1.) We have mohammed. Sahih al-Bukhari 5134
2.) Now this I would not have expected... but the Dalai Lama too??? Asking little boys to suck his tongue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFKgNAmHcY
3.) The buddha. Marrying his first cousin, yasodhara and producing an inbred child. https://www.burmese-buddhas.com/blog/yasodhara/
To be fair to the Dalai Lama though, atleast he isnt like muhammad and having sex with 9 year old children (aisha)
2.) Now this I would not have expected... but the Dalai Lama too??? Asking little boys to suck his tongue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFKgNAmHcY
3.) The buddha. Marrying his first cousin, yasodhara and producing an inbred child. https://www.burmese-buddhas.com/blog/yasodhara/
To be fair to the Dalai Lama though, atleast he isnt like muhammad and having sex with 9 year old children (aisha)
Accepted Answer
The short answer to your question is "No, someone who actively engages in pedophilia or sexual deviancy cannot simultaneously be a master. They are incompatible."
But it is more valuable to examine the source from which this question emerged, so let's discuss that.
First, what makes someone a sexual deviant is the contents of a person's mind. We can make inferences about what is going on inside a person based on their words and actions, but we can never really know. Thus, Samael Aun Weor said the following in response to a question from a student:
So naturally, those who are afflicted by the egos of sexual deviancy (as many of us are, due to past mistakes) will interpret what we see and hear through that lens, and will project our sexual deviancy onto others, even when it is not there.
Therefore, it is not our place to be judging others. We cannot know what is really going on inside of another person so long as our own perception is polluted. We will only see a reflection of ourselves. Thus, Jesus said:
That said, there is a balance that must be struck. Samael also said:
Sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up, or speak up, in order to prevent great harm from coming to the world due to the actions of others, but we must do so always from a place of compassion for all beings (even those who may be doing harm), and without allowing our mind to stray to a place of judgment or condemnation.
That is the important part. It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
Now for the unimportant part. As for the three examples you provided, seen from a different angle, each of those examples may be entirely chaste and benign.
Let's look through them in order.
You cited al-Bukhari 5134, which states:
Samael wrote in The Perfect Matrimony:
Thus, we know that the Muslim tradition contains rich symbolism much the same as the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it. Here is one possible interpretation of the Hadith you cited:
So that Hadith could very easily be referring to states of mind and stages of the path rather than the physical years or ages at which they did or did not do certain things.
Study the books Tarot and Kabbalah and The Three Mountains to learn more (links are below).
The next example you cited was the video of the Dalai Lama and the young boy, which due to the recency of it, is likely what inspired this question.
The video you provided is heavily cut and edited. The following link contains the unedited video, along with some helpful context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78
You can see from the unadulterated video that the Dalai Lama did not, in fact, allow that boy to "suck his tongue"--he pulled it back before the boy could touch it--which is not clear at all from the censored version that has been circulating. And as the video above explains, that incident was broadcast globally over a month ago, and no one made anything of it, until this new edited video (the one you posted) started making the rounds about a week ago. What happened in the intervening period? The Dalai Lama named and enthroned the spiritual leader of the Gelug school in Mongolia, which angered the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Did the CCP manufacture and distribute the edited video in an attempt to turn public opinion against the Dalai Lama in retaliation for his action in enthroning the new leader of the Mongolian Gelug school? I do not know. It doesn't matter if they did or not. What matters is how we respond, internally, to the external stimuli of reading or hearing these stories.
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
In that chapter, Samael was warning that propaganda often masquerades as news, and that ingesting it (especially when we have not learned how to properly transform impressions) can damage the simplicity and purity of our minds. How many people, having viewed that video of the Dalai Lama, allowed their minds to become infected by judgment or condemnation? Behold how weak and vulnerable we are.
The Eight Commandment prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. It relates to the eighth sphere of the Kabbalah, Hod, or the heart. So it is, esoterically, a prohibition against condemning others in our hearts. How many of us were deceived into violating the Eighth Commandment by a cleverly edited video? How often does that happen in our world every day? So we need to be careful, not just with the sensations we allow to enter us through our sense organs, but also we how we perceive those sensations with our consciousness.
