Greetings

Have any of you met or been reading about

Raj Patel  or  Samael Aun Weor ?

Basically,
Patel fits a 1977 description/prophesy by a theosophical spin-off group that now believes they've discovered him to be their prophesied world spiritual leader. Patel says he isn't and that he's never heard of them. He is young but his attitudes and interests don't conflict with such a role.

Weor is older and has been teaching in the Gnostic/ Kaballahistic tradition. He's written many books and has internationally set up schools.

Your views will be appreciated, --  all the more so if you know anything about these individuals 

Bets

recoverer wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:


WOW!  Recoverer, this post really speaks to me.  I couldn't agree more.  Having been a life-long seeker of truth, I wish I had a hug for every false guru I've given my money to.  I guess I had to learn the hard way.  Busying my mind with teachers and gurus and channelers and you-name-it was the route I took to keep myself from doing my own thinking.  Well it's been a ride, but as alluded to on "The Wizard of OZ" our answers have been right here within our own selves, all along.  Thanks for sharing. 

Albert-

You make good points.  These so-called gurus or "spiritual masters" almost always have other agendas.

Their objective is power and control.  And many of them use that control for non-spiritual objectives, including sexual seduction.

Unfortunately, they tend to prey on the young, the naive, and those with poor self esteem who are desperate for approval and acceptance.

R

Bets

You are always on the search for interesting stuff!

I am curious as to why you are curious about these folks. I guess Patel is on the young side and not interested in political power(?) but the other one is? I try to judge systems by what they produce. But I don't trust world movements because I think they must be ego-based at some point. For instance I like studying ACIM or discussing it or hearing "testimonials" but I don't want to be associated with an ACIM group. Of course, with me, the same goes for Christianity.

So what do these groups have to offer in the way of ideas? Do they work for the people involved?

That is one reason I keep working with the reiki. I see getting a use-able result from using it is not easy. But it does produce a result.

But we are all on such different paths that I assume that for some, joining a group makes a positive change in their lives. Its just that for those who do that, they sometimes fail to realize that the change they experience is not universally applicable. Still groups are "scary" and have as much potential to disseminate false information as they do to evoke positive change.

(With all due respects to being open-minded to conservative commentators, I am thinking actually of the drive by opponents of health-care reform to convince people that the proposed legislation included a provision for death panels who might decide you could die rather than receive sustaining care, which is something that did not in fact appear in the legislation. But the "group" decided to distort the facts to manipulate certain vulnerable parts of the voting public. This was a political issue, but what happens when there is a kind of yellow journalism in spiritual matters?)

Of course, many people are more engaged when a person is attached to the ideas than when the ideas are examined separately from a personality.

Lucy wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 9:15am:


Hi Lucy: If you are intensely interested in this subject… I suggest the Dr. David Hawkins - trilogy… but, don’t start with Power vs. Force… start with I of the Eye, and possible go to the I/ reality and subjectivity then power vs. force…

Pay close attention to his bio… here is what I know about Hawkins, he is a psychoanalyst/mystic who has one of the largest practices in the country… spent a lifetime in research and development… Knighted by the King of Denmark… honors galore… given the highest honor that can be bestowed on an individual by the Korean Buddhist authority…

What some are regarding as self aggranddizement… is being misinterpreted… Hawkins has simply told his story… what you project on his story is your own problem… he describes in great detail his transcendental experience… which is what we all are ultimately attempting to achieve… whether to accept his story as true is your personal decision…

I am not sure what ACIM is but he is a proponent of kiniesthesiology (??sp) and I personally have minor problems with some of the conclusions… not because the system is not valid… but, because the testing may have not been as thorough as it could be…

For example: A reviewer pointed out that Pasteur rates higher than a contempory who in the opinion of the reviewer had more integrity than Pasteur and was more of a selfless humanitarian… she made her case to my satisfaction… but, it didn’t invalidate the Hawkins evaluation… on a summation of forces… scale… of course Pasteur was flawed but on average I decided he deserved his evaluation.

But, this does not destroy the system itself… it only means a caveat must be recognize in its use… (the evaluation is subject to further investigation and introduction of deeper or fuller knowledge).

S.

p.s.: Hawkins independently validates Bruce Moen's Heaven/Hell descriptions and conclusions... (as well as Swedenborg's)... I doubt either man has read each other before the writing of there books... Hawkins approaches them essentially in the same way by conclusions about them.

I don't consider people to teach me something only because they have a sort of "degree". In spiritual belongs, a degree is of course much more doubtable than in science. I could declare a society of the "Golden Whatever" to be the owner of the truth, and me myself to be the top guru. Everyone can do this. So Lucy and Recoverer have my sympathy for their critical way on this. For example, I feel drawn to Zen, but I don't want to join a group or got me a teacher.

Spooky

S-1 you are cracking me up!

Reading Moen's and Monroe's books and taking what they say and trying it out and discussing the books is far different from considering either one a high holy teacher. Perhaps I misunderstand something here? Having gone farther than average in the academic world, I find discussing stuff normal. I find arguing about ideas normal. If two attorneys were discussing the pros and cons of some decision and one agreed with what a judge had written, would you call him or her a follower of that judge? No! What's the difference here? I always find it amusing when Don B refers to folks who talk about either Seth's writings or ACIM as though they were devotees of the persons who did the writing. I suppose if I read Einstein's papers and froth about how brilliant he is, that makes me a devotee of Einstein?

As the saying goes, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

_______________________________

Re: Raj Patel
I always assume others do what I do...Google! There is a website by a Raj Patel that has a page that addresses this issue. It just doesn't explain how all this evolved. And on the web, what's real and what is not? And "Patel", I am told, is as common as "Smith". Is there another Raj Patel?

Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 2:54am: