|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 20, 2014 7:58:19 GMT -5
There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same.I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods.  Different strokes... I agree wit dat. The stickiness is what leads to self referencing. It's the interest in self that is sticky. So, to suggest turning attention away from that is to say, lose interest in what is found to be interesting and it won't be sticky anymore. This might explain why it can take decades of trying to lose interest in what one is interested in before seeing through the illusions at the core of that interest. It seems clear that addressing the interest directly has much greater potential, and this amounts to questioning everything that forms, reinforces and holds that self identity in place. The difficulty, of course, is that it's this self identity that drives the search for those answers, and so self deception is not only likely, but virtually inevitable. That's why sincerity is so highly valued in this game. Yes. Noticing the contents of mind and where that's happening. Here's the rub: this self-reference is the engine behind a lot of activity. As this 'person', what to do and say naturally flows out of the identity: the skeptic has an easy retort, the crusader is energized by their mission, the spiritual one calmly nods and smiles (or doesn't, and becomes the fallen-spiritual-one haha). If we get close to seeing how insubstantial that person-hood is, it threatens what to do, how to act, where we belong - a very basic sense of security. That, I think, is the precipice that gets talked about. It makes me think of the Christian concept of 'limbo' (not that I know a lot about Christianity), which from an earthly-ties perspective looks pretty unpleasant. An in-between state, not this, not that, that precipitates being scooped up into heaven. Earthly things have been left, heavenly grace is not here. If none of that is taken literally, it's a pretty good metaphor for the disintegration of what we thought ourselves to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:19:57 GMT -5
The experiencer is stuck when they insist only one perspective is 'truth/valid', their interest is trapped by attachment to only one perspective.. for that experiencer every discussion colored by the same lens of one perspective.. From a perspective that resonates with me, 'knowing' feels a bit stuck, too, a bit fixed.. 'understanding' feels more dynamic, fluid, adaptable to new experiences, and open to new information and insight.. Silence doesn't 'speak', it allows you to actually hear 'you'.. One Tuesday afternoon a couple of years back, I was at a garden that I work regularly, though usually I go there on a Monday morning. This afternoon I had been told that the man of the house next door, an elderly Irish chap, with shovels for hands. That when he shook yours, squeezed the life out of them, had been taken into hospital. As I going about my work I was stopped, by what I'll describe as a vast stillness that swept through the air and consumed all sounds with it's volume. I was told a week later that the gentleman had passed that afternoon. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2014 18:46:29 GMT -5
I agree wit dat. The stickiness is what leads to self referencing. It's the interest in self that is sticky. So, to suggest turning attention away from that is to say, lose interest in what is found to be interesting and it won't be sticky anymore. This might explain why it can take decades of trying to lose interest in what one is interested in before seeing through the illusions at the core of that interest. It seems clear that addressing the interest directly has much greater potential, and this amounts to questioning everything that forms, reinforces and holds that self identity in place. The difficulty, of course, is that it's this self identity that drives the search for those answers, and so self deception is not only likely, but virtually inevitable. That's why sincerity is so highly valued in this game. Yes. Noticing the contents of mind and where that's happening. Here's the rub: this self-reference is the engine behind a lot of activity. As this 'person', what to do and say naturally flows out of the identity: the skeptic has an easy retort, the crusader is energized by their mission, the spiritual one calmly nods and smiles (or doesn't, and becomes the fallen-spiritual-one haha). If we get close to seeing how insubstantial that person-hood is, it threatens what to do, how to act, where we belong - a very basic sense of security. That, I think, is the precipice that gets talked about. It makes me think of the Christian concept of 'limbo' (not that I know a lot about Christianity), which from an earthly-ties perspective looks pretty unpleasant. An in-between state, not this, not that, that precipitates being scooped up into heaven. Earthly things have been left, heavenly grace is not here. If none of that is taken literally, it's a pretty good metaphor for the disintegration of what we thought ourselves to be. Yeah, and maybe this is a good place to mention that this identity goes out "not with a bang but with a whimper". The reason is that the self never experiences it's own death because there is nothing to die. It's more like a subtle and undramatic turning away from that which never was. A kind of self forgetting, which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of remembrance of the self. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2014 19:55:48 GMT -5