Finally, you mentioned that the Buddha married his cousin, and equated this to sexual deviancy. The taboo against marrying blood relatives is very modern, and even in America, it was considered fine to marry your cousin up until the late 19th Century. (The New York Times wrote an article on this back in 2018. See the citations below for the link.) It seems inappropriate to be projecting modern sexual norms on someone who lived over 2,500 years ago, and to claim deviations from those modern norms are evidence of "deviancy." But even aside from that, the story you cited says he did this before dedicating his life to the Path, thus he wasn't a fully realized master at the time he married her, so there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between his actions and the principles of the Path.
But it is more valuable to examine the source from which this question emerged, so let's discuss that.
First, what makes someone a sexual deviant is the contents of a person's mind. We can make inferences about what is going on inside a person based on their words and actions, but we can never really know. Thus, Samael Aun Weor said the following in response to a question from a student:
Student: Another thing master, for example, those defects..., because many times we have the defects, and we are so attached to them that we don't even want to recognize them, but someone who recognizes a defect could throw it at us, and so we could do our part, by street analysis, let's suppose, would it also be useful if they told one: "Look, you have such a thing"? Or from someone, from a friend of someone who can say: "Look, you have this defect, you have this"...
Samael Aun Weor: It seems to me that no one has the right to judge anyone, and for this reason, each of us has to discover ourselves. Because whoever has certain defects, he projects them onto others. If, for example, we have selfishness, we project our selfishness onto the people around us, and we see everyone as selfish.
So that someone who is foisting on us just like that defect, he has it very much, but he sees it in us. So, for this reason, it is oneself who has to discover oneself.
- "The Precious Opportunity to Avoid Suffering" (lecture)
So naturally, those who are afflicted by the egos of sexual deviancy (as many of us are, due to past mistakes) will interpret what we see and hear through that lens, and will project our sexual deviancy onto others, even when it is not there.
Therefore, it is not our place to be judging others. We cannot know what is really going on inside of another person so long as our own perception is polluted. We will only see a reflection of ourselves. Thus, Jesus said:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
- Matthew 7:1-5
That said, there is a balance that must be struck. Samael also said:
Under the shelter of the divine phrase “Universal Fraternity” the worst crimes registered in the penal code are committed.
It is distressful for us to state this, but complacency with crime is also a crime. It is as bad to be silent when one must talk as to talk when one must be silent. We would like to be silent, yet one not only pays karma for the evil things that were done, but also for the good things that were left undone when these things could have been done.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 1"
Sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up, or speak up, in order to prevent great harm from coming to the world due to the actions of others, but we must do so always from a place of compassion for all beings (even those who may be doing harm), and without allowing our mind to stray to a place of judgment or condemnation.
That is the important part. It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
Now for the unimportant part. As for the three examples you provided, seen from a different angle, each of those examples may be entirely chaste and benign.
Let's look through them in order.
You cited al-Bukhari 5134, which states:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Samael wrote in The Perfect Matrimony:
The most ineffable part of Mohammedan mysticism is Persian Sufism. It has the merit of struggling against materialism and fanaticism and against the literal interpretation of the Koran. The Sufis interpret the Koran from the esoteric point of view as we, the Gnostics, interpret the New Testament.
- "Fatality"
Thus, we know that the Muslim tradition contains rich symbolism much the same as the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it. Here is one possible interpretation of the Hadith you cited:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old [6: Indecision, i.e. when she was still under the sway of lust or desire] and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old [9: The Hermit, i.e. when she was prepared for initiation], . Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years [9: related to Mohammad's initiation or the nine heavens of the Second Mountain] (i.e. till his death) [the death of the ego, or the culmination of the Second Mountain].
So that Hadith could very easily be referring to states of mind and stages of the path rather than the physical years or ages at which they did or did not do certain things.
Study the books Tarot and Kabbalah and The Three Mountains to learn more (links are below).
