The Inner Journey Summarized

[JGeropoulas]

I've recently begun reading my first book by this intriguing Kuwaiti-born author, who, according to Amazon, "seeks to integrate modern psychology with the insights of Sufism, Buddhism, Gurdjieff, and other wisdom traditions".

The following compilation of quotes from several of his numerous books was inspiring to me so I wanted to share them with everyone else:

THE INNER JOURNEY

The inner journey is a passionate inquiry into our own soul, our own personal experience...to discover the true nature of our soul and reality.

It’s not enough to be passionately involved in a subject we are interested in learning more about; we have to be passionately involved in our own process. We need to inquire into and study our own state, our own soul.

The inner journey is one of insight and learning;
of fulfillment of life and human potential;
of liberation from suffering and limitation;
of inner freedom.
of adventure and discovery;
of maturation and completeness;
of truth and authenticity;
of love, devotion, passion, and union;
of compassion, giving, and service.

Yet, all these reflect one thing, and only one thing. For the journey is essentially a journey home, to our original primordial ground and source. To be at home is to be whole, contented, and at peace, because we are abiding in our true nature.

But the inner journey is difficult because we have to deal with issues that we'd rather not deal with, issues that we’ve avoided for a long time. To be real, to live a truthful life, we have to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves. We can't say, “I want to be real,” and keep running away from ourselves and from our lives. Being real is the result of confronting ourselves, the result of being honest about who and what we are.

To take even one step in our personal journey usually requires a lot of work and understanding. Much growing, maturing, and learning is involved, for instance, in going from seeing where you are, to not meddling with where you are.

People don’t generally make the effort to do inner work if they don’t want to be real, if they don’t feel that being real is something good, something they want, something they appreciate. There is something precious about being real in an interaction, something that cannot be analyzed. Being real has nothing to do with getting something or giving something, being seen or making the other feel seen—none of that.

Once abiding in the awareness of the true nature of our soul and our reality—we can be whole and at peace, no longer pummeled by needs, restlessness, dissatisfactions or ambitions.

Then we can live any life that fits our circumstances, and it will be a life redeemed, where one's fulfillment is identical with serving others; and where we are able to go through the vicissitudes of life and its unavoidable adversities, with grace, dignity, and maturity.

– A. H. Almaas (the pen name of Kuwaiti-born A. Hameed Ali) is author of numerous books which integrate modern psychology with the insights of Sufism, Buddhism, Gurdjieff, and other wisdom traditions.

 

[Palinurus]

Hi JGeropoulas,

There's a short thread on this author called A.H. Almaas - The Work.

Another topic relevant to the subject seems to be this one: A Question for the Cs (and the rest of the forum).

Hope this helps a bit. :)

 

[SeekinTruth]

This part has a somewhat Stoic flavor:

Once abiding in the awareness of the true nature of our soul and our reality—we can be whole and at peace, no longer pummeled by needs, restlessness, dissatisfactions or ambitions.

Then we can live any life that fits our circumstances, and it will be a life redeemed, where one's fulfillment is identical with serving others; and where we are able to go through the vicissitudes of life and its unavoidable adversities, with grace, dignity, and maturity.

 

[sarek]

This Almaas had me going for about half a day, just before I embarked on the real 4th way. An immediate put off for me was the highly commercial approach he is taking and "one can not serve two masters"

 

[JGeropoulas]

Hi JGeropoulas,

There's a short thread on this author called A.H. Almaas - The Work.

Another topic relevant to the subject seems to be this one: A Question for the Cs (and the rest of the forum).

Hope this helps a bit. :)

Thanks. I did a search for him prior to making this post, but for some reason nothing came up. I probably misspelled his name with just a single "a" or something. Anyway, always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness. The second link was especially intriguing and I need to re-read it, because the question of "who else" is out there that's co-linear intrigues me. Especially in light of the C's statement that Laura et al are part of the "more or less" "144,000" who possess supreme knowledge at this time.