Yes. Noticing the contents of mind and where that's happening. Here's the rub: this self-reference is the engine behind a lot of activity. As this 'person', what to do and say naturally flows out of the identity: the skeptic has an easy retort, the crusader is energized by their mission, the spiritual one calmly nods and smiles (or doesn't, and becomes the fallen-spiritual-one haha). If we get close to seeing how insubstantial that person-hood is, it threatens what to do, how to act, where we belong - a very basic sense of security. That, I think, is the precipice that gets talked about. It makes me think of the Christian concept of 'limbo' (not that I know a lot about Christianity), which from an earthly-ties perspective looks pretty unpleasant. An in-between state, not this, not that, that precipitates being scooped up into heaven. Earthly things have been left, heavenly grace is not here. If none of that is taken literally, it's a pretty good metaphor for the disintegration of what we thought ourselves to be. Yeah, and maybe this is a good place to mention that this identity goes out "not with a bang but with a whimper". The reason is that the self never experiences it's own death because there is nothing to die. It's more like a subtle and undramatic turning away from that which never was. A kind of self forgetting, which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of remembrance of the self. Another way that this can happen is to look and suddenly see that the imaginary self is no longer there--that it has totally vanished--, and then realize that what was thought to be so real in the past wasn't. I also am not a fan of self remembering, but perhaps for some people focusing attention deliberately upon the sense of selfhood, and holding attention there, eventually burns through the illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 20, 2014 21:42:53 GMT -5
Yeah, and maybe this is a good place to mention that this identity goes out "not with a bang but with a whimper". The reason is that the self never experiences it's own death because there is nothing to die. It's more like a subtle and undramatic turning away from that which never was. A kind of self forgetting, which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of remembrance of the self. --, and then realize that what was thought to be so real in the past wasn't. I also am not a fan of self remembering, but perhaps for some people focusing attention deliberately upon the sense of selfhood, and holding attention there, eventually burns through the illusion. That sounds lovely. Kinda like dieing in your sleep. Everybody would sign up for it if they could, but it's not usually the case.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2014 22:28:36 GMT -5
Even easier, is to let the self/no-self conflict model go..
Who/what is it that non-duality advocates think should not experience self-hood through identity as well as in absentia.. identity doesn't die, it expresses the experiencer's understanding.. to retain an identity while rejecting it reveals that it is inseparable from the experiencer.. when the experiencer is still and clear so is the identity, which may inspire illusions of no identity..
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2014 23:35:35 GMT -5
Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions....."
There's an old two-page sci-fi story from the 50's (maybe written by Frederick Brown) that goes like this: A man comes to the office of a famous scientist carrying a briefcase and says, "I've invented an anti-gravity machine." The scientist responds, "There is no such thing as anti-gravity; it would violate the laws of physics." The man touches a button on his briefcase, and it suddenly rises into the air and floats motionless in front of the scientist. The scientist stares at the briefcase for several long moments and then says, "There is no such thing as anti-gravity; it would violate the laws of physics."
It's like a man who goes to a big house, meets the owner at the door, and is invited inside the foyer. After the man looks around the foyer for a moment, the owner says, "Would you like to see the rest of the house?" The man replies, "I've already seen all there is to see." The owner says, "This house has dozens of other rooms; wouldn't you like to see what's in them?" The man replies, "I've already seen everything there is to see." The owner shows the man out and bids him a good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 21, 2014 23:58:34 GMT -5
Yeah, and maybe this is a good place to mention that this identity goes out "not with a bang but with a whimper". The reason is that the self never experiences it's own death because there is nothing to die. It's more like a subtle and undramatic turning away from that which never was. A kind of self forgetting, which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of remembrance of the self.Another way that this can happen is to look and suddenly see that the imaginary self is no longer there--that it has totally vanished--, and then realize that what was thought to be so real in the past wasn't. I also am not a fan of self remembering, but perhaps for some people focusing attention deliberately upon the sense of selfhood, and holding attention there, eventually burns through the illusion. Concerning the specificity of language. Ordinary sleep is the first state of consciousness, what we spend approximately 1/3 of our life in. The second state of consciousness, what we call the waking state, is that which we spend approximately the other 2/3 of our life in. self-remembering is the third state of consciousness, a state which might occur to a particular individual, haphazardly or spontaneously under extraordinary circumstances, only once or twice in a lifetime, IOW, it doesn't ordinarily naturally occur. The state of self-remembering requires the transformation of and the saving of a certain quality and quantity of energy resulting in a finer energy that just doesn't exist in a man or woman as formed by nature. IOW, to the majority of people, self-remembering is an unknown unknown. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 22, 2014 7:25:41 GMT -5