The next example you cited was the video of the Dalai Lama and the young boy, which due to the recency of it, is likely what inspired this question.
The video you provided is heavily cut and edited. The following link contains the unedited video, along with some helpful context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78
You can see from the unadulterated video that the Dalai Lama did not, in fact, allow that boy to "suck his tongue"--he pulled it back before the boy could touch it--which is not clear at all from the censored version that has been circulating. And as the video above explains, that incident was broadcast globally over a month ago, and no one made anything of it, until this new edited video (the one you posted) started making the rounds about a week ago. What happened in the intervening period? The Dalai Lama named and enthroned the spiritual leader of the Gelug school in Mongolia, which angered the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Did the CCP manufacture and distribute the edited video in an attempt to turn public opinion against the Dalai Lama in retaliation for his action in enthroning the new leader of the Mongolian Gelug school? I do not know. It doesn't matter if they did or not. What matters is how we respond, internally, to the external stimuli of reading or hearing these stories.
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
Our disciples must carefully avoid reading too many newspapers. In a banquet for journalists of an independent press in New York, a journalist clearly and forthrightly stated the following:
“We (journalists) are intellectual prostitutes.” - John Swinton, New York, 1890
Therefore, it is not convenient to read too many newspapers, unless we want to prostitute our minds.
We need to have a simple and pure mind, like the mind of an infant. Only in this way can we enter into the Major Mysteries.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 12"
In that chapter, Samael was warning that propaganda often masquerades as news, and that ingesting it (especially when we have not learned how to properly transform impressions) can damage the simplicity and purity of our minds. How many people, having viewed that video of the Dalai Lama, allowed their minds to become infected by judgment or condemnation? Behold how weak and vulnerable we are.
The Eight Commandment prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. It relates to the eighth sphere of the Kabbalah, Hod, or the heart. So it is, esoterically, a prohibition against condemning others in our hearts. How many of us were deceived into violating the Eighth Commandment by a cleverly edited video? How often does that happen in our world every day? So we need to be careful, not just with the sensations we allow to enter us through our sense organs, but also we how we perceive those sensations with our consciousness.
Finally, you mentioned that the Buddha married his cousin, and equated this to sexual deviancy. The taboo against marrying blood relatives is very modern, and even in America, it was considered fine to marry your cousin up until the late 19th Century. (The New York Times wrote an article on this back in 2018. See the citations below for the link.) It seems inappropriate to be projecting modern sexual norms on someone who lived over 2,500 years ago, and to claim deviations from those modern norms are evidence of "deviancy." But even aside from that, the story you cited says he did this before dedicating his life to the Path, thus he wasn't a fully realized master at the time he married her, so there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between his actions and the principles of the Path.
Alphonse
changed the title from Can a peadophile be a gnostic master? to Can a peadophile/sexual deviant be a gnostic master? — 5 months ago
Alphonse
updated the category from
Questions and Answers with Instructors to
Questions and Answers with Instructors — 5 months ago
Accepted Answer
The short answer to your question is "No, someone who actively engages in pedophilia or sexual deviancy cannot simultaneously be a master. They are incompatible."
But it is more valuable to examine the source from which this question emerged, so let's discuss that.
First, what makes someone a sexual deviant is the contents of a person's mind. We can make inferences about what is going on inside a person based on their words and actions, but we can never really know. Thus, Samael Aun Weor said the following in response to a question from a student:
So naturally, those who are afflicted by the egos of sexual deviancy (as many of us are, due to past mistakes) will interpret what we see and hear through that lens, and will project our sexual deviancy onto others, even when it is not there.
Therefore, it is not our place to be judging others. We cannot know what is really going on inside of another person so long as our own perception is polluted. We will only see a reflection of ourselves. Thus, Jesus said:
That said, there is a balance that must be struck. Samael also said:
Sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up, or speak up, in order to prevent great harm from coming to the world due to the actions of others, but we must do so always from a place of compassion for all beings (even those who may be doing harm), and without allowing our mind to stray to a place of judgment or condemnation.