Even if "Laura et al" included every Forum member (5,000+), that would still mean there are 139,000 others scattered around the planet that are co-linear with us. So, when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo, I can't help but wonder if this "144,000" includes Almaas and others who, theoretically, might possess comparable amounts of truth as individual Forum members, their difference being only where their particular gaps in knowledge exist.

In other words, how broad is the "net" spread determining "supreme knowledge", "co-linearity" etc.

 

[Palinurus]

I understand your disposition, I think.

You may want to read Path to the Temple of Secrets ;)

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Thanks. I did a search for him prior to making this post, but for some reason nothing came up. I probably misspelled his name with just a single "a" or something. Anyway, always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness. The second link was especially intriguing and I need to re-read it, because the question of "who else" is out there that's co-linear intrigues me. Especially in light of the C's statement that Laura et al are part of the "more or less" "144,000" who possess supreme knowledge at this time.

Even if "Laura et al" included every Forum member (5,000+), that would still mean there are 139,000 others scattered around the planet that are co-linear with us. So, when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo, I can't help but wonder if this "144,000" includes Almaas and others who, theoretically, might possess comparable amounts of truth as individual Forum members, their difference being only where their particular gaps in knowledge exist.

Hi JGeropoulas,

If you remember, in the session you are referring to, the C's said:

Q: (L) Are the 144,000 good guys or bad guys as we would term them?
A: Both. But they are ones who have supreme knowledge.
Q: (L) Are these human beings?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) There will be 144,000 people on the earth who have supreme knowledge?
A: Approximately.
Q: (L) Now, this 144,000, are we among that number? Just curious.
A: Maybe.

So, in this 144 000, there are 'good guys and bad guys'. To think that because you possess supreme knowledge, you are also doing the Work, that you strive to BE and that you strive to be a STO candidate is a lot of assumptions. ;)

Then there is also the context of the session. Laura warns regularly about taking things from sessions out of context because often, the C's refer to things Laura was going through at the time, because of the presence of Frank, etc. Not saying this is the case here, but just something to keep in mind.

I for one would not even say that everyone on this forum is co-linear. Many (hopefully most) members are currently working at becoming colinear. And we see every day that it's a tall order. And as far as supreme knowledge is concerned, I don't think we can say that the 5,000 members of this forum have it either. I don't mean to sell ourselves short, but I think we can count ourselves lucky with just having 2 members fitting that description... ;D

 

[Vic]

Hi JGeropoulas,

There's a short thread on this author called A.H. Almaas - The Work.

Another topic relevant to the subject seems to be this one: A Question for the Cs (and the rest of the forum).

Hope this helps a bit. :)

Thanks. I did a search for him prior to making this post, but for some reason nothing came up. I probably misspelled his name with just a single "a" or something. Anyway, always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness... The second link was especially intriguing and I need to re-read it, because the question of "who else" is out there that's co-linear intrigues me. Especially in light of the C's statement that Laura et al are part of the "more or less" "144,000" who possess supreme knowledge at this time.

Even if "Laura et al" included every Forum member (5,000+), that would still mean there are 139,000 others scattered around the planet that are co-linear with us. So, when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo, I can't help but wonder if this "144,000" includes Almaas and others who, theoretically, might possess comparable amounts of truth as individual Forum members, their difference being only where their particular gaps in knowledge exist.

In other words, how broad is the "net" spread determining "supreme knowledge", "co-linearity" etc.

Just a couple of points I would like to raise if I may. Clarification or confirmation would be welcome.

1. "...always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness"

Having just read about Knowledge in Debugging the Universe I am wondering if the above suggestion is true. Would it be more accurate to say it is only knowledge rather than information. I ask this based on Laura's explanation that knowledge is Truth. False knowledge, which I feel would still be information, is not in fact 'knowledge' as revealed in Debugging the Universe. Do we want information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness?

2. "...when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo..."
Has any research been done on Almaas and his work that might confirm that his work is not disinfo?

