method for?

j0da

Jedi Council Member
Hi, yesterday I found this passage at http://montalk.net/matrix/118/methods-of-deception

---
The right method for the wrong person can give detrimental results. For example, the Fourth Way methodology aims to grow souls within those who have none; if people who need soul awakening rather than soul growth limit themselves to such a system, they will assume they are less than they truly are and spiritually suffocate. By knowing yourself, you will know what is right for you.
---

Is really Fourth Way workability limited to non-souled beings? Advice given above generally is valid, but the remark about the Fourth Way confused me a bit. I'd be happy to see your comments.


---
half an hour later..

I've just finished looking for "Montalk" at our forum and Laura's blog - geez, seems I've been hasty in my posting the question. Every now and then I have to remind myself of first trying to find an answer on my own, instead of runnig and asking people who already have lots of more important matters to attend to :)
 
j0da said:
Hi, yesterday I found this passage at http://montalk.net/matrix/118/methods-of-deception

---
The right method for the wrong person can give detrimental results. For example, the Fourth Way methodology aims to grow souls within those who have none; if people who need soul awakening rather than soul growth limit themselves to such a system, they will assume they are less than they truly are and spiritually suffocate. By knowing yourself, you will know what is right for you.
---

Is really Fourth Way workability limited to non-souled beings? Advice given above generally is valid, but the remark about the Fourth Way confused me a bit. I'd be happy to see your comments.
---
half an hour later..

I've just finished looking for "Montalk" at our forum and Laura's blog - geez, seems I've been hasty in my posting the question. Every now and then I have to remind myself of first trying to find an answer on my own, instead of runnig and asking people who already have lots of more important matters to attend to :)
I'm not sure what Montalk means in his above statement concerning the fourth way. I fail to understand why he makes such a distinction between "growing souls" and "awakening souls." His above statement shows me that he can only see the Fourth Way intellectually and he does not appear to have a clue as to what the fourth way is really about. Does he understand that "awaking of the soul" in the fourth way relates to the transmutation of negative emotions into positive ones thru certain efforts, shocks and disciplines based on knowledge? It seems to me that this is what Montalk fails to grok about the Fouth Way. It's all about the seating of the soul that is, it's about the seating of the higher centers. Evidently Montalk has been "conned" to think that he understands the principles of the fourth way.

Those who make cut and dried distinctions between "growing a soul" and "awaking a soul" fail to see that both are really aspects of the same thing. The development of the emotional center from 'inner Work' is what relates them. As I see it, those who make such distinctions are not looking at the fourth way in terms of emotional development from said transmutation of negative emotions. Rather they see the inner Work in terms of vain imaginings based on a feeling that they have on the idea of the fourth way. Such vain imaginings induce one to assume that they are already awake because they 'think it.'

("I think therefore I am awake.")

Thus they feel no need to work since they already think they have what others need to work for. Work on the emotional center for such people is simply a "positive sensation" that they have in the positive part of the moving center. They think this "positive sensation" is real emotion, when in reality, it is simply vanity or "vain imaginings."
Vain imaginings inhibit a person from crossing that threshold between reality and fantasy. As Mouravieff says:

Man then turns towards 'small pleasures' or grand passions' in which he satisfies all his senses, driven by an inventive intellectual imagination while the two centers, motor and intellectual, are fed by energy stolen from the sexual center.:

...the neophyte must never lose sight of this possible result of his efforts, the first tangible result to which he must ardently aspire, It is by keeping the image of this divine state constantly present in mind, while at the same time constating his actual state in its naked truth, that he will be able to create within himself a 'difference of potential' capable of producing a high tension current of energy sufficiently strong to allow him to pursue his esoteric work with some chance of success.
Mouravieff has a term for this called Chimera, where the intellect and moving centers
outweigh an atrophied or unawakened emotional center.

SOTT once made a comment on this Chimera on an earlier SOTT page. They said:

Comment: The symbolism of the Chimera elucidates one of the principal problems of modern man -- his underdeveloped emotional centre. Boris Mouravieff discuss this in Volume 2 of his work Gnosis:

To make the proposed psychological study easier we believe that it will be useful to introduce an idea that goes back to Greek Mythology, where it appears in the guise of a fabulous monster: the Chimera.

In mythology, it appears to have the head of a lion, the body of a goat, the tail of a dragon, and it spews out vortexes of flame and fire. It was said that the Chimera's father was Typhon, the principle of evil and sterility, and his mother was Echidna, half woman and half serpent who was fathered by Chrisaor, born from the blood of Medusa. From Greek Mythology, the image of the Chimera passed into Christianity. We find it as an ornamental motif on certain Gothic cathedrals. For example, the gargoyles of Notre Dame in Paris were sculptured in the form of Chimerae with stylized lion's heads and only the upper part of the body. In certain orthodox cathedrals chimerae form the ornament of the bishop's throne. Sculptured in wood, they are shown complete, crouching on each side of the seat, where they serve as armrests.

The original esoteric significance of this monster has been lost, although its symbolic meaning is known and its name has passed into current language: by chimera we mean a false idea or a vain imagining. A chimeric mind sustains itself on illusions, and a chimeric project collapses when tested against facts, being groundless or unrealizable.

