|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2024 10:27:37 GMT -5
I'm currently in Portugal, so a bit out of touch, but the basic approach is to take away name and form from people attached to name and form, and to take away emptiness from people who are attached to emptiness. If all boundaries are cognitive illusions, what can we say about that which has no boundaries? All we can do is point and say, "Take a look for yourself." In Portugal ND is "não-dualidade." FWIW, Lisbon (Lisboa) is an amazing city. Today we head to Cascais for five days. Lots of fun! Foi divertido. I spent three weeks studying Portuguese only to find out that European Portuguese is vastly different than Brazilian Portuguese, which is what all of the language courses teach. Haha. I had to start all over. Portugues e' uma lingua dificil (because it is accented and many syllables are simply skipped over or omitted altogether.) Yup, I hear you. I've been reading "I Am That" again recently and I marvel at the seeming contradictions of NM when talking to various questioners' but really there is no contradiction at all. He simply meets everyone where they are at. One of the sweetest exchanges I read recently was with a questioner whose mind was simple, clear and child-like. O meu lado paterno da família era dos Açores. Cresci a comer muita sopa de couve e linguica :-) Um dia destes vou falar-vos do meu bisavô, que foi raptado por piratas aos 14 anos, mas que depois escapou. Portugal parece-me lindo. Estou a usar um tradutor que traduz para português europeu que se encontra aqui. www.deepl.com/translatorWow! You'll have to share that story with us when you can. I never realized that the Azores are part of Portugal, nor did I realize how many countries speak Portuguese--usually the Brazilian variety. Makes sense. 200 million Brazilians and only 10 million E. Portuguese. We had an incredible personal guide in Lisbon who took us off the beaten path and told us so many interesting things that the average tourist would probably never hear. I love the rhinoceros story that explains why all of the sidewalks are tiled. Too funny. I'm also in love with the pasteis de nata custard cakes! Amazing. He took us to a bakery that makes 20,000/day, and they were extraordinary, especially with cinammon and still hot out of the oven. When I read your post, I could understand about half of it, but there were several words beyond my ken. Eu so sei algumas palavaras em Portugues!
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 19, 2024 10:12:43 GMT -5
"Jardiance is really swell, a little pill with a big story to tell." The wife got me TV so I could watch the Tennis Channel. Almost as entertaining as here. Jardiance, Camsyus, Ozempic, Farxiga. My favorite is Sotyktu. No judgement. I'm just enjoying all the cool names.
The blind spot. Vasanas. It makes no sense to be in "throes" of vasanas and claim to be free. It's a joke. Maybe not THE cosmic joke, but almost as funny.
A babe cries from hunger, pain, discomfort. The ego learns to cry to get what it wants not necessarily what it needs. Manipulation begins early. The one who sees through this is blessed.
So much for thinking your way out of the blind spot.
You can say, think, believe, know you're not the self til the cows come home. It don't mean nothing.
Being free doesn't mean you don't experience anger when someone kicks the cat. There is that. You see it rise and subside and are less likely to return the favor, not in the throes. You're free.
