The supreme paradox of the initiatory path

by Athos A. Altomonte

Q : … it is what I call ‘to become king of oneself', to be in the universal balance up to the point of seeing by oneself the ‘Law', becoming accuser, judge, gaoler and even executioner of oneself if necessary, with mercy as well as equity. Only this represents the true dimension of a free Man and only a free man has ‘freedom' of choice. But it is a long road and not for many – F.

A : What you say is correct. Nevertheless, if the man who can ‘cross over the top of mountains' stopped being ‘a group by himself', things would improve. Indeed, if the most able people ‘came down the valley' instead of disappearing among the tops, they could make their ‘practical experience' available for the less expert (lesser initiates). This happens despite the fact that the non experts have never had much sympathy for the ‘able ones'.

Once the demonstrable has been demonstrated, the most expert of merit could cause acceleration in the second and third generation of researchers. Unfortunately this method struggles to impose itself. Furthermore, initiatory transmission is today hindered by the standardization of the offer, which upsets any balance of seriousness in the statement that ‘easy is good'. But it is a deceit.

Experts have always talked about ‘goals realistically reachable in proportion with the commitment'. They know that on the initiatory path there aren't any discounts and dialectic frills don't count.

The view of an instructor is quite mathematical and therefore less attractive than the view offered by someone who has something to sell.

The statement that in esotericism as well quality and competence are proportional to the intellectual commitment is not very popular. This means that we must ‘grow up' before expressing a finished idea. And hard work is not attractive.

Among the aspects that stop the process of initiatory transmission, the strangest is scepticism. It is clear how many people practice initiation without believing in it. For example, many people talk about light, but they don't do anything to lit it. Others talk about spirit without doing anything to open to it. Some talk about gnosis without doing anything to harden their metals, starting by abandoning opinions and judgments of the inferior self (the physical mind). Indeed, on this subject there is an evident incongruence; many people rely on the physical mind (sciolism) to free themselves from the illusions of the physical mind. This is nonsense. It would be like saying: ‘let's arm the thieves to catch the thieves'. Paradox, contradiction or ingenuousness?

Finally, the concept of initiation is based upon the principle of elite, which means a small group of people. We wonder, then, why we want (but we can't) access an elitist condition remaining ‘ourselves'.

I think that ‘ to expect progress whilst remaining attached to oneself ' is the supreme paradox of the initiatory path.