3. For me it is important to pick up points like this because if they don't slot neatly, like a square peg in a square hole, into the teachings of Laura and the Cs I think they need to be clarified, for others as well as myself. I am becoming grounded thank goodness, but I do remember when my feet were planted firmly in the air, and I would have gone running off after Almaas at the drop of a hat. Even if Almaas is the real deal, what would be the point in turning to him when everything is already here?

Thanks.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Thanks. I did a search for him prior to making this post, but for some reason nothing came up. I probably misspelled his name with just a single "a" or something. Anyway, always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness. The second link was especially intriguing and I need to re-read it, because the question of "who else" is out there that's co-linear intrigues me. Especially in light of the C's statement that Laura et al are part of the "more or less" "144,000" who possess supreme knowledge at this time.

Even if "Laura et al" included every Forum member (5,000+), that would still mean there are 139,000 others scattered around the planet that are co-linear with us. So, when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo, I can't help but wonder if this "144,000" includes Almaas and others who, theoretically, might possess comparable amounts of truth as individual Forum members, their difference being only where their particular gaps in knowledge exist.

Hi JGeropoulas,

If you remember, in the session you are referring to, the C's said:

Q: (L) Are the 144,000 good guys or bad guys as we would term them?
A: Both. But they are ones who have supreme knowledge.
Q: (L) Are these human beings?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) There will be 144,000 people on the earth who have supreme knowledge?
A: Approximately.
Q: (L) Now, this 144,000, are we among that number? Just curious.
A: Maybe.

So, in this 144 000, there are 'good guys and bad guys'. To think that because you possess supreme knowledge, you are also doing the Work, that you strive to BE and that you strive to be a STO candidate is a lot of assumptions. ;)

Then there is also the context of the session. Laura warns regularly about taking things from sessions out of context because often, the C's refer to things Laura was going through at the time, because of the presence of Frank, etc. Not saying this is the case here, but just something to keep in mind.

I for one would not even say that everyone on this forum is co-linear. Many (hopefully most) members are currently working at becoming colinear. And we see every day that it's a tall order. And as far as supreme knowledge is concerned, I don't think we can say that the 5,000 members of this forum have it either. I don't mean to sell ourselves short, but I think we can count ourselves lucky with just having 2 members fitting that description... ;D

Good points. I was intentionally being generous in my math calculations by including all Forum members to make a point using a "best case" scenario. I completely agree that being a member of this Forum certainly does not mean one is fully BEing an STO Man 5 who's crossed the 2nd Threshold--though this Forum is invaluable for finding the Path and persisting in the Work.

Thanks for hunting down that Transcript. I hadn't remembered the 144,000 included bad guys, though I think my point still stands, which is primarily a call for humility and open-mindedness (firmly anchored in knowledge and objectivity) in considering that there are likely others in the world who are genuinely enlightened and progressing on a legitimate path of spiritual evolution that's perhaps described in different terms than we are accustomed to.

As much as I value all the work Laura et al have put into themselves and this site, and as much as I believe more truth exists here than anywhere I know of on the planet--I think there's always the danger that subjective loyalty to anything can undermine objective thinking, and that we're all vulnerable to lapsing into that "monotheistic" mindset that we have a monopoly on the Truth.

"A sign of an intelligent person is knowing there are things you don’t know, but a sign of an even more intelligent person may be knowing there are things that you don’t know, you don’t know." http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,19024.0.html

 

[JGeropoulas]

...
Just a couple of points I would like to raise if I may. Clarification or confirmation would be welcome.

1. "...always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness"

Having just read about Knowledge in Debugging the Universe I am wondering if the above suggestion is true. Would it be more accurate to say it is only knowledge rather than information. I ask this based on Laura's explanation that knowledge is Truth. False knowledge, which I feel would still be information, is not in fact 'knowledge' as revealed in Debugging the Universe. Do we want information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness?