That is the important part. It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
Now for the unimportant part. As for the three examples you provided, seen from a different angle, each of those examples may be entirely chaste and benign.
Let's look through them in order.
You cited al-Bukhari 5134, which states:
Samael wrote in The Perfect Matrimony:
Thus, we know that the Muslim tradition contains rich symbolism much the same as the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it. Here is one possible interpretation of the Hadith you cited:
So that Hadith could very easily be referring to states of mind and stages of the path rather than the physical years or ages at which they did or did not do certain things.
Study the books Tarot and Kabbalah and The Three Mountains to learn more (links are below).
The next example you cited was the video of the Dalai Lama and the young boy, which due to the recency of it, is likely what inspired this question.
The video you provided is heavily cut and edited. The following link contains the unedited video, along with some helpful context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78
You can see from the unadulterated video that the Dalai Lama did not, in fact, allow that boy to "suck his tongue"--he pulled it back before the boy could touch it--which is not clear at all from the censored version that has been circulating. And as the video above explains, that incident was broadcast globally over a month ago, and no one made anything of it, until this new edited video (the one you posted) started making the rounds about a week ago. What happened in the intervening period? The Dalai Lama named and enthroned the spiritual leader of the Gelug school in Mongolia, which angered the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Did the CCP manufacture and distribute the edited video in an attempt to turn public opinion against the Dalai Lama in retaliation for his action in enthroning the new leader of the Mongolian Gelug school? I do not know. It doesn't matter if they did or not. What matters is how we respond, internally, to the external stimuli of reading or hearing these stories.
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
In that chapter, Samael was warning that propaganda often masquerades as news, and that ingesting it (especially when we have not learned how to properly transform impressions) can damage the simplicity and purity of our minds. How many people, having viewed that video of the Dalai Lama, allowed their minds to become infected by judgment or condemnation? Behold how weak and vulnerable we are.
The Eight Commandment prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. It relates to the eighth sphere of the Kabbalah, Hod, or the heart. So it is, esoterically, a prohibition against condemning others in our hearts. How many of us were deceived into violating the Eighth Commandment by a cleverly edited video? How often does that happen in our world every day? So we need to be careful, not just with the sensations we allow to enter us through our sense organs, but also we how we perceive those sensations with our consciousness.
Finally, you mentioned that the Buddha married his cousin, and equated this to sexual deviancy. The taboo against marrying blood relatives is very modern, and even in America, it was considered fine to marry your cousin up until the late 19th Century. (The New York Times wrote an article on this back in 2018. See the citations below for the link.) It seems inappropriate to be projecting modern sexual norms on someone who lived over 2,500 years ago, and to claim deviations from those modern norms are evidence of "deviancy." But even aside from that, the story you cited says he did this before dedicating his life to the Path, thus he wasn't a fully realized master at the time he married her, so there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between his actions and the principles of the Path.
But it is more valuable to examine the source from which this question emerged, so let's discuss that.
First, what makes someone a sexual deviant is the contents of a person's mind. We can make inferences about what is going on inside a person based on their words and actions, but we can never really know. Thus, Samael Aun Weor said the following in response to a question from a student:
Student: Another thing master, for example, those defects..., because many times we have the defects, and we are so attached to them that we don't even want to recognize them, but someone who recognizes a defect could throw it at us, and so we could do our part, by street analysis, let's suppose, would it also be useful if they told one: "Look, you have such a thing"? Or from someone, from a friend of someone who can say: "Look, you have this defect, you have this"...
Samael Aun Weor: It seems to me that no one has the right to judge anyone, and for this reason, each of us has to discover ourselves. Because whoever has certain defects, he projects them onto others. If, for example, we have selfishness, we project our selfishness onto the people around us, and we see everyone as selfish.
So that someone who is foisting on us just like that defect, he has it very much, but he sees it in us. So, for this reason, it is oneself who has to discover oneself.
- "The Precious Opportunity to Avoid Suffering" (lecture)
So naturally, those who are afflicted by the egos of sexual deviancy (as many of us are, due to past mistakes) will interpret what we see and hear through that lens, and will project our sexual deviancy onto others, even when it is not there.