So many words. I could pare it down, but too much trouble. The Rome Finals are on. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 19, 2024 8:20:05 GMT -5
Hmmm. Lets see if ZD has anything to say about that. I'm currently in Portugal, so a bit out of touch, but the basic approach is to take away name and form from people attached to name and form, and to take away emptiness from people who are attached to emptiness. If all boundaries are cognitive illusions, what can we say about that which has no boundaries? All we can do is point and say, "Take a look for yourself." In Portugal ND is "não-dualidade." FWIW, Lisbon (Lisboa) is an amazing city. Today we head to Cascais for five days. Lots of fun! Foi divertido. I spent three weeks studying Portuguese only to find out that European Portuguese is vastly different than Brazilian Portuguese, which is what all of the language courses teach. Haha. I had to start all over. Portugues e' uma lingua dificil (because it is accented and many syllables are simply skipped over or omitted altogether.) Yup, I hear you. I've been reading "I Am That" again recently and I marvel at the seeming contradictions of NM when talking to various questioners' but really there is no contradiction at all. He simply meets everyone where they are at. One of the sweetest exchanges I read recently was with a questioner whose mind was simple, clear and child-like. O meu lado paterno da família era dos Açores. Cresci a comer muita sopa de couve e linguica :-) Um dia destes vou falar-vos do meu bisavô, que foi raptado por piratas aos 14 anos, mas que depois escapou. Portugal parece-me lindo. Estou a usar um tradutor que traduz para português europeu que se encontra aqui. www.deepl.com/translator
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2024 5:17:31 GMT -5
It's not that it doesn't need to be altered; it's just that you don't need to alter it. This is the whole conundrum. I agree, the avatar-self can't do anything (except in a certain sense, submit). But the ND people then say nothing can be done, it's a movement of the whole. I was actually going to post on this, so I'll finish there, a reply to myself, the quote from the Putting Ourselves book. But I've always maintained there's an individuated in-between, essence. Essence is the possible in-between. And living through essence is what creates the changes (awareness-attention). The "avatar self" is fictitious, so it can't submit or do anything else. We talk about submission because language is dualistic, but all there is is THIS, and THIS is the only doer. There is no "me" who ever does anything, and once this is realized life becomes very simple because all of the past self-referential thinking patterns lose their effect. There's a good interview on YouTube by a woman (Transcending dualistic thinking with Violet and Dilullo, or something like that) in which Violet asks Dilullo lots of questions sent in by people about the results of his awakening. Dilullo is an anesthesiologist and I never realized until this interview that the surgeons are not the docs who keep people alive, place paddles on people's chests, and do the resuscitations, etc. There was an interesting story about a surgery that became problematic and created pandemonium in the operating room. Dilullo walked in to help and his presence calmed everyone because, in his words, "life is really simple if there's no thinking." Everything is matter-of-fact. No worries, no problems, because all the training is internalized and the body knows what to do. This is why jet pilots train on simulators--so that in an emergency the body will respond instantly and without reflection. He mentions Gary Weber and Weber's experience when thinking suddenly stopped one day. In a sense, meditative activities are a way of getting detached from habitual thinking patterns, so that the natural intelligence of the body can manifest more spontaneously. Thinking is not a problem if there is no attachment to the thinking. This is what Zen people call "non-abidance in mind."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2024 4:13:25 GMT -5
I don't see how ZD can agree with this, as he has told us for 15 years the ~drop of dew~ is imaginary. But it does speak perfectly to minute 10 and afterwards. Hmmm. Lets see if ZD has anything to say about that. I'm currently in Portugal, so a bit out of touch, but the basic approach is to take away name and form from people attached to name and form, and to take away emptiness from people who are attached to emptiness. If all boundaries are cognitive illusions, what can we say about that which has no boundaries? All we can do is point and say, "Take a look for yourself." In Portugal ND is "não-dualidade." FWIW, Lisbon (Lisboa) is an amazing city. Today we head to Cascais for five days. Lots of fun! Foi divertido. I spent three weeks studying Portuguese only to find out that European Portuguese is vastly different than Brazilian Portuguese, which is what all of the language courses teach. Haha. I had to start all over. Portugues e' uma lingua dificil (because it is accented and many syllables are simply skipped over or omitted altogether.)
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 18, 2024 19:38:29 GMT -5
M: Your world is mind-made, subjective, enclosed within the mind, fragmentary, temporary, personal, hanging on the thread of memory.
Q: So is yours?