"Information to consider weaving..." would be a more accurate phrasing given your distinctions

2. "...when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo..."
Has any research been done on Almaas and his work that might confirm that his work is not disinfo?

See the link posted in the first reply for some discussion of him.

3. For me it is important to pick up points like this because if they don't slot neatly, like a square peg in a square hole, into the teachings of Laura and the Cs I think they need to be clarified, for others as well as myself. I am becoming grounded thank goodness, but I do remember when my feet were planted firmly in the air, and I would have gone running off after Almaas at the drop of a hat. Even if Almaas is the real deal, what would be the point in turning to him when everything is already here?
Thanks.

See my reply to Mrs. Tigersoap above.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Thanks. I did a search for him prior to making this post, but for some reason nothing came up. I probably misspelled his name with just a single "a" or something. Anyway, always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness. The second link was especially intriguing and I need to re-read it, because the question of "who else" is out there that's co-linear intrigues me. Especially in light of the C's statement that Laura et al are part of the "more or less" "144,000" who possess supreme knowledge at this time.

Even if "Laura et al" included every Forum member (5,000+), that would still mean there are 139,000 others scattered around the planet that are co-linear with us. So, when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo, I can't help but wonder if this "144,000" includes Almaas and others who, theoretically, might possess comparable amounts of truth as individual Forum members, their difference being only where their particular gaps in knowledge exist.

Hi JGeropoulas,

If you remember, in the session you are referring to, the C's said:

Q: (L) Are the 144,000 good guys or bad guys as we would term them?
A: Both. But they are ones who have supreme knowledge.
Q: (L) Are these human beings?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) There will be 144,000 people on the earth who have supreme knowledge?
A: Approximately.
Q: (L) Now, this 144,000, are we among that number? Just curious.
A: Maybe.

So, in this 144 000, there are 'good guys and bad guys'. To think that because you possess supreme knowledge, you are also doing the Work, that you strive to BE and that you strive to be a STO candidate is a lot of assumptions. ;)

Then there is also the context of the session. Laura warns regularly about taking things from sessions out of context because often, the C's refer to things Laura was going through at the time, because of the presence of Frank, etc. Not saying this is the case here, but just something to keep in mind.

I for one would not even say that everyone on this forum is co-linear. Many (hopefully most) members are currently working at becoming colinear. And we see every day that it's a tall order. And as far as supreme knowledge is concerned, I don't think we can say that the 5,000 members of this forum have it either. I don't mean to sell ourselves short, but I think we can count ourselves lucky with just having 2 members fitting that description... ;D

Good points. I was intentionally being generous in my math calculations by including all Forum members to make a point using a "best case" scenario. I completely agree that being a member of this Forum certainly does not mean one is fully BEing an STO Man 5 who's crossed the 2nd Threshold--though this Forum is invaluable for finding the Path and persisting in the Work.

Thanks for hunting down that Transcript. I hadn't remembered the 144,000 included bad guys, though I think my point still stands, which is primarily a call for humility and open-mindedness (firmly anchored in knowledge and objectivity) in considering that there are likely others in the world who are genuinely enlightened and progressing on a legitimate path of spiritual evolution that's perhaps described in different terms than we are accustomed to.

As much as I value all the work Laura et al have put into themselves and this site, and as much as I believe more truth exists here than anywhere I know of on the planet--I think there's always the danger that subjective loyalty to anything can undermine objective thinking, and that we're all vulnerable to lapsing into that "monotheistic" mindset that we have a monopoly on the Truth.

As discussed in this thread, "A sign of an intelligent person is knowing there are things you don’t know, but a sign of an even more intelligent person may be knowing there are things that you don’t know, you don’t know." http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,19024.0.html

Edit=Quote

 

[obyvatel]

As much as I value all the work Laura et al have put into themselves and this site, and as much as I believe more truth exists here than anywhere I know of on the planet--I think there's always the danger that subjective loyalty to anything can undermine objective thinking, and that we're all vulnerable to lapsing into that "monotheistic" mindset that we have a monopoly on the Truth.

