Someone posted a second set of warning signs which indicate, supposedly, that when such factors are present there is a high likelihood of a potential for spiritual abuse associated with the individual or group who manifests the sort of characteristics that are itemized in the warning list. As with the previous posting of mine, the numbered items below re-state those so-called warning signals, and the Comments which follow them are my responses to those points, but,. first, I begin with some counsel concerning this matter which is offered by Idries Shah.

Shah once raised the following question: "Q.: By what signs in oneself can one tell whether a teaching is the right one 'for me'?

"A.: By sensations and reactions which differ *completely* from customary ones, indications which one does not experience through the contact with *anything* else. In contacting mysticism, you are coming into a relationship with a completely new experience. Its sensation is correspondingly different from established 'religious or other experiences."

As with many things written and said by Idries Shah, the foregoing is an exercise in how to appear to say something, while, in fact saying nothing at all. One reads his Q and A format, and when one is done, one has no idea what is meant by "sensations and reactions", or the meaning of "differ *completely* from customary ones". If one goes insane, does this qualify?

The foregoing question is not frivolous. There is a substantial problem which is being alluded to through it.

How does one distinguish between reality and illusion and/or delusion? What happens when one becomes entangled in someone else's delusion or pathology - for example, that of a false spiritual guide?

There are many kinds of possible anomalous, non-ordinary, altered states of consciousness. Experiencing such states and conditions does not necessarily mean someone has undergone a mystical event.

However, when one is under the 'guidance' of an inauthentic guide, one is vulnerable to the tendency within most of us -- that is, to seek consensual validation concerning the meaning and significance of one's experiences. In other words, one has a strange experience and dutifully reports it to one's 'teacher' who, upon hearing the report, either smiles, and, says: "what a wonderful blessing", or looks worried, and says, "fortunately, I think we have caught this in time."

The fraudulent teacher may provide an explanation for the foregoing, or may remain mysteriously silent concerning its supposed meaning, but, in either case, one's sense of reality has been framed by the teacher, and, therefore, ensuing interpretations and understandings of experience are shaped, colored and oriented by what the teacher says or does. Under such circumstances, the meaning of an anomalous, non-ordinary, altered state of consciousness is whatever the so-called teacher says it is, and if one has invested her or his trust in such an individual, then, one is going to believe that the answer to Idries Shah's question of: "by what signs in oneself can one tell if a teaching is the right one 'for me'" will reflect what one's alleged guide says in response to one's experiences.

Many people's understanding of the mystical way and their experiences were re-framed through the eyes of Idries Shah. Many people put their trust in what he said. Many people derived their idea of what was 'right for them' on the basis of what Shah said to them through his books. Many people labeled their experiences according to how Shah induced individuals to understand things according to how he believed the sensations relevant to the Sufi Path were "correspondingly different from established 'religious or other experiences."

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, Shah often didn't know what he was talking about. In fact, my very first introduction to mystical ideas was through the writings of Idries Shah, and in order to make progress on the mystical journey - that is, once, by the Grace of God, I found ... or was found by - an authentic mystical master - I had to unlearn a lot of what I learned through Shah.

Shah did poorly what people like Rene Guenon did with a lot more scholarly rigor, accuracy, and spiritual insight. Aside from the issues of knowledge and wisdom, a important difference between the two is that Shah was quite savvy about public relations and the nature of modern communication, and, as a result, like an Internet virus, there came a time when one could hardly turn around without seeing an Idries Shah book in the religious section of a bookstore or library -- even in rural areas. Of course, there often were few, if any, authentic books on the mystical tradition in these places, and, so, by default, the writings of Idries Shah began to frame the ideas of many people in the West concerning the nature of the mystical Path, and in the process spread a great deal of disinformation and misinformation concerning mysticism.

All one has to do is compare Shah with many mystical luminaries of the past, and one realizes, very quickly, that Shah was vertically challenged in a land of giants. So, aside from the fact that the foregoing quote from Shah is devoid of any useful content, I really don't consider Shah a reliable indicator for helping people to identify warning signs concerning spiritual abuse - this is too much like appointing a fox to guard the chickens.

1). "Being given an ultimatum, or being asked to choose between two people or two courses of study or two forms of behavior. Whoever asks you to choose between him and others is the false 'Teacher'."