Therefore, it is not our place to be judging others. We cannot know what is really going on inside of another person so long as our own perception is polluted. We will only see a reflection of ourselves. Thus, Jesus said:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
- Matthew 7:1-5
That said, there is a balance that must be struck. Samael also said:
Under the shelter of the divine phrase “Universal Fraternity” the worst crimes registered in the penal code are committed.
It is distressful for us to state this, but complacency with crime is also a crime. It is as bad to be silent when one must talk as to talk when one must be silent. We would like to be silent, yet one not only pays karma for the evil things that were done, but also for the good things that were left undone when these things could have been done.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 1"
Sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up, or speak up, in order to prevent great harm from coming to the world due to the actions of others, but we must do so always from a place of compassion for all beings (even those who may be doing harm), and without allowing our mind to stray to a place of judgment or condemnation.
That is the important part. It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
Now for the unimportant part. As for the three examples you provided, seen from a different angle, each of those examples may be entirely chaste and benign.
Let's look through them in order.
You cited al-Bukhari 5134, which states:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Samael wrote in The Perfect Matrimony:
The most ineffable part of Mohammedan mysticism is Persian Sufism. It has the merit of struggling against materialism and fanaticism and against the literal interpretation of the Koran. The Sufis interpret the Koran from the esoteric point of view as we, the Gnostics, interpret the New Testament.
- "Fatality"
Thus, we know that the Muslim tradition contains rich symbolism much the same as the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it. Here is one possible interpretation of the Hadith you cited:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old [6: Indecision, i.e. when she was still under the sway of lust or desire] and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old [9: The Hermit, i.e. when she was prepared for initiation], . Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years [9: related to Mohammad's initiation or the nine heavens of the Second Mountain] (i.e. till his death) [the death of the ego, or the culmination of the Second Mountain].
So that Hadith could very easily be referring to states of mind and stages of the path rather than the physical years or ages at which they did or did not do certain things.
Study the books Tarot and Kabbalah and The Three Mountains to learn more (links are below).
The next example you cited was the video of the Dalai Lama and the young boy, which due to the recency of it, is likely what inspired this question.
The video you provided is heavily cut and edited. The following link contains the unedited video, along with some helpful context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78
You can see from the unadulterated video that the Dalai Lama did not, in fact, allow that boy to "suck his tongue"--he pulled it back before the boy could touch it--which is not clear at all from the censored version that has been circulating. And as the video above explains, that incident was broadcast globally over a month ago, and no one made anything of it, until this new edited video (the one you posted) started making the rounds about a week ago. What happened in the intervening period? The Dalai Lama named and enthroned the spiritual leader of the Gelug school in Mongolia, which angered the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Did the CCP manufacture and distribute the edited video in an attempt to turn public opinion against the Dalai Lama in retaliation for his action in enthroning the new leader of the Mongolian Gelug school? I do not know. It doesn't matter if they did or not. What matters is how we respond, internally, to the external stimuli of reading or hearing these stories.
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
Our disciples must carefully avoid reading too many newspapers. In a banquet for journalists of an independent press in New York, a journalist clearly and forthrightly stated the following:
“We (journalists) are intellectual prostitutes.” - John Swinton, New York, 1890
Therefore, it is not convenient to read too many newspapers, unless we want to prostitute our minds.
We need to have a simple and pure mind, like the mind of an infant. Only in this way can we enter into the Major Mysteries.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 12"
In that chapter, Samael was warning that propaganda often masquerades as news, and that ingesting it (especially when we have not learned how to properly transform impressions) can damage the simplicity and purity of our minds. How many people, having viewed that video of the Dalai Lama, allowed their minds to become infected by judgment or condemnation? Behold how weak and vulnerable we are.
The Eight Commandment prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. It relates to the eighth sphere of the Kabbalah, Hod, or the heart. So it is, esoterically, a prohibition against condemning others in our hearts. How many of us were deceived into violating the Eighth Commandment by a cleverly edited video? How often does that happen in our world every day? So we need to be careful, not just with the sensations we allow to enter us through our sense organs, but also we how we perceive those sensations with our consciousness.