Hi JGeropoulas,
Did you find evidence of subjective loyalty undermining objective thinking in the context of this thread or elsewhere? If so, can you point it out? That way we can all learn.

[quote author=JGeropoulas]
I hadn't remembered the 144,000 included bad guys, though I think my point still stands, which is primarily a call for humility and open-mindedness (firmly anchored in knowledge and objectivity) in considering that there are likely others in the world who are genuinely enlightened and progressing on a legitimate path of spiritual evolution that's perhaps described in different terms than we are accustomed to.
[/quote]

I consider it as a strong possibility that there are others in the world who could be progressing on a path to spiritual evolution. The question that I ask myself is quite self-centered as far as the teachings go - can I be helped by such teachings? To answer this question, it is required to have some familiarity with the body of teaching itself. What is equally important imo is to understand the circumstances in which the teachings arose - namely the social, cultural and historical context. For a person in a different part of the world who can spend little time on the computer or books, having a very different history it is possible to have spiritual evolution but the path and methods applicable for his evolution would likely be very different from a contemporary seeker in the modern western world. If someone took some teachings which were intended for people in such a milieu and started to transplant it in a completely different context, then the results would not be fruitful. It would either invite ridicule and rejection or an equally unwise acceptance. A mix is usually a practical result - if a certain portion of the population ridicule and reject it quite vociferously, it increases its popularity and hence curiosity towards it. This is referring to teachings that are "authentic" in the sense that they could have objectively beneficial results on some people who are in a position to make use of them.

Given the state of the world, it would be safe to say that authentic teachings are few and far between. There is a plethora of false teachings under various guises which cause harm in various ways. They hide under the principle of relativism and the attitude of open-mindedness. The New Age Cointelpro section off course is devoted to such teachings and teachers.

So the question of humility and open-mindedness have to be put in proper context. In this specific context of Almaas, I have not done any detailed study. I read Palinurus' analysis and looked up Almaas briefly over the web. Despite his origin which you chose to mention in the first line of your post, the teachings have evolved entirely in the context of modern western civilization. At least one traceable lineage is through Claudio Naranjo, the Chilean doctor. Naranjo and his teacher Oscar Ichazo of the Arica School have been discussed before in several threads of this forum, including Imitation 4th Way Groups Started By Gurdjieff Rejects . Quite a few lines have emerged from the Arica stream. Almaas's Ridhwan School appears to have a mixture of concepts taken from a variety of traditions. I have a layman's familiarity with most of these traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufism) excluding the Arica school. There have been several historical attempts to synthesize a coherent and acceptable spiritual philosophy from the major eastern traditions - some more well-intentioned than others. The resultant concoctions (that I am familiar with) read and feel good - especially in the eyes of the liberal minded seeker who is not genetically or culturally conditioned to be of the authoritarian mindset. The practical results have been of little consequence in terms of scale. There is little if any way to ascertain whether individual persons gained the so-called "enlightenment" from such teachings.

What is provided as quotes in the first post sounds good but does not in my mind have substance to it in practical terms that would help with getting a sense of what this path entails for someone who is not familiar with Almaas. So, if you are looking for feedback on Almaas's material, I would say you need to outline the practical aspects of the teachings. If you wish to get feedback about your understanding of the material, then expressing what appealed to you in practical terms beyond the words would be helpful.

My 2 cents

 

[Keit]

As much as I value all the work Laura et al have put into themselves and this site, and as much as I believe more truth exists here than anywhere I know of on the planet--I think there's always the danger that subjective loyalty to anything can undermine objective thinking, and that we're all vulnerable to lapsing into that "monotheistic" mindset that we have a monopoly on the Truth.

I agree and think that you bring up several valid points, but also think that the issue doesn't really have to do with validity, or if one person or a group "has the whole banana", so to say. It has to do with practicality and actual deeds.