M: Oh no. I live in a world of realities, while yours is of imagination. Your world is personal, private, unshareable, intimately your own. Nobody can enter it, see as you see, hear as you hear, feel your emotions and think your thoughts. In your world you are truly alone, enclosed in your ever-changing dream, which you take for life. My world is an open world, common to all, accessible to all. In my world there is community, insight, love, real quality; the individual is the total, the totality -- in the individual. All are one and the One is all.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2024 10:40:06 GMT -5
"It may seem to us that we have direct, unfiltered access to the wider world, but, in truth, each of us lives in a world of our own making. What we see and sense is a hallucination; it is actively generated by the brain. We recognize it as a hallucination only when it slips its leash--when the brain somehow fails to recalibrate our private world to match the evidence of our senses". George Musser quoting Karl Friston, psychiatrist, physicist, computational neuroscientist, in his book Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation, Why Physicists are Studying Human Consciousness and AI to Unravel the Mysteries of the Universe, 2023, page 69 Take the mind-body (the body is ~real~, the small s self-avatar is not-real) to be a spider. It spends its web. It sits in the center, and through its web senses anything that touches its web. The spider is the mind-body, it's web is its extension into the world, like our 5 senses. So, actually, The only connection between the spider and the ~exterior~ world, is its web (the 5 senses). So the quote in accurate, for the most part, for most people. Go back to the person. We send out energy into the world, and the world sends back, the same quality of energy, because we experience only-what-we-are. What we send out is the quality of the self-avatar, it's thoughts, feelings/emotions and bodily interactions. It's like light polarity, we can receive-back only what resonates with our own self-avatar. The way I've said this before is, the world is a hall of mirrors, same idea, different metaphor. We see in the world what resonates with the self-avatar. The spider only receives what the spiderweb conveys to it. Now, this is how most people live. We get back to lolly's point and my point. The spider-self-avatar can't do anything, except live-through the spiderweb in-between. The person self-avatar cannot act directly on the world, because IT IS the world. But the mind-body can live-through attention and/or awareness, this is what brings changes. The self-avatar can't directly make changes in its relationship with the world. So, there isn't just the imaginary self (self-avatar) and the world. There's the mind-body (actuality), the world, and the in-between, essence (attention-awareness). Yes, the imaginary self-avatar can't do anything, can't do anything (except in a certain sense, submit). I can't see the operation of the world in any other sense, nothing else makes sense. This view allows for all the differentiation we see in the world, psychologically. The self-avatar just perpetuates its own view, automatically (and so in a very real sense lives in a locked box, psychologically. The inside walls of the box reflect-back the non-being of the imaginary self-avatar). There's another name for this, and Chuang Tzu wrote about it as 'the frog in a well'. Each self-avatar just perpetuates its own memes. And the only way of escape, is through attention-awareness. The walls of the box, each individual imaginary box, are formed through the connections between neurons. The connections between neurons are what form the web, the spiderweb (or net, or network). And they filter out everything that does not correspond to self (the imaginary self-avatar). So it becomes almost impossible to escape one's own individual *box*, because everything is self-validating. We see what-we-are, not what is. But then too, people with similar beliefs form tribes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2024 10:11:13 GMT -5
The eye isn't a camera. The optic nerve attaches at the back of the eye, so there are no rods or cones there, so nothing there to perceive light. If the eye were a camera we would have a hole in the center of our vision. We don't, the mind/brain patches over the hole so that we see a uniform view of the world, no breaks, no hole. So the mind/brain creates an illusion of wholeness. Here is my question. Before SR there is a seeming self which operates in the world, makes choices, acts. I think we are on the same page that the so-called self is a result of conditioning. So, SR is the recognition, realization, that there is no self, no separate self, no volitional self (on this I agree, always have, concerning the small s self, yesterday called the self-avatar). But yet the conditioning continues to operate in the world. It appears there is a self operating, someone, an ordinary person looking from the outside would see a self operating in the world. Before SR the illusory self operating in the world doesn't operate without error, or always according to truth or actuality. The very nature of the illusory self is to be a distorting factor, a distorting lens, at least somewhat. Some conditioning is more distorting, some less, less efficient, more efficient. So after SR the distortions still exist, that's pretty obvious to me. The now-non-person still functions through the former conditioning. The SR now-non-person will even argue that it's not necessary for the conditioning to be altered in any way, that's the argument against purification. See my dilemma? If SR is seeing the truth as truth and the false as false, why doesn't distorting conditioning drop away? If you say it doesn't matter or there is no distortion post SR, I say you have a blind spot. Objectivity doesn't exist post SR. All this is why I maintain that purification is necessary. If your paradigm doesn't account for all this, it deficient. I somewhat spoke to all this yesterday in reply. I suppose this is where 3 months has left me, to sum up. It's not that it doesn't need to be altered; it's just that you don't need to alter it. This is the whole conundrum. I agree, the avatar-self can't do anything (except in a certain sense, submit). But the ND people then say nothing can be done, it's a movement of the whole. I was actually going to post on this, so I'll finish there, a reply to myself, the quote from the Putting Ourselves book. But I've always maintained there's an individuated in-between, essence. Essence is the possible in-between. And living through essence is what creates the changes (awareness-attention).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 18, 2024 8:37:09 GMT -5
Q: Can there be awareness without an object of awareness?