Another way that this can happen is to look and suddenly see that the imaginary self is no longer there--that it has totally vanished--, and then realize that what was thought to be so real in the past wasn't. I also am not a fan of self remembering, but perhaps for some people focusing attention deliberately upon the sense of selfhood, and holding attention there, eventually burns through the illusion. Concerning the specificity of language. Ordinary sleep is the first state of consciousness, what we spend approximately 1/3 of our life in. The second state of consciousness, what we call the waking state, is that which we spend approximately the other 2/3 of our life in. self-remembering is the third state of consciousness, a state which might occur to a particular individual, haphazardly or spontaneously under extraordinary circumstances, only once or twice in a lifetime, IOW, it doesn't ordinarily naturally occur. The state of self-remembering requires the transformation of and the saving of a certain quality and quantity of energy resulting in a finer energy that just doesn't exist in a man or woman as formed by nature. IOW, to the majority of people, self-remembering is an unknown unknown. sdp SDP: What we're calling "self remembering," a practice encouraged by Gurdieff and others, is NOT Self-remembering. I always assumed that it was a hyper self-referential practice, and now that I think about it, I can see how it might gradually morph into Niz's "I Am" practice. AAR, self-remembering, as I understand it, is ordinary self-referentiality done with conscious intention and done as a repetitive practice. It is NOT an unusual state of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 22, 2014 12:10:38 GMT -5
Concerning the specificity of language. Ordinary sleep is the first state of consciousness, what we spend approximately 1/3 of our life in. The second state of consciousness, what we call the waking state, is that which we spend approximately the other 2/3 of our life in. self-remembering is the third state of consciousness, a state which might occur to a particular individual, haphazardly or spontaneously under extraordinary circumstances, only once or twice in a lifetime, IOW, it doesn't ordinarily naturally occur. The state of self-remembering requires the transformation of and the saving of a certain quality and quantity of energy resulting in a finer energy that just doesn't exist in a man or woman as formed by nature. IOW, to the majority of people, self-remembering is an unknown unknown. sdp SDP: What we're calling "self remembering," a practice encouraged by Gurdieff and others, is NOT Self-remembering. I always assumed that it was a hyper self-referential practice, and now that I think about it, I can see how it might gradually morph into Niz's "I Am" practice. AAR, self-remembering, as I understand it, is ordinary self-referentiality done with conscious intention and done as a repetitive practice. It is NOT an unusual state of mind. Hey zd, I wasn't sure in what sense you were using self remembering, thus my reply, as it still stands. In the Gurdjieff literature it is usually written as self-remembering, and that's what my post concerns. There is no description in any of the Gurdjieff books of self-remembering as a practice or state, in fact, it is never written down (reference page 201 In Search of the Miraculous). There are general but not specific references in the books. I didn't say self-remembering is a state of mind, unusual or otherwise. It's not a hyper self-referential practice. It is not in any sense ordinary self-referentially. Below, a couple of quotes concerning self-remembering, by Gurdjieff, which might clarify somewhat. We want to 'do', but (he began the next lecture) in everything we do we are tied and limited by the amount of energy produced by our organism. Every function, every state, every action, every thought, every emotion, requires a certain definite energy, a certain definite substance. We come to the conclusion that we must 'remember ourselves' . But we can 'remember ourselves' only if we have in us the energy for 'self-remembering'. (pages 178,179 In Search of the Miraculous by PD Ouspensky). The following, significantly, is after Gurdjieff had a "nearly fatal wound" from a stray bullet in 1904 while in the Transcaucasian region near the Chiatura Tunnel where "There then proceeded firing between the so-called Russian army, chiefly Cossacks, and the so-called Gourians". (page 9) Recalling Nov. 6, 1927. " At the same time in spite of all my desires and endeavors, I could not succeed in "remembering myself" in the process of my general common life with others so as to be able to manifest myself, not according to my nature but according to previous instructions of my "collected consciousness". I could not attain the state of "remembering myself" even sufficiently to hinder the associations flowing in me automatically from certain undesirable hereditary factors of my nature. As soon as the accumulation of energy which enabled me to be in an active state was exhausted, at once associations of both thoughts and feelings began to flow in the direction of objects diametrically opposite to the ideals of my consciousness". (pages 20,21) Life is real only then, when "I am".... All and Everything, Third Series, GI Gurdjieff IOW, what you're calling self remembering is not what Gurdjieff meant and so is likewise the reason for this additional post. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 22, 2014 13:50:08 GMT -5