Frankly, I would prefer the fact that there are maybe even less than 144,000 people on this planet that possess the supreme knowledge, rather than knowing that maybe there are even more than this, but they just "sit on" this knowledge and don't do anything with it in order to improve the human condition even if only a little bit.

Indeed, perhaps some of them are unable to do anything, some of them actually act against, etc. But the fact remains, that despite the vast and impressive knowledge that is available to many, only very few actually utilize it for the betterment of human kind.

So, yeah, it's great to find another source of invaluable knowledge, but after getting over the first few moments of being impressed, my next step would be to see if and how this knowledge was used in practice.

 

[Vic]

As much as I value all the work Laura et al have put into themselves and this site, and as much as I believe more truth exists here than anywhere I know of on the planet--I think there's always the danger that subjective loyalty to anything can undermine objective thinking, and that we're all vulnerable to lapsing into that "monotheistic" mindset that we have a monopoly on the Truth.

Hi JGeropoulas,
Did you find evidence of subjective loyalty undermining objective thinking in the context of this thread or elsewhere? If so, can you point it out? That way we can all learn.

[quote author=JGeropoulas]
I hadn't remembered the 144,000 included bad guys, though I think my point still stands, which is primarily a call for humility and open-mindedness (firmly anchored in knowledge and objectivity) in considering that there are likely others in the world who are genuinely enlightened and progressing on a legitimate path of spiritual evolution that's perhaps described in different terms than we are accustomed to.

I consider it as a strong possibility that there are others in the world who could be progressing on a path to spiritual evolution. The question that I ask myself is quite self-centered as far as the teachings go - can I be helped by such teachings? To answer this question, it is required to have some familiarity with the body of teaching itself. What is equally important imo is to understand the circumstances in which the teachings arose - namely the social, cultural and historical context. For a person in a different part of the world who can spend little time on the computer or books, having a very different history it is possible to have spiritual evolution but the path and methods applicable for his evolution would likely be very different from a contemporary seeker in the modern western world. If someone took some teachings which were intended for people in such a milieu and started to transplant it in a completely different context, then the results would not be fruitful. It would either invite ridicule and rejection or an equally unwise acceptance. A mix is usually a practical result - if a certain portion of the population ridicule and reject it quite vociferously, it increases its popularity and hence curiosity towards it. This is referring to teachings that are "authentic" in the sense that they could have objectively beneficial results on some people who are in a position to make use of them.

Given the state of the world, it would be safe to say that authentic teachings are few and far between. There is a plethora of false teachings under various guises which cause harm in various ways. They hide under the principle of relativism and the attitude of open-mindedness. The New Age Cointelpro section off course is devoted to such teachings and teachers.

So the question of humility and open-mindedness have to be put in proper context. In this specific context of Almaas, I have not done any detailed study. I read Palinurus' analysis and looked up Almaas briefly over the web. Despite his origin which you chose to mention in the first line of your post, the teachings have evolved entirely in the context of modern western civilization. At least one traceable lineage is through Claudio Naranjo, the Chilean doctor. Naranjo and his teacher Oscar Ichazo of the Arica School have been discussed before in several threads of this forum, including Imitation 4th Way Groups Started By Gurdjieff Rejects . Quite a few lines have emerged from the Arica stream. Almaas's Ridhwan School appears to have a mixture of concepts taken from a variety of traditions. I have a layman's familiarity with most of these traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufism) excluding the Arica school. There have been several historical attempts to synthesize a coherent and acceptable spiritual philosophy from the major eastern traditions - some more well-intentioned than others. The resultant concoctions (that I am familiar with) read and feel good - especially in the eyes of the liberal minded seeker who is not genetically or culturally conditioned to be of the authoritarian mindset. The practical results have been of little consequence in terms of scale. There is little if any way to ascertain whether individual persons gained the so-called "enlightenment" from such teachings.

