Just about everyone who has spiritually awakened and teaching will point that the path is actually pathless or that the gate is actually gateless. Yet few really comprehend what is meant by this and it’s not hard to see why. If you do the satsang rounds, or follow forums or anywhere where there is a diverse range of spiritual opinions you will hear this. All paths lead to God or the absolute or enlightenment etc...

This is a very poor understanding of the process of enlightenment. All religions and all spiritually inclined philosophies exist to pull the wool over your eyes. Everything in the manifested universe is.

The only thing of value in any spiritual text is to point you to move beyond the text and to look within. That’s it… Nothing else. Every spiritual work exists as illusion; this includes the Bible, the Quran, Sutras, Vedic Literature etc.

They do not exist as paths to the absolute, but rather exist as a way of keeping you in delusion and preventing you from discovering true nature which is in fact that everything here is illusion, including yourselves.

What is one to do then? Think for yourselves and as unbelievable as it may seem, most don’t really think for themselves but rather are inclined to follow a philosophy or spiritual practice that is full of holes. And to get out of that kinder garden mentality, so that you can transcend it you have to see the holes.

Almost all religions will say this: God is all loving and omni-present. Then they will go on to say where God is not. For example, God isn’t the devil, or that act is sin etc.. Now if God is really everywhere, then how can God not be the rapist, the murderer, the sadist, the terrorist? And if God is all loving, then how can God not love the rape, the murder, the sadist etc..

Now either God or the absolute is either all loving and omnipresent which makes the whole notion that the bible (and other similar books) as the literal word of God questionable at the very least or that God isn’t all loving and omnipresent, which still makes the Bible and other similar texts questionable at best.

Every piece of spiritual literature should be questioned at its philosophical core to see the contradictions and to see the flaws. You have to become a critic of everything, not a closed minded critic, but a skeptic willing to do the tough stuff and go against the grain of society and pull yourselves above the muck that we call “spirituality”.

What is spiritual and what isn’t? How can you make that separation if you believe that God is all loving and omni present? Because a book tells you so? Because a guru tells you so? If so then you are not thinking for yourselves, you are merely following the herd.

Of course this doesn’t mean that you have to have an oppositional stance to all religions. Like anything else they exist as a projection, a part of the Absolutes imagination and in that sense they are holy. But as paths to the absolute, they aren’t paths at all.

There is no path to the absolute or God in duality. There cannot be, because there isn’t any one in Ultimate existence to walk a path, to go anywhere, or to discover anything. In the absolute there is just the absolute, no angels, no demons, no you or me, no universe. No right nor any wrong.

This singularity is called non duality and what appears here in the emanation from the absolute is called dualistic. Let’s repeat that, everything here is dualistic and consequently is relative and subjective and open to interpretation.

The way through all this is question the interpretation and then more importantly who is really doing the interpretation. See busting up religions and spiritual philosophies is pretty easy once you start to think for yourselves. But busting up self is a lot more difficult.

It is much more difficult, because then you start to come to the conclusion that you don’t exist in the way you thought you did. In other words, true nature is not tied to a limited form that you “think” of as you. Rather true nature is in fact the absolute, which is devoid of you as a form. Formless cannot have any form in it what so ever.

So then where is a path to something pathless? Who can walk through a gate that is gateless? Question the validity of the path and the gate and then you can come to the conclusion that it’s an exercise in futility.

All roads lead to Maya. Think about that… I mean really think about that…

Then think about this. Who assumed that there was a road to begin within and where did that assumption arise from?

__________________
Eddie Traversa

Spiritual Enlightenment Blog

http://www.truthrealization.com/index.php