On Eight Points

Would it be news if I said that many people dislike the Teaching? Of course not — even for those who know nothing about it. There is no worldview system that absolutely everyone likes. However, rejection can take different forms. What does “dislike” actually mean? What are we talking about — criticism or matters of taste? These are not at all the same.

Although usually no such distinction is made, and any negative comment about something — a book, a film, a worldview, a political programme, etc. — is called criticism. Up to and including statements like “This is nonsense.” In comparison with the latter, statements like “I don’t like this or that in it” begin to look like a serious approach. Yet in reality, this is precisely a matter of taste, saying more about the personal preferences of the one assessing than about the quality of what is being assessed. Or, for example, sometimes a video on YouTube is said to be heavily criticised in the comments — but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be just swearing.

It is hard to take rejection, swearing, and taste-based opinion seriously. Simply because, in fact, they have nothing to do with criticism. Accordingly, responding to them means wasting time.

True criticism looks different. It implies a completely different approach. At its core lies analysis. And analysis implies careful study of the subject and deep understanding of it. Only when such work has been done — and it requires time, effort, patience, and a certain qualification — does it become possible to make well-founded conclusions about the shortcomings of the system or concept under criticism and to formulate critical remarks. Of course, this does not apply to obvious nonsense, like the claim that the Earth is flat. There is simply nothing to criticise there. I will also emphasise that criticism does not always imply justifying one’s disagreement. It can be part of the study of what is being criticised, while agreement or disagreement is not the point. For example, a scholar-atheist may study religion deeply, or a scholar belonging to one religion may study another and criticise it based on its own internal logic, correspondence with historical facts, and so on. Study and criticism primarily imply cognition as such, and not necessarily an evaluation in terms of “true or untrue”, “right or wrong”.

The Teaching has not yet been subjected to deep scientific criticism. It is criticised by those who encounter it in the course of their spiritual search, as well as by the merely curious. Naturally, such “criticism” mostly turns out to be a matter of taste, or statements like “This is wrong, because the Bible (Bhagavad Gita, “The Secret Doctrine”, etc.) says otherwise.” Well, disagreement is normal. We too disagree with other views. But one should not confuse disagreement with criticism.

People, as a rule, simply do not delve into the Teaching deeply enough to approach serious criticism. Not necessarily scientific, but at least based on more or less prolonged study. Usually, a few pages of articles or the pandect are read, something along the lines of “I disagree” or “Why do you think things are the way they are written here?” is said — and the “criticism” ends there. I speak about this with confidence because I have observed this approach and received such responses for many years.

There is nothing to comment on in the absence of any content in the complaints. However, it does happen differently. There are those — much fewer of them — who have become more closely acquainted with the Teaching, read much about it, and communicated with me for quite a long time. Some of them did not become followers, others did. But that is not the point. What matters is that each of them, in their own time, reached a level of understanding of the Teaching that allows one to see deeper than an outsider or a beginner. Accordingly, attempts at criticism from such people are more adequate, more well-grounded. Although even in this case, it is by no means certain that what is seen as shortcomings of the Teaching are actually such. Nevertheless, the remarks are interesting in any case and give a good reason to clarify some important points.

I have collected such remarks, which, if desired, may be called complaints about the Teaching. I will comment on them below. For those who voiced them, it is no longer very relevant, since some have left or never became followers, and others have long since received answers. But it may be interesting and useful for those who are still getting acquainted with the Teaching. Acquainted not only in terms of spiritual search, but also out of cognitive interest.

Remarks of a purely ideological nature (lack of the idea of a God who can offer help, lack of paradise, forgiveness of sins, etc.) I omit. I also omit what becomes a stumbling block for many newcomers: the Teaching does not allow mixing different views. Let us consider the conditional shortcomings most often voiced by those who have already overcome the initial difficulties of discipleship and faced the challenges of the next stage.

I have selected eight such points.

