A lesson in ‘what works’ is one I recently re-learned and I thought perhaps it could be of use to you too.
If you examine religion, spirituality, esoterism, and the sciences you might encounter a tendency for one group to assert that only it’s own theories and practices are the right ones, and that only it’s own theories and practices work while all others don’t. Some others don’t even bother with what works in human life, but assert that in life nothing is meant to work right, and instead of pursuing that one ought to follow a righteous path so as to have things work out after death. Some others assert that ‘everything is good’, that all theories and practices are aligned with each other and lead to the same end(s).
Although I still don’t agree that the last assertion is true -if we are to analyze each theory logically- I do agree that all theories and practices are of the same basic source; and that source is what can make a theory work. It is -in fact- the source that works through the theory. It is that which makes something work that matters the most, and it is not the ritual that matters. That source is the source of oneself, the theory and the practice.
One could heal an injured part of his body through traditional medicine, another could heal it with homeopathy, another could heal it by calling upon the spirits and another could by snapping his fingers and making heal. Similarly, one could also fail to heal no matter which path he pursued. That’s because that is not depended upon the path, it is depended upon that which heals it. Success and failure are alike dependent upon that which brings about success and failure and paths to success and failure may or not exist, and may or not be of help; and whether something is of help or not also depends upon that which operates and not upon the ways it operates.
Of course, an inconsistent path or a mix of paths that on one hand hand asserted success and on the other hand failure, could help in bringing about uncertain and confusing results, if the source agreed with such inconsistent rules –but only if the source agreed.
One could start his own ‘school of how to treat depression’ and deal with depression by means invented by himself alone, without any logical basis whatsoever, and do treat depression as well. As for me, I don’t believe a thing such as depression exists, so I wouldn’t treat it either. But I know that if I chose to I could bring it in existence in me.
Just like one can bring about solutions into existence, one can also bring about problems. And one can also not even bother with that cycle of creating problems to resolve, at all.
A complete understanding of a problem should serve in not being subjected to it, not the other way around. For a complete understanding would point to the source of a problem. And although many and various sources can exist, the most basic of all is -in all cases- the same.
It seems to me that the imposing of a knowingly unworkable path that was said to be the only workable path has always been a way to hinder any workable path from existing, for any path can be workable if it is meant to be that. And that is a way how the study of the source sometimes got a mysterious, incomprehensible shade too (thus, the existence of mysticism too), for those who studied it had to hide from being prosecuted by the fanatics of the ‘righteous’ path(s) that were not meant to work.