4.) "If you are told or if it is hinted to you, that "something important is going to happen soon", know that you should abandon that group and seek the alternative."

Comment: If a teacher says that the idea of death should be kept as a close companion, for its reality, which is very important to most of us, is close at hand, is such a person a spiritual fraud? If one is told that prayer is the spiritual ascension of the believer - something which is both important and immediate - should we abandon the one who has said this and seek the alternative ... and, I confess, I really don't know what the alternative to prayer is.

An authentic mystic once said that what can be done in two days with an authentic spiritual guide takes two hundred years to do on one's own. I guess we should stay away from such an individual.

Jesus said: "The Kingdom of God is near." Presumably, those people who didn't immediately retreat from him were being downright foolish.

Life holds out the promise of happening real soon all the time. And, for most of us, this promise is relatively important, so, I suppose, now that we have both a major and a minor premise, we can, in line with the logic of the aforementioned counsel of warning, move on to an inevitable conclusion that life should be abandoned and we should seek the alternative.

A school teacher intimates that something important is going to happen real soon. Dutifully, we follow the foregoing warning and decide to abandon school and seek the alternative by playing hooky - only to discover a few days later that while one observed the etiquette of hooky, one missed the final examination for the class and, consequently, failed the year.

The several instances of reductio ad absurdum arguments used above are close kissing cousins to the absurdity of trying to make a warning sign out of something which has been removed from any intelligible context. The lack of sophistication in such reduced contexts will be no match for the very sophisticated ways in which spiritual charlatans are able to circumvent such simplistic warnings - in fact, such warnings, taken at face value, actually endanger people by lulling them into a false sense of security if such elements are not present in a given set of circumstances.

Deception is not a rule-governed, linear phenomenon. Deception is rooted in a set of dynamic principles which are very non-linear and far more subtle, effective, and powerful than most people suppose - in fact, the people of the lie just love to engage those who arrogantly suppose they cannot be deceived because, more often than not, the latter sort of people do not harbor a proper respect for just how duplicitous spiritual frauds can be, nor do the latter individuals have a proper appreciation for how adaptable, sophisticated, and, yet, simple, strategies of deception can be ... we all are a lot more vulnerable to manipulation than we might like to imagine is the case.

5.) "Any supposed mystic wearing clothes or other apparel foreign to the country in which he is living, or which he visits, means that you should avoid such a man."

Comment: Aside from the fact that such a statement seems rather male-oriented, one also has difficulty reaching any conclusion other than that the claim is xenophobic.

Contrary to popular belief, clothes make neither the man nor the woman. Character is what matters.

Several of the spiritual charlatans I have encountered along the Way often wore suits. Was one any safer when they were dressed in suits than when they were dressed otherwise.

Using clothing as a measure of spiritual authenticity seems rather childish and superficial. In fact, in saying this, I do disservice to children since most of them have enough sense not to jump to such ludicrous conclusions - unless, of course, they are taught otherwise by their parents and community.

6.) "Any alleged mystical teacher who claims or implies that he is "on the Path of Blame" (deliberately courting unpopularity) is false. This is never claimed by real spiritual master, since the Path of Blame must be anonymously trod."

Comment: Most individuals who have spent any amount of time on the mystical path have experienced the sad fact that mysticism is unpopular in a lot of circles within different religious community. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that real mysticism is unpopular in a lot of so-called religious circles.

Since stepping onto the Path is a deliberate act, and since many individuals are even warned, or come to understand, prior to initiation that becoming a follower of the mystical way is likely to prove unpopular with a lot of people, is this the same thing as following a path of blame? Surely, the ego takes a beating at the hands of those who disagree with one's decision to pursue the way of mysticism, and, perhaps, this is not necessarily a bad thing -- for, what shrinks the ego, expands the spirit -- but there is an unanswered issue hidden in such considerations.

If an authentic spiritual guide says to someone that the perspective of the mystical path is different from the way of exoteric religion and/or many of the theological approaches which are current in the world, and, therefore, such a Path is at odds with the views of many people, and, as a result, do not be surprised if you get ridiculed or criticized, but, nevertheless, continue to maintain your focus in the midst of such antagonism, is this deliberately courting the unpopularity of others?

How does one distinguish between the spiritual charlatan who says: 'we go about things differently than the rest of the community', and the authentic mystic who says : 'we go about things differently than the rest of the community.' Surely, a great deal rests on the nature of what, precisely, is encompassed by going "about things differently", but, in either case, one is still deliberately courting unpopularity among others - although in one case, things that are done or understood differently can be justified, while in the other case, this cannot be done.

Unfortunately, no spiritual novice is going to have the insight to discern the difference between the two, foregoing situations. So, if all a person hears is that mysticism approaches the issue of spirituality somewhat differently from other segments of the community and that, furthermore, people of the Path have been unpopular for doing things in this way, then, how is an uninitiated individual to determine whether, or not, one is dealing with an authentic or inauthentic spiritual guide?

7.) "Anyone who says or does anything in your presence implying that he has influence in affairs of the world and is exercising it, is not a mystical teacher;"

Comment: I know of authentic guides who have taken an activist role and, by the Grace of God, these individuals have had an influence in the affairs of the world, and they have exercised the talents, capacities opportunities, and assistance which God has bestowed upon them to make such influence effective. I know of a mystic who is a member of Parliament in India and, as a result of his influence in government circles, he has, by the Grace of God, been able to significantly improve the quality of life of his constituents - many of whom are extremely poor.