M: Awareness with an object we called witnessing. When there is also self identification with the object, caused by desire or fear, such a state is called a person. In reality there is only one state; when distorted by self-identification it is called a person, when coloured with the sense of being, it is the witness; when colourless and limitless, it is called the Supreme.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 18, 2024 7:25:24 GMT -5
The eye isn't a camera. The optic nerve attaches at the back of the eye, so there are no rods or cones there, so nothing there to perceive light. If the eye were a camera we would have a hole in the center of our vision. We don't, the mind/brain patches over the hole so that we see a uniform view of the world, no breaks, no hole. So the mind/brain creates an illusion of wholeness. Here is my question. Before SR there is a seeming self which operates in the world, makes choices, acts. I think we are on the same page that the so-called self is a result of conditioning. So, SR is the recognition, realization, that there is no self, no separate self, no volitional self (on this I agree, always have, concerning the small s self, yesterday called the self-avatar). But yet the conditioning continues to operate in the world. It appears there is a self operating, someone, an ordinary person looking from the outside would see a self operating in the world. Before SR the illusory self operating in the world doesn't operate without error, or always according to truth or actuality. The very nature of the illusory self is to be a distorting factor, a distorting lens, at least somewhat. Some conditioning is more distorting, some less, less efficient, more efficient. So after SR the distortions still exist, that's pretty obvious to me. The now-non-person still functions through the former conditioning. The SR now-non-person will even argue that it's not necessary for the conditioning to be altered in any way, that's the argument against purification. See my dilemma? If SR is seeing the truth as truth and the false as false, why doesn't distorting conditioning drop away? If you say it doesn't matter or there is no distortion post SR, I say you have a blind spot. Objectivity doesn't exist post SR. All this is why I maintain that purification is necessary. If your paradigm doesn't account for all this, it deficient. I somewhat spoke to all this yesterday in reply. I suppose this is where 3 months has left me, to sum up. It's not that it doesn't need to be altered; it's just that you don't need to alter it.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 16, 2024 20:51:49 GMT -5
Q: I can understand that the person is a mental construct, a collective noun for a set of memories and habits. But, he to whom the person happens, the witnessing centre, is it mental too? M: The personal needs a base, a body to identify oneself with, just as a colour needs a surface to appear on. The seeing of the colour is independent of the colour -- it is the same whatever the colour. One needs an eye to see a colour. The colours are many, the eye is single. The personal is like the light in the colour and also in the eye, yet simple, single, indivisible and unperceivable, except in its manifestations. Not unknowable, but unperceivable, un-objectival, inseparable. Neither material nor mental, neither objective nor subjective, it is the root of matter and the source of consciousness. Beyond mere living and dying, it is the all-inclusive, all-exclusive Life, in which birth is death and death is birth. Q: The Absolute or Life you talk about, is it real, or a mere theory to cover up our ignorance? M: Both. To the mind, a theory; in itself -- a reality. It is reality in its spontaneous and total rejection of the false. Just as light destroys darkness by its very presence, so does the absolute destroy imagination. To see that all knowledge is a form of ignorance is itself a movement of reality. The witness is not a person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, a body. In it the absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is all very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates. See that there is no such thing as a permanently separate person and all becomes clear. Awareness -- mind -- matter -- they are one reality in its two aspects as immovable and movable, and the three attributes of inertia, energy and harmony.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2024 17:47:30 GMT -5
One aspect of this question is how even to define the various structures. There are no perfectly sharp boundaries in nature. Where does the brain give way to the rest of the nervous system? What are the limits of the body? "Physics doesn't really tell us what are the objects, the entities, in the world," Tononi said. "It's all a giant field of things; it's very complicated. But it doesn't really put borders in any fundamental sense. So how do we know where things end and begin?" Same book, Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation by George Musser, page 94