Finally, you mentioned that the Buddha married his cousin, and equated this to sexual deviancy. The taboo against marrying blood relatives is very modern, and even in America, it was considered fine to marry your cousin up until the late 19th Century. (The New York Times wrote an article on this back in 2018. See the citations below for the link.) It seems inappropriate to be projecting modern sexual norms on someone who lived over 2,500 years ago, and to claim deviations from those modern norms are evidence of "deviancy." But even aside from that, the story you cited says he did this before dedicating his life to the Path, thus he wasn't a fully realized master at the time he married her, so there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between his actions and the principles of the Path.
I'm not entirely convinced by some of your points/responses but I also see no point in pressing the matter and trying to debate. Even so, It is true that I am fast to judge and demand others to pull the beams out of their eyes when I struggle to do this for myself. I will try my best to keep this in mind though (Something you said.)
It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
what is the Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 ?
the breadth or width of knowledge from these instructors always amazes me.
it took me a while to figure out what Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari and what the Hadith is. I had heard of the Hadith in the koran but really I had no idea until I just searched it out trying to figure out what on god's green earth is Sahih al-Bukhari 5134.
SO... do the gnostics just go ahead and read all of the worlds scriptures when they are sleeping? ( I guess it would be better to learn from the author of some of the scriptures themself huh?)
How can someone work, have a social life, a hobby, travel, meditate...etc...etc... and understand (enough to even teach) knowledge of obscure religious figures.... there isn't enough time for all that? I think that proves the reality of the internal worlds don't you?
the breadth or width of knowledge from these instructors always amazes me.
it took me a while to figure out what Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari and what the Hadith is. I had heard of the Hadith in the koran but really I had no idea until I just searched it out trying to figure out what on god's green earth is Sahih al-Bukhari 5134.
SO... do the gnostics just go ahead and read all of the worlds scriptures when they are sleeping? ( I guess it would be better to learn from the author of some of the scriptures themself huh?)
How can someone work, have a social life, a hobby, travel, meditate...etc...etc... and understand (enough to even teach) knowledge of obscure religious figures.... there isn't enough time for all that? I think that proves the reality of the internal worlds don't you?
what is the Sahih al-Bukhari 5134Study this
For thirty years I sought God. But when I looked carefully I found that in reality God was the seeker and I the sought. -Bayazid al-Bastami
The short answer to your question is "No, someone who actively engages in pedophilia or sexual deviancy cannot simultaneously be a master. They are incompatible."
But it is more valuable to examine the source from which this question emerged, so let's discuss that.
First, what makes someone a sexual deviant is the contents of a person's mind. We can make inferences about what is going on inside a person based on their words and actions, but we can never really know. Thus, Samael Aun Weor said the following in response to a question from a student:
Student: Another thing master, for example, those defects..., because many times we have the defects, and we are so attached to them that we don't even want to recognize them, but someone who recognizes a defect could throw it at us, and so we could do our part, by street analysis, let's suppose, would it also be useful if they told one: "Look, you have such a thing"? Or from someone, from a friend of someone who can say: "Look, you have this defect, you have this"...
Samael Aun Weor: It seems to me that no one has the right to judge anyone, and for this reason, each of us has to discover ourselves. Because whoever has certain defects, he projects them onto others. If, for example, we have selfishness, we project our selfishness onto the people around us, and we see everyone as selfish.
So that someone who is foisting on us just like that defect, he has it very much, but he sees it in us. So, for this reason, it is oneself who has to discover oneself.
- "The Precious Opportunity to Avoid Suffering" (lecture)
So naturally, those who are afflicted by the egos of sexual deviancy (as many of us are, due to past mistakes) will interpret what we see and hear through that lens, and will project our sexual deviancy onto others, even when it is not there.
