work, the kind that Spiral Out was describing, which is why, IMO, he wrote what he did. You can try to defend it, but I don't see how the two are even comparable. Apples and oranges. Yes, meditation is difficult, in that the mind tends to wander and you have to exert effort to control yourself, but it's in no way like the kind of control that is needed to navigate a 4th Way life and that that implies.