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 16, 2024 1:58:55 GMT -5
L and ZD. Came across this quote by Nisargadatta. I hear it speaking to the chord the video struck in you guys. "The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no name and form. It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. The drop of dew has name and form, but the little point of light is caused by the sun. The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. Similarly clarity and silence of the mind are necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in the mind, but by themselves they are not sufficient. There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary conditions." From this POV it would be like asking, " Can the Infinite create awareness when all there is is the Infinite's awareness."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2024 22:38:17 GMT -5
L and ZD. Came across this quote by Nisargadatta. I hear it speaking to the chord the video struck in you guys. "The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no name and form. It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. The drop of dew has name and form, but the little point of light is caused by the sun. The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. Similarly clarity and silence of the mind are necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in the mind, but by themselves they are not sufficient. There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary conditions." His explorations of a quiet mind were quite exquisite, even if there are sometimes translation issues. The refinement between witness, witnessing and witnessed is fodder for much of his poetry, because, poetry, is exactly what it is. Once a guy asked him (paraphrasing from my memory) if the witness was the ultimate, and his reply was "you don't build a house on a bridge". Was just poking around... Maurice Frydman also translated a book by Ramana (and I think I recall correctly, the reason being he also knew Ramana). www.everherenow.com/2013/12/a-remarkable-man-maurice-frydman.htmlFrom I Am That Wiki Most of the conversations were in Marathi, but for the benefit of Westerners talks were often translated. Frydman: ″Whenever I was present the task would fall to me. Many of the questions put and answers given were so interesting and significant that a tape-recorder was brought in. While most of the tapes were of the regular Marathi-English variety, some were polyglot scrambles of several Indian and European languages. Later, each tape was deciphered and translated into English″ . All the conversations were recorded at Nisargadatta's small tenement and later transcribed and translated by Frydman while the master was still unknown to the Western public. A Marathi version of the talks, verified by Nisargadatta, was published separately. According to Nisargadatta, "Maurice (Frydman) told me, 'Everything that is said here is immediately lost, though it could be of a great benefit for those looking for truth. I would like to translate and publish your words so others might know them. And so, he wrote I Am That". www.wisdom2be.com/essays-insights-wisdomwritings-spirituality/the-extraordinary-life-of-maurice-frydman-biographical-collectionFrom the link above: Maurice Frydman is one of most extraordinary people I’ve ever come across and virtually nothing is known about him. And because of his connection with Ramana Maharshi, Krishnamurti, Gandhi, Nisargadatta, the Dali Lama I kind of view him in my own mind as a Forest Gump of 20th century spirituality. He was in all the right places in all the right times to get the maximum benefit of interaction with some of the greats of Indian spirituality… He was a Gandhian, he worked for the uplift of the poor in India, he worked with Tibetan refugees, he edited extraordinary books [like] “I am That,” probably one of the all time spiritual classics. This man for me a shining beacon of how devotees could and should be with their teachers. He was just absolutely an extraordinary man. And went out of his way to cover his tracks; to hide what he actually had accomplished in his life. So I’ve enjoyed the detective work of looking in obscure placers, digging out stuff that he personally tried to hide, not because it was embarrassing, but because he didn’t like to take credit for what he’d done. So I see this as an opportunity to wave the Maurice flag and say “look look, this is one of the greatest devotee, sadoc seekers from the West whose been to India in the last 100 years, and I think more people should know about him.” ~David Godman Going to look for the Ramana book... Maharshi's Gospel Kindle Edition by Ramana Maharshi (Author), Maurice Frydman (Narrator) I think you can find a free PDF