Comment: If one follows the counsel of the foregoing warning sign, then, presumably, being asked to choose between Satan and, say, Jesus should make one nervous. Alternatively, if one is told to choose between illusion and truth, or worldly pursuits and spirituality, then, one, automatically, should avoid those people who indicate or suggest that such a choice is necessary. Or, if one is informed that it is necessary to choose between good and evil, or morality and immorality, or someone intimates that we must choose between waking up to the illusion of self or continuing to sail through life in a somnambulistic state, then, we should run away from such individuals.

Secondly, the very nature of taking initiation is an agreement between two individuals. This agreement carries certain responsibilities on the part of both individuals who enter into it, and, consequently, there are principles of adab which govern the interaction of those individuals.

If one is sincere and serious about spirituality, why would one take initiation with someone and, then, do whatever one likes? If one is committed to, and has love and respect for, a given teaching and teacher, then, why would one suppose that commitment, love, and respect don't possess a certain binding authority which does not render one free to abandon that relationship according to one's whims or likes and dislikes.

The problem with initiation comes when the alleged teacher turns out to be inauthentic. In fact, one of the most difficult aspects of someone attempting to break free of spiritual frauds is that the initiate tends to feel a strong sense of obligation to honor the commitment one has made to the alleged spiritual guide and, in the process, to serve that commitment with integrity and honor.

Mysticism is not like a university where one travels from teacher to teacher and takes whatever appeals to one. Mysticism is a gateway to important truths about the nature of reality, purpose, identity, and self.

Such truths will never be accessed if one permits one's own arbitrary judgments to be the final arbiter of truth. One needs help in discovering the truth, and the most essential form of this assistance comes through the spiritual relationship of trust which exists between seeker and teacher, and one is not at liberty to jettison that relationship of trust whenever one wishes.

This dimension of spiritual etiquette is not about authoritarian fiats, any more than telling someone that they are not free to abuse children or a spouse is an authoritarian imposition. The nature of spiritual etiquette is a function of what the Truth demands - rather than being a function of either what the teacher or the seeker wishes.

An authentic teacher may -- as a result of patience, understanding, empathy, compassion, kindness, tolerance, love, and forgiveness - permit a seeker various degrees of freedom within which to commit mistakes that are not necessarily corrected or pointed out in any direct sense or even immediately. On, the other hand, if a guide does not assist - whether overtly or covertly - a seeker to learn how to discern the truth amidst the shifting currents of the carnal soul, Satan, the world, unbelief, illusion, and delusion, then, that teacher is being remiss in her or his responsibilities to the seeker.

Being responsible is not necessarily the same thing as being authoritarian, even though, on occasion, they may look very similar. Unfortunately, spiritual charlatans take advantage of this and engage in authoritarian practices while re-framing such activities in the guise of being a responsible, caring, loving, ethical teacher.

2.) "If you are given anything to say or do in a language foreign to you (in the West this means such things as phrases in Persian or Arabic to repeat), this is done by a false teacher."

Comment: What is the authority for such a statement? Where is the proof that establishes the validity of such a claim? Why should one consider the foregoing contention to be anything but the arbitrary prejudice of an individual who is seeking to impose his or her hermeneutical framework onto the discussion about what constitutes spiritual authenticity?

Such a 'warning sign' is itself a warning sign. One ought to have a healthy skepticism concerning any counsel, such as the one stated prior to this Comment, which is re-framed as a 'helpful hint' while busily pushing it own, hidden agenda. This sort of technique is employed by false guides a great deal.

3.) "No true mystical meetings are held more than once a week."

Comment: I believe I once saw the foregoing as a headline in this or that issue of the National Enquirer as I was waiting in a checkout line at the local supermarket. If not, the foregoing statement certainly deserves to be published in that waste of wood, along with all the other gossip, innuendoes, false statements and urban legends of our times.

I know of mystical groups than congregate together every night during sacred months in order to break fast, and, then, they return later in the evening to say special prayers. I guess they must be associated with a false teacher. Similarly, these same groups may come together several times during the week when a series of auspicious occasions may occur in addition to the usual weekly observances, and if we are to follow the rule of thumb set down by the author of these warning signs, then, I suppose it would be better to not celebrate commemorative functions which acknowledge one, or another, of the great saints of a mystical tradition just so that we can be sure not to transgress the forbidden territory of engaging in more than one spiritual function a week.

Now, if someone were exacting punishment, of some kind, with respect to all those who did not attend such extra sessions, or if tremendous pressure were being imposed on people to attend such gatherings, this is an entirely different matter. However, none of this was mentioned in the foregoing warning sign, and, therefore, as it stands it is woefully incomplete and just plain incorrect.