I am reading The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley; as such, I recently have become much more interested in metaphysics. And I found this institution called the School of Metaphysics. I googled it and was stunned at the search suggestion. Just curious about this one.

Basic reading

[www.culteducation.com]

Two, leadership can change people and even nice kindly persons may gradually drift into a sense of entitlement. A very good sign is whether a leader delegates authority, and keeps total financial transparency, plays no favorites, and has no hidden or 'higher level' doctrine that contradicts what was taught at elementary levels.

If you're told as a newcomer that a moral life is essential to spiritual training and then, as part of some higher level of initiation, are told you are entitled to violate the moral guidelines you were previously taught were foundational -- thats a mindfuck. The polite term is bait and switch.

Never allow yourself to be burdened with too many secrets.

Never be part of anything, whether its a job, a relationship or a lodge, where you are expected to lie and do anything that goes against your morality.

Anyone who belittles 'conventional morality' -- watch out. Authentic traditions state that no one becomes exempt from consequences.

No one can remove our bad karma for us.

"The only remedy for evil is good" -- Rousseau in an interview with James Boswell.

That second post seems useless in this context.

So, I went to a presentation hosted by the School of Metaphysics at the Cincinnati Main Library this evening; it focused on the spiritual meaning of spring. The presenter oriented liberty and liberation into the talk. Everything the guy was saying sounded true to me. Good eye contact; it seemed like there was love in the eyes. I do know for sure though.

The group keeps talking of these exercises that improve the observer's ability of conscious creation. These exercises are what draws my scrutiny. Is anyone familiar with the mental exercises associated with the School of Metaphysics?

What you are looking for does not appear to fit the stated purpose of this message board. This message board and website concerns matters that are not metaphysical but social/sociological.
You state that you were 'stunned' by what you found concerning the School of Metaphysics. But you did not make clear what you meant by ‘stunned.” You had two earlier posts on this board one about Amway

[forum.culteducation.com]

and another about yoga expressing concern about whether there are other yoga cults out there beyond ones you mentioned.

[forum.culteducation.com]

Thus, your prior history on thie board was that of a concerned correspondant.

So.. if you are actually interested now in whether the SM and its exercises are useful and not whether they are harmful, this is a question that falls the domain of the RI website and message board.

Unlike criteria for cultic behavior and for harm done, which involve not beliefs but behavior and its human consequences, the metaphysical realm cannot be dis-proved.
It is subjective and, some suggest, aesthetic.

If you have decided that you are interested in the metaphysical domain and whether certain excercise taught by a particular group or school are useful, the RI site and message board cannot help with referrals.

You will need to do your own search on google to find congenial discussion venues for exercises done in the School of Metaphysics.

There are other venues to pursue discussions of metaphysical material and praxis with similarly interested person.

This paper by Joe Szimhart formerly in a couple of metaphysical groups could be worth a peek.

[jszimhart.com]

In his terms you apparently liked Aldous Huxley's aesthetic.

Huxley was greatly influenced first by Theosophy and then by Vedanta (which many equate with Hinduism - a big mistake), and Theravedan Buddhism. He tried psychedelics and feared the consequences if these drugs were made indiscriminantly available, for Huxley worried that not everyone could handle the effects.

These were Huxely's preferred aesthetic.

Huxley did not have a specific political program though. And he was not a businessman. He had earned success and income as a novelist. And was not under anyone persons thumb. He was a life long student.

Two books of his do apply to the political though—The ways sincere spiritual aspirants can become deluded into supporting utterly destructive political agendas - topic that remains sadly relevant today. These two books of Huxley's are less well known than Perennial Philosophy. Had people in the Sixties and Seventies added these to their reading lists, perhaps we would be better off today.

They are painful reading but should be read by anyone aspiring to work in politics or social justice.

Grey Eminence:A Study in Religion and Politics

(Imagine Saint Francis of Assisi sincerely becoming assistant to Kissenger and using prayer and spirituality to justify the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war--thats what this book is about--only the events took place in the 17th century)

and

The Devils of Loudon (Very much more in here than in the Ken Russell movie. Also an essential read)



.

Hi BeukerC1,
Speakers looking lovingly at people they don't know in a crowd has never impressed me that much.A lot of people who are good speakers,even some politicians, are able to make strangers they speak to feel cared for and loved.
Doesn't necessarily mean they would say stop and say help the person if they had a flat tire; imo an action that shows a lot more actual love than being able to charm people that you want something from, whether it is a vote, or a conversion to a different belief system.
Most people with religious or philosphical agendas want converts. And often they also want volunteer labor.
And charming a potential recruit is good business sense.
I always find it interesting how such people treat those who are useless in terms of fulfilling their agenda.And even more challengingly; how do they treat those who choose to leave the group ? Are they politely ostracized, or still welcomed and included in social events?
Interesting question to find the answer to in any group you are thinking of joining.
Of course, if as seems to happen pretty frequently in human relationships, the only people worth being nice to are those who help fulfill the agenda, then the " love" is going to eventually be predicated on you doing what someone else wants.
How much volunteer time etc is going to eventually be required to win that love?
IMO, a good friend who is there beside you to help you when you need it, and who you help in return, probably has a lot more real love to offer than a sweetly smiling lecturer. But, just Mo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 02:37AM by yasmin.

Enter 'School of metaphysics' into google and view the search suggestions. I see the fourth suggestions as cult. I have attended one of the SOM's free presentations. Regarding this group, just seeing what others experienced / thought.

Yes I am (or at least once was) familiar with some of the mental/spiritual exercises taught in the School of Metaphysics. Starting with simple techniques for practicing concentration and undivided attention, then on to increasingly esoteric stuff like mind reading and astral projection.

It was for me fascinating and exciting to actually practice such things, as a regular daily discipline, instead of just reading about them. The School of Metaphysics was at that time (decades ago) the only organization in middle America to offer a practical, hands-on brand of alternative spirituality. So I'm glad the place existed and that I could experience this personally.

At the same time it tended to be pushy and manipulative, with a hierarchy dominated by big clashing egos. I felt more and more that the real basis for doing the exercises and working through the "lessons" offered was to increase personal standing and power, and not to develop as a human and spiritual being. (Like those people who study a martial art without having any interest in its inner focus and moral grounding, but only to learn cool new ways to hurt people.) So after around fifteen months of being very involved in the organization, I left.

Still, I never thought of the School of Metaphysics as a cult, and was surprised recently to stumble across posts in online forums calling it that. Maybe it would have seemed more cult-like had I stayed longer, or maybe it has changed for the worse in the long years since. Anyway I'm not a great fan of the term. My own view is that the biggest and most insidious cult of all is society.