If these individuals speak to anyone about what they are doing, should we shun them? Should we automatically assume they are not authentic spiritual teachers.

There is a secret spiritual government which exercises a certain influence, in accordance with Divine wishes, over every square inch of Earth. The members of this hidden government exercise their God-given responsibilities in this regard.

Sometimes, through Divine permission, individuals come to know of such activity and influence. Should such individuals conclude that what is going on is not authentic and the people who are involved in this are not servants of God?

Certainly, if a person is bragging about such things, then, yes, one would do well to stay away from these kinds of individual. However, astute, spiritual charlatans tend to be very careful about what they say, and to whom they say it, and, more often than not, inauthentic mystical guides rarely toot their own horn - they get other people to do that.

Consequently, the absence of claims concerning worldly influence and the exercise of various powers does not guarantee that such an individual is authentic. Rather, it may only indicate that the person has a certain level of sophistication concerning such matters and uses other means to induce compliance, obedience, and commitment.

8.) "No real mystic will claim or imply supreme Mastership, or being a spiritual pole, or Concealed Teacher; though former associates of these mystics may do so, if they have succumbed to the temptation of exercising power."

Comment: My understanding is that Idries Shah both made claims to being the head of all the mystical Orders as well as the Supreme Master of his time. I have read statements by others who were close to him who made the same claims on his behalf and even spoke of an alleged world congress of mystical teachers who met in Istanbul for purposes of electing, pope-like, such an individual. It was all quite democratic, with nominations, voting, and the like.

Aside from the fact that mysticism does not elect people to spiritual office - rather, Divinity appoints, the fact of the matter is, if we use the criterion cited in the above mentioned warning sign, we should conclude that Idries Shah is not a real mystic. As such, I find this a very useful warning sign.

9.) "Similarly, the assumption of military, clerical, or official rank is a sign of the deterioration of faculties (earth-sickness) which can attack anyone, and which is often found among channels (i.e., people who, though not mystics, may be related to some of them and employed for low-level and preparatory or "test" work)."

Comment: Authentic mystical teachers come in many modalities of character, occupation, temperament, talent, and circumstances. If there is any rule which can be applied here, it is: there is no rule which can be used to identify in what form a spiritual guide must be manifested. They have been military commanders, magistrates, government officials, clerics, and many other things as well.

Real earth-sickness is a function of the intention with which things are done. Moreover, earth-sickness is an expression of problematic spiritual aspiration - that is, aspiring after the wrong sort of activities, positions, influences, and occupations.

A common saying is: be in the world, but not of it. There are many worldly things which are compatible with the mystical path, if the underlying intention and aspiration are properly aligned.

In fact, every act which we do can give expression to either sacredness or to worldliness. Everything depends on whether such things are done in accordance with Divine wishes, or done in rebellion with respect to Divine Aspiration and Purpose.

10.) "The following signs are common when mystical teachership is claimed by those not entitled to it: assumption of importance; loss of physical coordination; convincing others (as a major characteristic) that one is taking a deep interest in them, especially when they are ill or in distress; mysteriousness and hinting; tolerating the deluded; confusing friendship with teaching; organizing inconsequential journeys; allowing one's hand to be kissed; appearing on platforms with "other mystics"; believing that spiritual teaching is a matter of individual opinion, not of inevitability in techniques; allowing exercises (e.g., chanting) to be carried our without supervisors to intervene at appropriate moments."

Comment: I have seen many inauthentic teachers who have wonderful physical co-ordination. I have witnessed many authentic guides who have taken a deep interest in the lives of people and such interest has been genuine, sincere, and backed up with more than words.

Since any unrealized human being is deluded in one way or another, then, every authentic mystical guide must, to some degree, tolerate the deluded, until such time as we come to out senses. Furthermore, no authentic spiritual teacher confuses teaching with friendship since every authentic mystic master I know has been both a friend and teacher - one need not preclude the other, but being a friend does not mean that he or she is a buddy with whom one can hang out and treat in ways which are not in keeping with spiritual etiquette.

I don't know what an "inconsequential journey" means. I suppose the meaning of "inconsequential" would vary with the frame of reference being considered, and, as such, the term is far too vague to be very helpful.

Spiritual teaching is neither a matter of individual opinion, nor is it a inevitable consequence of technique. The mystical path is rooted in the Truth and Divine Grace.

Opinion will not get one to the truth, and technique will not necessarily invoke Divine Blessing. I don't know where the author of these supposed warning signs is getting them, but they seem to be rooted much more in opinion than Truth.

I find that the warning about those who are "appearing on platforms with 'other mystics', is rather problematic. I have heard of the occasional symposium where authentic spiritual teachers came together for purposes of speaking about various dimensions of mysticism. I guess we will just have to prevent such gatherings in the future.

I saw a woman, once, who permitted her hand to be kissed. I knew immediately she was not a genuine spiritual guide.

I think I'm getting the hang of these warning signs, now. Enthusiasm is welling inside of me to apply them anywhere and everywhere ... I am feeling a lot safer.