There is no scientific evidence for what the Teaching speaks of. — Naturally. Science does not yet know about Being, the Great Principles, the Creator, the perfection of the Spirit and the role of man in it, about the world of energy, reincarnations, and much more. This is the value of the Teaching. It tells of that part of reality one needs to know about, but of which modern science cannot speak. That is exactly why people come to the Teaching. They seek the same thing in various religions and philosophical teachings: knowledge not possessed by science. Knowledge obtained from other sources. Therefore, it is rather strange to turn to the Teaching or somewhere else for such information and then complain that it is not scientifically confirmed. If science could tell all this, one would not have to look elsewhere. Over time, science will begin to penetrate areas still inaccessible to it and make discoveries confirming what the Teaching says.

Lack of systematic education. — What is meant is that education is not built on a developed systematic basis, but consists simply of conversations between the disciple and the Teacher and reading various texts. Yes, we do not yet have educational institutions teaching the Teaching through a specially developed programme, nor textbooks written by specialists. But that is a matter of time. The Teaching appeared very recently; everything is just beginning. Nevertheless, even in conversations with the Teacher there is a system. The conversations themselves are regular, and the Teaching is not imparted chaotically, however it happens, but according to a certain scheme. The topics are worked out and arranged in a logical order. This is not institutional education but private lessons — yet quite organised. There could be greater systematisation. However, that already depends on how the disciple organises it for themselves. Whether they want to converse with the Teacher more or less frequently, how deeply they intend to delve into the material, how regular their independent reading of Teaching-related materials will be, whether they will take notes, etc. All this is manageable. The education may be not very intensive and not particularly deep — or the opposite. It all depends on the disciple’s commitment.

Authoritarianism of the Teacher. — What is interesting here is that when you start to clarify what exactly this authoritarianism consists of, no examples are found. Usually, only the fact is cited that the Teacher is an authority who should be trusted. If he says that something in the Teaching is one way and not another, then his words are not disputed. But this is normal. The Teacher is a specialist, an expert in his field. One comes to him to learn something in which one is unknowledgeable. And if one starts arguing and disputing what the Teacher teaches, it looks strange. You have come to learn — then learn. If you know everything better than the Teacher, then you have no business being with him. There is nothing new or special in this approach. All education is built like this: the one who knows teaches the one who does not. And here one should not confuse authoritativeness with authoritarianism. Especially in the spiritual sphere, where the mentor’s authority holds special significance. As for everything else, the Teacher may and should help the disciples with advice when they ask for it, evaluate their actions from a moral standpoint and in terms of their conformity with the Teaching. But he does not dictate how the disciples should live, does not forbid or force them to do anything, does not demand they report everything to him, does not interfere in their family matters, in their work, does not try to stop them if someone wants to leave the Teaching, does not require them to promote it, does not force any compulsory actions, contributions, etc. He does not try to control the disciples. As for the actual matters of the Teaching, the Teacher plays a leading role here — but this is entirely natural.

There are no practices like in other teachings. — What is meant here are meditative, prayerful, energetic, and other similar practices. Indeed, there is nothing of the kind in the Teaching. This is due to its approach to the matter of spiritual development. The Teaching places moral and ethical aspects above all else. One must come to know the world, strive to realise one’s place in it, and learn to live in such a way as to fulfil the human purpose — to be a blessing to the world and to people, not a source of harm. That is why the moral aspect is so important. To struggle with one’s vices and shortcomings, to correct them, to become better, to try to make the world better — all this is not easy. That is the practice. In the Teaching it is said that the best practice is to live rightly. Right living teaches resilience and purposefulness, helps one overcome problems and obstacles, develops the best qualities in a person, and perfects them spiritually. Knowledge and moral development are the two elements that make up the practice. And as a consequence of this, changes in one’s energy can occur, some abilities may unfold, new opportunities may arise, and so on. Just so. Not spirituality through energy work or the development of abilities and capacities, as many think (and precisely what they find lacking), but the other way around.

