Thanks for your kind words about my posts.

I am curious though. Some of your writing indicates a continuing interest in what might loosely be called "spiritual" disciplines. Is that no longer the case?

I would not call my interest 'spiritual' - the word carries too much baggage for me. But yes, I still practise meditation daily, though not the Knowledge. I give my reasons for doing so on my website.

Your rejection of the entire idea of spiritual mastery seems incompatible with such an interest.

I disagree. In fact, I would go further: I believe the very idea of so-called 'spiritual masters' is a huge brake on the endeavor for self-awareness, and in fact is incompatible with it.

You use the phrase 'spiritual mastery', and it is not clear whether you mean 'spritual masters' in the sense I have just taken it, or you mean for an individual who practises some form of meditation or self-awareness to have 'mastered' to some extent that art or skill.

If you intend this second meaning, then I don't think your sentence says a whole lot, since you are then saying can you have an interest and 'master' your interest to some degree, and of course you can. So I therefore think you must intend 'spiritual mastery' to mean 'spiritual master' in the sense of someone (the acolyte) looking up to someone (the 'spiritual master') who has the answers to my important life-questions, and can instill in me those answers - that is what I strongly reject.

Are there any examples of spiritual ascendency which do not involve on some level a close relationship between an adept and an initiate?

I think Yes. In fact, I would even turn your question around: Are there any examples of spiritual ascendency which *do* involve on some level a close relationship between an adept and an initiate? To that I would answer No.

The phrase 'spiritual ascendency' is I think unfortunate. 'Spiritual' is a word which I find fairly meaningless, or perhaps I should say has such a wide range of meanings that its use as a word to communicate precisely is debased. And 'ascendency' implies to me a hierarchy, a superiority, which again I am very uncomfortable with. I am also uncomfortable with the words 'adept' and 'initiate' for the same reason.

My own belief is, first, that meditation, or self-discovery, or self-awareness, or seeing things as they are, or the search for meaning in one's life (all to me acceptable alternatives to 'spiritual') is a valid and worthwhile endeavor.

Secondly, I believe that each person must find any such validity by and for themselves, and not from anyone else. Of course others can hint, suggest, give me advice - but all that is from my peers (equals, no 'ascendency'). In other words, I learn from normal interaction with other people, but emphatically not from anyone who claims, or behaves as if, they have 'ascendency' - a spiritual master, in other words.

As for examples, early Buddhism (Theravada) does not in theory rely on any 'adepts' as spritual masters. I say 'in theory', because as we all know who post here, the human tendency to place someone on a pedestal and get all our answers from them, uncritically and without thinking for ourselves, is very great.

In short, I believe any progress (another word which is on the borders of my comfort zone!) in this area we are writing about that relies on picking up a philosophy or a recipe off the shelf in the spiritual supermarket, is short-lived and illusory. Your meditation must be your own, or if you learn it from someone then you must make it your own, and your reason for meditating (if you do so) must also be your own. Second-hand conviction is just not enough.

And are you saying that any such relationship is by its nature corrupt or corrrupting?

Yes, I believe that is the case - both in principle and in practice. I am, and must remain, my own authority.