I don’t think that if there is no life connection with the trainer or guru (whether is about personal deveopment or spirituality), that eventuate absense of authenticity.

True, the market rulez call forth all sort of low quality materials, but One can decide which is authentic, and which is not. This is matter of judgement.

“The autodidact reaches a level of saturation and isolation where a misconception is installed.”
What do U mean by that?

“If there is no feed-back, the whole thing might turn into a self-congratulatory loop.”

There is always feedback. It’s just a case of whether one is aware enough to see and accept it.

“Or maybe “been there, done that”, in which case it is useless to you, still you can confirm its authenticity according to your own previous experience. Do you think authenticity is a requirement?”

How are you defining authenticity in these sentences?

How far should one go with autodidacticism?

How far should one go with anything? More to the point; how far would you go with autodidacticism?

“There is always some feed-back.” Maybe from a philosophical perspective.

There is always feedback. Every action you make, every word you say has an effect. Some people are just too unaware to notice.

Authenticity should be seen here as the proof of a working method.

Ok fair enough. But who then is required to provide that proof?

Is there another way to see it in the context we are talking about?

Yes, you could have been referring to being authentic as a person.

Asking it like you propose: “How far would you go?” is definitely more direct, more provoking. If that is why you are putting it that way. Or maybe my English failed me.

Yep, that’s how I meant it. How far do you personally feel capable of going with autodidacticism?

Well Atilla I must have mis-understood. I thought when you said:

“Authenticity should be seen here as the proof of a working method.”

You were referring to an authority of some sort. In fact you are saying; “The proof is in the pudding”. i.e. if it tastes fine then it must be fine.

Being authentic as a person sounds good. Authentic according to who?

Being authentic means being genuine. Being your true self without all the superficial ego-based BS. Obviously we are talking about the same things.

I personally feel capable of going as far as I find the feed-back to be approving.

I am not sure what you mean by that. I am still not sure I am understanding what you mean by “feed-back”. Could you define that a bit clearer?

Oh, and this isn’t anything to do with being categorical. For some reason I have trouble understanding what you mean by certain words - so I am asking for clarification. Though now I am wondering if you were joking at the fact I am separating your comments point-by-point! This isn’t something I normally do. But I think from past experience it will help me avoid getting into a messy dialog here…

It is your turn now to give an answer.

Until I feel I can’t go any further. Or end up a wreck at the bottom of some cliff…

Your English is fine Attila. I just need to dance around the subject you are posting about - meaning I touch on related subject. I need to do this as it helps me better understand what you are saying.

So just to clarify. You are saying that autodidacticism is not entirely effective without having the feedback of a third-party?

Ok great. I understand where you are coming from now.

Language is easy to get feedback on. You just write on the Internet, or talk to someone that speaks the language. Learning to play music is the same…so are many other things.

Personal Development is similar, depending on what you mean by ‘Personal Development’.

Spiritual Development though. I don’t see how that can be measured by someone else. Unless of course they have a camera inside your head. Spirituality isn’t really empirical. And on top of that, everyone means something different by the term. So how would one ‘measure’ another persons spiritual development?

Hey, hey - Attila I meant no offense!

You were talking about “getting feed-back” on development - both spiritual development and personal development. What is feed-back if not a form of measurement?

Attila, let me ask you something. Why do you feel that someone cannot ‘get there’ on their own?

And if we need someone or something else. What do you feel it is? An authority in the form of a guru, or teacher? Or something more insubstantial; for example our surrounding circumstances and situations, or a book or knowledge etc?

This often seems to be a hanging point between our conversations. So it would really help to hear your views on this.

No offense taken, I just did not want to overuse the smileys. My mistake. There should have been a

Sure, it can be a form a measurement. Which is communicated maybe as simple as an OK.

Regarding getting there on their own. I do not exclude the extraordinary. Someone might get there on their own. Although I consider this as rare as a white crow. Yes, that someone else needed for the role of the point of reference can be another person, or even a group of people. Also, I do not exclude some cathartic form of knowledge, even a book of that kind. But the most certain possibility lies within the other person(s) who are already there. There is also a theory propagated by Gurdjieff saying that even a group of committed people can try this together, even if they are not “awake”, playing the role of alarm clocks for each other. Still, the most certain way seems to be the help of someone already there. But is that someone willing at all to help you? It would be ethical you might think. But why would he help you? Why you? He got there where he has a true (free?) will. Does he have any guarantees that he will be able to really help you? Does he have the time for helping you? So many questions from here …

Earlier today, after getting the OMG experience seeing on the news the Bush vs. Dalai Lama, I stumbled upon a great video where the Dalai Lama gave a lecture on the Four Noble Truths. At a relaxed moment, he came up with the story of some of his Westerner fans asking him questions like: “Do you have a special method for us to get there faster? Easier? A more efficient one?” He said that there was only one more question missing from here: “A cheaper one?” LOL. And he concluded that this kind of questions are the sign of failure. I liked a lot the emphasis on the constant and intense effort needed.

I couldn’t think of a better way to conclude our conversation for today. Thank you Marcus!
I will also answer to your question soon, but my little daughter asks for me now.