Therefore, it is not our place to be judging others. We cannot know what is really going on inside of another person so long as our own perception is polluted. We will only see a reflection of ourselves. Thus, Jesus said:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
- Matthew 7:1-5
That said, there is a balance that must be struck. Samael also said:
Under the shelter of the divine phrase “Universal Fraternity” the worst crimes registered in the penal code are committed.
It is distressful for us to state this, but complacency with crime is also a crime. It is as bad to be silent when one must talk as to talk when one must be silent. We would like to be silent, yet one not only pays karma for the evil things that were done, but also for the good things that were left undone when these things could have been done.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 1"
Sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up, or speak up, in order to prevent great harm from coming to the world due to the actions of others, but we must do so always from a place of compassion for all beings (even those who may be doing harm), and without allowing our mind to stray to a place of judgment or condemnation.
That is the important part. It's not what Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or the Buddha may or may not have done, or said, or thought. It is how we, ourselves, respond to that. Have we been deceived by sensations we've received through our eyes or ears into allowing our mind to go to a place of judgment or condemnation? Have we allowed our compassion, which should be universal, to be tainted or limited by our fantasies about what other people have inside their head, or our own desires regarding what other people deserve or how they should behave?
Now for the unimportant part. As for the three examples you provided, seen from a different angle, each of those examples may be entirely chaste and benign.
Let's look through them in order.
You cited al-Bukhari 5134, which states:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Samael wrote in The Perfect Matrimony:
The most ineffable part of Mohammedan mysticism is Persian Sufism. It has the merit of struggling against materialism and fanaticism and against the literal interpretation of the Koran. The Sufis interpret the Koran from the esoteric point of view as we, the Gnostics, interpret the New Testament.
- "Fatality"
Thus, we know that the Muslim tradition contains rich symbolism much the same as the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it. Here is one possible interpretation of the Hadith you cited:
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old [6: Indecision, i.e. when she was still under the sway of lust or desire] and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old [9: The Hermit, i.e. when she was prepared for initiation], . Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years [9: related to Mohammad's initiation or the nine heavens of the Second Mountain] (i.e. till his death) [the death of the ego, or the culmination of the Second Mountain].
So that Hadith could very easily be referring to states of mind and stages of the path rather than the physical years or ages at which they did or did not do certain things.
Study the books Tarot and Kabbalah and The Three Mountains to learn more (links are below).
The next example you cited was the video of the Dalai Lama and the young boy, which due to the recency of it, is likely what inspired this question.
The video you provided is heavily cut and edited. The following link contains the unedited video, along with some helpful context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78
You can see from the unadulterated video that the Dalai Lama did not, in fact, allow that boy to "suck his tongue"--he pulled it back before the boy could touch it--which is not clear at all from the censored version that has been circulating. And as the video above explains, that incident was broadcast globally over a month ago, and no one made anything of it, until this new edited video (the one you posted) started making the rounds about a week ago. What happened in the intervening period? The Dalai Lama named and enthroned the spiritual leader of the Gelug school in Mongolia, which angered the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Did the CCP manufacture and distribute the edited video in an attempt to turn public opinion against the Dalai Lama in retaliation for his action in enthroning the new leader of the Mongolian Gelug school? I do not know. It doesn't matter if they did or not. What matters is how we respond, internally, to the external stimuli of reading or hearing these stories.
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
Our disciples must carefully avoid reading too many newspapers. In a banquet for journalists of an independent press in New York, a journalist clearly and forthrightly stated the following:
“We (journalists) are intellectual prostitutes.” - John Swinton, New York, 1890
Therefore, it is not convenient to read too many newspapers, unless we want to prostitute our minds.
We need to have a simple and pure mind, like the mind of an infant. Only in this way can we enter into the Major Mysteries.
- The Major Mysteries, "Preparation for Initiation 12"
In that chapter, Samael was warning that propaganda often masquerades as news, and that ingesting it (especially when we have not learned how to properly transform impressions) can damage the simplicity and purity of our minds. How many people, having viewed that video of the Dalai Lama, allowed their minds to become infected by judgment or condemnation? Behold how weak and vulnerable we are.