Let us try to rediscover the esoteric significance of the Chimera, hidden in Myth by initiatory tradition. We know that all beings in Nature are divided into three categories depending on the number of centres in their psyche. The first category is of beings having a psyche of only one centre: obviously the motor centre. Beings belonging to the second category have two centres: motor and emotional. Lastly, as beings possessing three centres, humans alone have a motor centre, an emotional centre, and an intellectual centre.

The fabulous Chimera is in animal of a higher type; with its lion's head and the body of a goat, it incontestably ranks in the second category, that of beings possessing two centres in the psyche. If it was a living being, because of this fact it would have motor and emotional centres. It does actually have two centres in the psyche, but these are the motor and the intellectual. Thus it can only have an unreal existence, chimeric in the true meaning of that word, as no bi-centred beings exist in Nature other than those with motor and emotional centres.

For what reason was this monster introduced into the Mythology of remote Antiquity which goes back to the very sources of Initiation?

The symbolism of the Chimera must be studied in both its aspects, and this will help us to better understand the condition of exterior man, who is dominated by the provisional 'I' of the incomplete Personality as well as by the times in which he spends his life, that is to say, (in which we spend) our lives.

Comment: As a beast with developed motor and intellectual centres, the Chimera is an excellent symbol for modern science. The head, divorced from contact with the heart, undertakes its work without regard for the consequences of its actions. The glory of the mind and its need to solve the puzzles of existence is all that concerns it. That the application of this one-sided knowledge -- for what is intellectual knowledge when it is not married to empathy? -- results in the misery of millions is unimportant. Marrying the genetics of different species is too much of a challenge to a mind unencumbered by concern over the consequences of its actions.

In the individual with a sleeping emotional centre, only a great shock can bring it back to life. Our society has had any number of shocks over the last century, from world wars to on-going colonial wars, massacres of millions of people coupled with starvation brought on by famine and the general neglect of the former colonies when it is not a question of exploiting their resources. One would have thought that these shocks would have been enough to stir us from our lethargy.

Evidently not.
What shocks will it take, if it is even possible, to awaken our sleeping world?
 
j0da said:
Hi, yesterday I found this passage at http://montalk.net/matrix/118/methods-of-deception

---
The right method for the wrong person can give detrimental results. For example, the Fourth Way methodology aims to grow souls within those who have none; if people who need soul awakening rather than soul growth limit themselves to such a system, they will assume they are less than they truly are and spiritually suffocate. By knowing yourself, you will know what is right for you.
---
In my opinion, there are several gross over-simplifications in the above which are typical of the "New Age" vibe that Montalk's site has been vectored towards.

Firstly, what defines the "right method" and the "wrong person"? There is a complete absence of the third force here - the specific situation, or context that determines appropriate/inappropriate action. "Right method", "wrong person" and "detrimental results" are stated as if the meaning in such terms were self-evident, yet they are more likely to have their "inner content" defined by the reader via projection - ie. the reader creates the meaning for such terms in a way that is consistent with their own psychological makeup, thus making the phrase seem somehow logical. In the absence of the reader's subjectivity to "fill the phrase with meaning", there is nothing but a void.

Secondly, to say that Fourth Way methodology is aimed at "growing a soul within those who have none" is like saying that geometry is aimed at calculating the length of the hypotenuse in triangles. Montalk mentions "people who need soul awakening" (again, as if there was a self-evident difference between "growing a soul" and "awakening a soul") limiting themselves by such a system, but it is the author himself that circumscribes the "limitations" of the Fourth Way. If the Fourth Way is about becoming conscious (which it seems to be, in my experience), who is to say where the limitations of it are?

Thirdly, the phrase "By knowing yourself, you will know what is right for you", is presumptive. It is readily apparent to anyone who begins a committed study of esoteric work (or has spent any time in honest introspection) that one's knowledge of oneself is extremely limited. Given this starting condition, how is one supposed to know "what is right for you"? This phrase seems to drip with "New Age" flavour - just listen to your "inner self" and everything will be all right... you know better than anyone else what is right for you etc...

Such platitudes are very appealing because they are true in a certain sense, but again the third force is omitted - the "devil in the details" - the context of circumstances. In many situations, strong reactions are generated by our Personalities - psychological conditioning and programmed responses which we mistake for our "real selves" - and we may thus act in ways completely contrary to reality, yet blindly insistent that "we know what is best". In such circumstances it would be more accurate to say, "we know what is best for our self-image".

So, it's not quite a simple as Montalk makes it seem. Or so I think.
 
Thanks for insightful comments. Once again I've learned that trying to make an opinion about the subject from third party sources is meaningless. One has little chance to get the impartial view, and huge chance of getting a distorted one. If I had to learn it again, that means I wasn't really paying attention the time before ;) Opss, here I've stumbled again. So, without further ado, I've ordered Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" and Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales". Gosh..if you want to do it right, you have to do it yourself.

thanks again,
 
j0da said:
So, without further ado, I've ordered Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" and Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales". Gosh..if you want to do it right, you have to do it yourself.
Gurdjieff's "Meetings with Remarkable Men" is also excellent. I finished it recently, and its a darn sight easier more accessible to read than "Beelzebub's Tales" which I found to be hard work (deliberately so - I can imagine him having a good laugh about that :-) That's just my opinion though, don't let me put you off!
 
Back
Top Bottom