@kulcsi
Back to the authenticity issue then. I doubt that while asleep you can recognize the awaken. Instead of authentic I would use fit for yourself: “.. if the chosen guru is fit for you or not“. But even that is paradoxical. Maybe fit for your - more or less - imagined concept of how a guru - your guru - should be. I would say that it is actually on the contrary, if you are fit for the guru. (This “guru” term might be misleading anyway, too much into the Oriental approach.)

I agree on getting support in the presence of a guru. Going further, I would say that if that is the only time/place to get closer to a higher state, then it is a sort of a vampirism. If this is the case, some gurus might beat you up But on the more serious side, this Witness concept is not very clear to me the way you use it. The Witness seems to me like a silent entity, thus without judgments, impartial. How it becomes an authority then?

Attila, thanks for the answer. Yeah that sheds a little light on your process.

I wrote a bit about Awareness Development a while ago. Or another way of saying that – I wrote about one way to start the process that will eventually lead to spiritual development.

http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/awareness-development/

I don’t know if you read that before. But a large part of our development (all forms of development) is finding a balance between authority and personal experience.

Here’s a question for you that is a bit out of the box. On my Spiritual Development, I have found that my ‘higher faculties’ have developed. These ‘higher-senses’ are things like increased intuition, and symbolical understanding of my life etc. I have also experienced premonitions. These things I can validate from my own personal-experience, I am my own authority on these matters because no-one else possibly can be.

As kulcsi says; how can another person provide me with any form of authority on those things? I can discuss the experiences with another person, but that person is not inside my head. That person did not experience what I experienced - therefore that person cannot be an authority. Let’s be clear. If we are talking about spiritual development – which leads to higher awareness, then we are not talking about something that is observable from a third-person perspective. How would you explain ‘green’ to a blind-man?

At best all another person can do with regards to inner development and higher-senses, is to be an impartial observer and share their opinion with me. But even if their words helped me, the fact remains that their opinion would be little more than mere opinion.

For example if I have a dream. I can tell you about it. You could perhaps give me your own ‘interpretation’ on that dream. But the only authority on my dreams is me. Simply because there is no way another person can experience the dream I had. They can give me their opinion, but that opinion can in no way be authoritative. How do you ‘share’ a dream with another person? How would you explain sound to a deaf man?

You speak of oriental ways of approach. Then you will have heard this; “The Tao that can be shown, is not the true Tao”.

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.”

In our conversation we could say; “The Tao that is an authority, is not the true Tao.”

I didn’t understand those words until I let go off my intellectual view on the subject. Spiritual development really isn’t an intellectual matter at all…

Yep, I essentially agree most of what you are saying then. Point-of-reference works better than the word ‘authority’. The dream-interpreter for example is creating reference points, rather than providing authoritative knowledge.

As for the higher-faculties emerging. From my own personal experience I can say to you without any form of doubt that these higher-senses only emerge during the moments the ego disappears, or starts breaking down. The ego effectively suppresses these abilities. They don’t emerge because of the Ego, they emerge when the Ego is removed even if only momentarily. At least that is how it has happened for me - so I can talk about that from experience, rather than as an abstract intellectual concept.

However I think I would be very arrogant to say that is how it works for everyone else, after all – who am I to say how these things function for everyone?! Especially without more experience. Part of the process of all forms of development is the realization that at some point we have to leave intellectual concepts at the door. Certain things simply have to be experienced in order to be understood. Now watch how the Ego will fight against that notion – because it likes to believe it can understand everything in the form of concepts! That is how the Ego grabs you, and it won’t let go until you see it for what it is. It simply doesn’t like hearing this sort of thing and generates all sorts of arguments and notions.

Also, the Ego causes problems with these higher-senses - because it tries to ‘interpret’ them in the BS superficial level. They simply won’t work through the Ego. At least that is my experience of them.

That said - I do agree that when you can use them at will - it would be a true sign of an ‘awakened’ mind.

I don’t quite get what you mean with ‘my interpretation of the Tao.’

The Tao isn’t an intellectual concept. It can’t be understood on an intellectual level. That is all a part of the illusion, and the Tao says that itself many times over. Unless I mis-understand what you are saying?

No offense, but you seem to put the blame on the ego a lot. May I ask what do you mean by ego? Seemingly it does lots of bad things to you. It suppresses, conceptualizes, fights you, grabs you, doesn’t like to hear things, brings up arguments, causes problem, is superficial

Recognizing an awakened I say it is simply impossible. I don’t see partial awakening as a possibility. Maybe moments, but that is still not partial awakening. Can we then say it is also partial sleeping? Sort of a daydreaming? There is no linearity here. There is no certain finality. Instead there is a paradox to be solved.

I don’t get it how or why it leads to frustration, indifference, hostility. Please explain.

Oh yes, many people say they want to wake up. But when it comes to making an effort - and a superhumanly great effort is required here - they step back. Or maybe ask for that “faster, easier, more effective or why not - cheaper way”. Just consider how ‘The Secret’ turned into a big BS. (Or it was from the start) I hear of attracting even enlightenment trough this “method”. OMG

Whether those people deserve guidance or not is their wish. But from the awakened perspective it is still irrelevant what they wish for. As long as they are in the sleeping state, they don’t have a true will. Their aspiration towards a higher good is very much pure from the ethical perspective. It is good, it is the right thing to do. Dreaming of the sun.