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2024 22:07:36 GMT -5
www.academia.edu/5838275/A_Gurdjieff_Genealogy_Tracing_the_Manifold_Ways_the_Gurdjieff_Teaching_has_TravelledFrom the link: In 1931, with the publication of his New Model of the Universe, Ouspensky’s meetings began attracting the attention of the literati, and by 1935 he had amassed about one thousand pupils, and bought a large country house with a farm at Virginia Water in Surrey. This was Lyne Place, which became the centre for his work. Ouspensky’s wife, Sophia Ouspensky, who had spent most of her time from 1920 in France with Gurdjieff, moved to England to teach there with her husband. Lyne Place was self-supporting; pupils could make hay, grow fruit and vegetables, and keep bees, for the dual purpose of producing food and generating friction between and within pupils. About twenty pupils lived there, while others bought homes in the area. By 1938, about a hundred people visited for Sunday work. Some visitors reported that the atmosphere there was tense (Webb 1980, 400, 405). To accommodate a growing number of pupils, Ouspensky acquired Colet House, in Colet Gardens, London in 1938. It had belonged to the ballet school of Nicholas Legat, whose wife Nadine was a pupil of Ouspensky. Due to the enlargement of his activities, Ouspensky organised an outward cover for Colet House, The Historico-Psychological Society, which was meant to convince officials that nothing subversive was going on (Webb 1980, 409). The success of the Ouspenskys reached its peak in the late 1930s, though there was a growing division between followers of Ouspensky and those of his wife, which created internal dissension. This continued when they moved to America in 1941 (Webb 1980, 411, 445). At this time Ouspensky lectured in New York while his wife taught in New Jersey. He returned to England in 1946 when he became seriously ill. Shortly before his death he told his pupils that there was no system and that they must construct the teaching again from the very beginning (Webb 1980, 450, 458). At the time of his death, Ouspensky’s followers in London numbered around one thousand (Patterson 1996, 183). Sophia Grigorievna Ouspensky (1874-1963) Sophia Ouspensky, known to her pupils as Madame Ouspensky, met Gurdjieff in 1915 through her husband. It is uncertain whether the Ouspenskys were legally married and for much of their lives they were distanced from each other personally and geographically (apparently Sophia was aware that Ouspensky had at least one mistress) (Webb 1980, 136). Sophia spent most of her time from 1920 to 1927 in France with Gurdjieff, despite the fact that Ouspensky had left Gurdjieff to organise his own groups. She was, by her own account, Gurdjieff’s pupil (Webb 1980, 390). From 1927 she visited England occasionally, and in 1931 she moved there after Gurdjieff sent her away. For the next seventeen years she stopped all contact with Gurdjieff and even adopted her husband’s rule of forbidding the mention of Gurdjieff’s name (Webb 1980, 380, 389; Rawlinson 1997, 296). In the 1930s Sophia taught at various country establishments in England, such as the house called the Dell at Sevenoaks, before settling at Lyne Place in Surrey in 1935, where she taught alongside her husband. She became a popular teacher of Gurdjieff’s ideas, and her teaching methods were strongly modelled on those of Gurdjieff. She did not comply with Ouspensky’s formal and theoretical approach to the teaching. Accounts indicate that she was forceful and formidable, deliberately embarrassing her pupils and speaking in riddles (Collin-Smith 39, 1988). Pupil Robert de Ropp remarks that where Ouspensky worked on people’s intellect, Sophia worked on their emotions. He regarded her, rather than Ouspensky, as “the real leader of the work” (de Ropp 1992, 95-96). When the war broke out, the Ouspenskys moved to America and bought Franklin Farms at Mendham, New Jersey, a former residence of the Governor of New Jersey (Webb 1980, 389, 394). Sophia remained there when Ouspensky returned to England in 1946. After Ouspensky’s death in 1947, Sophia recommended that all her pupils, as well as those of her husband, make contact with Gurdjieff in Paris (Rawlinson 1997, 297). About half of Ouspensky’s former pupils, under Kenneth Walker, obeyed this instruction (Webb 1980, 462). In 1948 Gurdjieff visited Franklin Farms, with the hope of consolidating ‘Ouspensky people’ and ‘Gurdjieff people’ (Webb 1980, 389; Wellbeloved 2003, 234).
|
|