Standards of morality are too high. — High moral standards naturally follow from the previous point. High — yes, but not too high. In essence, ordinary. The same as those generally accepted. The only difference is that we place particular emphasis on them. Also, as was mentioned above, there is no forgiveness of sins. That is, all moral responsibility for wrongful actions remains with the one who committed them. The implementation of the Teaching’s principles in practice implies active moral work on oneself. Though this is only natural. One comes to the Teaching in order to gain knowledge and become better. To become better, one must work on oneself. One must strive to realise what ought to be, and to embody it in real deeds. Otherwise, there is no point in being in the Teaching. Our morality is practical; it implies actions, deeds. That is why it may seem as if there is too much of it. There you have the difference between theory — which can simply be noted — and real practice. It is quite tangible.

The Teaching does not make life easier, but harder. — Nor does it promise to make life easier, solve all your problems, or guarantee you prosperity and comfort. It promises to give knowledge about the world and the place of the human being in it, and to help one learn how to live in accordance with their purpose. Who said that this ought to make life easier? Gaining knowledge is hard work. Moral work on oneself is no less labour, and even greater. To follow strict moral principles in a society that praises them in words but constantly violates them in deeds is truly no simple task and a great challenge. Try, for instance, living without telling a single lie. That alone can greatly complicate your life. And the rest likewise does not make it easier. But here you must choose one of two things: either to live in such a way as to make life easier, or to live rightly. People come to the Teaching for the latter. And everyone who comes is immediately warned that it will not be easy. From that point on — it is their choice. The Teaching aims to make people and the world better. And this cannot be achieved by playing by rules that make people and the world worse, or by yielding to what is bad and wrong. Therefore, yes, the Teaching does make life harder — for some more, for others less. To change that, the world must be changed. That is what we strive for.

Spiritual progress is slow. — True knowledge, true spiritual work, true changes for the better — all these require time. Just like everything of quality. If someone promises you great spiritual progress in three months or even in a year, offering some unique techniques for this, be assured: they are deceiving you. The true spiritual path does not end. It is not a short course after which you receive a certificate attesting your achievements. Knowledge, work on oneself, and spiritual progress continue throughout life. Though the pace of progress can be more intense. Again, it depends on the follower. They can put in more effort, devote more time to studying the Teaching and to spiritual work. Much here lies in their own hands. As, in fact, in any matter: the more diligently you engage in it, the more success you achieve. But the matter in question is, in any case, lifelong. The results may indeed vary. I will note, not without irony, that complaints about slow progress usually come from those who make the least effort. Well then: as the effort invested, so the harvest.

There are no traditions, rituals, or temples. — As for rituals and temples, we have no need for them. The Teaching is not a religion. It does have certain procedures, such as joining the Teaching — but these are not rituals or ceremonies. In place of temples, we will eventually have something akin to cultural centres. As for traditions, I will say this: it is not that there are none, but there are few for now. Here we find ourselves in a somewhat paradoxical situation. The Teaching is very ancient — yet almost nothing from earlier revelations has survived. We possess only a few texts from the pandect. So one could speak of traditions going back thousands of years — but alas… all has been lost. The most recent appearance of the Teaching occurred quite recently, in the last decade of the past century. Our traditions must form anew, literally from scratch. And that too takes time. Traditions do not appear by decree; they take shape gradually. Some things have already taken on some form with us. With time, there will be more and more traditions in the Teaching. It all depends on what you compare with. A culture that has existed for a thousand years, one hundred years, or ten — these are three very different things. So there is no need to hurry. Let us speak of traditions in another two or three centuries.

These are the questions most frequently voiced concerning the Teaching. As is not difficult to see, the alleged shortcomings turn out not to be such upon closer examination. Rather, they reflect an insufficient understanding of certain important aspects of it. Nonetheless, such remarks are still very important. They are relevant for those who would like to form an adequate view of the Teaching. These may be followers who have not encountered such questions, or have not yet, or those simply interested in it as a worldview or spiritual path. And the comments voiced here may provide necessary clarity. If they raise new questions — so much the better. That will give us reason to offer further explanations.

As for serious criticism of the Teaching based on its thorough study by researchers — that will still have to wait. It is hard to say when, but its time will come as well.

© Atarkhat, 2024