What is provided as quotes in the first post sounds good but does not in my mind have substance to it in practical terms that would help with getting a sense of what this path entails for someone who is not familiar with Almaas. So, if you are looking for feedback on Almaas's material, I would say you need to outline the practical aspects of the teachings. If you wish to get feedback about your understanding of the material, then expressing what appealed to you in practical terms beyond the words would be helpful.

My 2 cents
[/quote]

@JGeropoulas - Obyvatel's comments articulate to a high degree the crux of the issue I was trying to present in my previous post:

"Just a couple of points I would like to raise if I may. Clarification or confirmation would be welcome.

1. "...always good to have more information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness"

Having just read about Knowledge in Debugging the Universe I am wondering if the above suggestion is true. Would it be more accurate to say it is only knowledge rather than information. I ask this based on Laura's explanation that knowledge is Truth. False knowledge, which I feel would still be information, is not in fact 'knowledge' as revealed in Debugging the Universe. Do we want information to weave into the fabric of our consciousness?

2. "...when I run across someone who seems to possess critical truths which are perhaps incomplete, yet free of disinfo..."
Has any research been done on Almaas and his work that might confirm that his work is not disinfo?

3. For me it is important to pick up points like this because if they don't slot neatly, like a square peg in a square hole, into the teachings of Laura and the Cs I think they need to be clarified, for others as well as myself. I am becoming grounded thank goodness, but I do remember when my feet were planted firmly in the air, and I would have gone running off after Almaas at the drop of a hat. Even if Almaas is the real deal, what would be the point in turning to him when everything is already here?"

Thanks, Obyvatel. Your post shows me how it should be done. Unless I take the time to clearly communicate, in a post, the essence of a point I wish to make, then the post itself can either be buried by the use of semantics in a reply, or just plain misunderstood.

Something else for me to work on.

And thanks to JGeropoulas for this thread.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Hi JGeropoulas,
Did you find evidence of subjective loyalty undermining objective thinking in the context of this thread or elsewhere? If so, can you point it out? That way we can all learn.
<snip>
What is provided as quotes in the first post sounds good but does not in my mind have substance to it in practical terms that would help with getting a sense of what this path entails for someone who is not familiar with Almaas. So, if you are looking for feedback on Almaas's material, I would say you need to outline the practical aspects of the teachings. If you wish to get feedback about your understanding of the material, then expressing what appealed to you in practical terms beyond the words would be helpful.

I think I should have been more clear about what prompted me to post this quote by Almaas. My original intention was not to promote Almaas (although his apparent inclination to synthesize and distill knowledge definitely got my attention). My intention was to share with those on the Forum, assumed to be working from a Fourth Way perspective, what seemed like a good summary of what a life shaped by Fourth Way teachings and practice might look like.

I really enjoy being exposed to information, analyzing it and developing concepts of new ideas as warranted. But at some point, I need to shift from abstract concepts to descriptive, concrete examples--such as articulated in the Almaas quote--to consolidate those concepts. (Which is why the next book I intend to read is Gurdjieff's "Meetings With Remarkable Men").

Just to clarify, my exclusive source of information and knowledge about esoteric development (and most everything else of importance) has been this Forum, the recommended reading list, Laura's books and all the articles on her Cass blog. As such, this "School" has been quite comprehensive, and certainly sufficient for fostering esoteric development. I often joke to friends that SOTT.net is the most delightful frustration on the planet (i.e. despite my intense desire to read every Forum post and news article, this has proven impossible for me, especially since the store of knowledge grows daily).

Due to years I spent oppressed by Christian fundamentalist authorities (who disdained critical thinking and who implied that their little narcissistic world was sufficient to meet all needs), I think the thread went off in an unintended (though important) direction because of my strong reaction to these underlined words in The Strawman’s reply:

(if points) “don't slot neatly, like a square peg in a square hole, into the teachings of Laura and the Cs I think they need to be clarified...Even if Almaas is the real deal, what would be the point in turning to him when everything is already here."