The Eight Commandment prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. It relates to the eighth sphere of the Kabbalah, Hod, or the heart. So it is, esoterically, a prohibition against condemning others in our hearts. How many of us were deceived into violating the Eighth Commandment by a cleverly edited video? How often does that happen in our world every day? So we need to be careful, not just with the sensations we allow to enter us through our sense organs, but also we how we perceive those sensations with our consciousness.
Finally, you mentioned that the Buddha married his cousin, and equated this to sexual deviancy. The taboo against marrying blood relatives is very modern, and even in America, it was considered fine to marry your cousin up until the late 19th Century. (The New York Times wrote an article on this back in 2018. See the citations below for the link.) It seems inappropriate to be projecting modern sexual norms on someone who lived over 2,500 years ago, and to claim deviations from those modern norms are evidence of "deviancy." But even aside from that, the story you cited says he did this before dedicating his life to the Path, thus he wasn't a fully realized master at the time he married her, so there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between his actions and the principles of the Path.
By the way, it's interesting that you're claiming the hadiths to be inspired by kaballah when 1.) The quote you provided only says the Koran contains kaballistic wisdom, it said nothing about the hadiths and 2.) Your fellow instructor seems to believe the hadiths of Sahih bukhari are untrustworthy pieces of hearsay (Which seems alot more likely than the position you've taken) https://glorian.org/connect/ask-instructor/22556-was-prophet-muhammad-really-a-prophet#reply-22574
Just because Samael Aun Weor did not explicitly state that the Hadith are works of Kabbalah does not mean they are not.
Genuine Kabbalah is intuitive abstraction codified by concrete symbols. Intuition is the implicit perspective and language of the Sufis. Fortunately, this has been made more explicit by instructors such as in Chicago Gnosis (see the references below).
The Sufis emphasized the symbolic dimensions of prophetic lives, since their examples constitute evidentiary miracles for substantiating the spiritual path for others. Therefore their life, like that of Jesus or any master, expounds for neophytes how to enter, fulfill, and receive initiation.
I never said that the Sahih Bukhari are untrustworthy pieces of hearsay. What I said is that they are not one hundred percent fool proof, nor absolutely pure, because transmissive testimonies may change from person to person.
One cannot also assume the Sahih Al-Bukhari are fool proof in the sense of what conventional people think the Hadith mean, especially when accurate (intuitive) knowledge is conveyed, unbeknownst to the scholar or translator.
Therefore, what does this prove? The intellect is not reliable nor trustworthy. Intuition, the direct cognizance of the Being, is what provides serenity and certainty. This is the ability to discriminate phenomena in meditation.
Rather than take the time to attack what you perceive to be discrepancies in others, it would be better for you to comprehend your motives for action.
Genuine Kabbalah is intuitive abstraction codified by concrete symbols. Intuition is the implicit perspective and language of the Sufis. Fortunately, this has been made more explicit by instructors such as in Chicago Gnosis (see the references below).
The Sufis emphasized the symbolic dimensions of prophetic lives, since their examples constitute evidentiary miracles for substantiating the spiritual path for others. Therefore their life, like that of Jesus or any master, expounds for neophytes how to enter, fulfill, and receive initiation.
I never said that the Sahih Bukhari are untrustworthy pieces of hearsay. What I said is that they are not one hundred percent fool proof, nor absolutely pure, because transmissive testimonies may change from person to person.
One cannot also assume the Sahih Al-Bukhari are fool proof in the sense of what conventional people think the Hadith mean, especially when accurate (intuitive) knowledge is conveyed, unbeknownst to the scholar or translator.
Therefore, what does this prove? The intellect is not reliable nor trustworthy. Intuition, the direct cognizance of the Being, is what provides serenity and certainty. This is the ability to discriminate phenomena in meditation.
Rather than take the time to attack what you perceive to be discrepancies in others, it would be better for you to comprehend your motives for action.
For thirty years I sought God. But when I looked carefully I found that in reality God was the seeker and I the sought. -Bayazid al-Bastami
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