SDP: What we're calling "self remembering," a practice encouraged by Gurdieff and others, is NOT Self-remembering. I always assumed that it was a hyper self-referential practice, and now that I think about it, I can see how it might gradually morph into Niz's "I Am" practice. AAR, self-remembering, as I understand it, is ordinary self-referentiality done with conscious intention and done as a repetitive practice. It is NOT an unusual state of mind. Hey zd, I wasn't sure in what sense you were using self remembering, thus my reply, as it still stands. In the Gurdjieff literature it is usually written as self-remembering, and that's what my post concerns. There is no description in any of the Gurdjieff books of self-remembering as a practice or state, in fact, it is never written down (reference page 201 In Search of the Miraculous). There are general but not specific references in the books. I didn't say self-remembering is a state of mind, unusual or otherwise. It's not a hyper self-referential practice. It is not in any sense ordinary self-referentially. Below, a couple of quotes concerning self-remembering, by Gurdjieff, which might clarify somewhat. We want to 'do', but (he began the next lecture) in everything we do we are tied and limited by the amount of energy produced by our organism. Every function, every state, every action, every thought, every emotion, requires a certain definite energy, a certain definite substance. We come to the conclusion that we must 'remember ourselves' . But we can 'remember ourselves' only if we have in us the energy for 'self-remembering'. (pages 178,179 In Search of the Miraculous by PD Ouspensky). The following, significantly, is after Gurdjieff had a "nearly fatal wound" from a stray bullet in 1904 while in the Transcaucasian region near the Chiatura Tunnel where "There then proceeded firing between the so-called Russian army, chiefly Cossacks, and the so-called Gourians". (page 9) Recalling Nov. 6, 1927. " At the same time in spite of all my desires and endeavors, I could not succeed in "remembering myself" in the process of my general common life with others so as to be able to manifest myself, not according to my nature but according to previous instructions of my "collected consciousness". I could not attain the state of "remembering myself" even sufficiently to hinder the associations flowing in me automatically from certain undesirable hereditary factors of my nature. As soon as the accumulation of energy which enabled me to be in an active state was exhausted, at once associations of both thoughts and feelings began to flow in the direction of objects diametrically opposite to the ideals of my consciousness". (pages 20,21) Life is real only then, when "I am".... All and Everything, Third Series, GI Gurdjieff IOW, what you're calling self remembering is not what Gurdjieff meant and so is likewise the reason for this additional post. SDP: Thanks. Self-remembering was explained to me several years ago quite differently by someone who was at that time studying Gurdjieff. After reading the Gurdjieff quotes you posted, I now have no idea what he meant by the phrase. G. was an unusual character, and considering various possible language issues I wonder if anyone else actually knows in any accurate sense what he meant by that phrase. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 22, 2014 18:24:53 GMT -5
Hey zd, I wasn't sure in what sense you were using self remembering, thus my reply, as it still stands. In the Gurdjieff literature it is usually written as self-remembering, and that's what my post concerns. There is no description in any of the Gurdjieff books of self-remembering as a practice or state, in fact, it is never written down (reference page 201 In Search of the Miraculous). There are general but not specific references in the books. I didn't say self-remembering is a state of mind, unusual or otherwise. It's not a hyper self-referential practice. It is not in any sense ordinary self-referentially. Below, a couple of quotes concerning self-remembering, by Gurdjieff, which might clarify somewhat. We want to 'do', but (he began the next lecture) in everything we do we are tied and limited by the amount of energy produced by our organism. Every function, every state, every action, every thought, every emotion, requires a certain definite energy, a certain definite substance. We come to the conclusion that we must 'remember ourselves' . But we can 'remember ourselves' only if we have in us the energy for 'self-remembering'. (pages 178,179 In Search of the Miraculous by PD Ouspensky). The following, significantly, is after Gurdjieff had a "nearly fatal wound" from a stray bullet in 1904 while in the Transcaucasian region near the Chiatura Tunnel where "There then proceeded firing between the so-called Russian army, chiefly Cossacks, and the so-called Gourians". (page 9) Recalling Nov. 6, 1927. " At the same time in spite of all my desires and endeavors, I could not succeed in "remembering myself" in the process of my general common life with others so as to be able to manifest myself, not according to my nature but according to previous instructions of my "collected consciousness". I could not attain the state of "remembering myself" even sufficiently to hinder the associations flowing in me automatically from certain undesirable hereditary factors of my nature. As soon as the accumulation of energy which enabled me to be in an active state was exhausted, at once associations of both thoughts and feelings began to flow in the direction of objects diametrically opposite to the ideals of my consciousness". (pages 20,21) Life is real only then, when "I am".... All and Everything, Third Series, GI Gurdjieff IOW, what you're calling self remembering is not what Gurdjieff meant and so is likewise the reason for this additional post. SDP: Thanks. Self-remembering was explained to me several years ago quite differently by someone who was at that time studying Gurdjieff. After reading the Gurdjieff quotes you posted, I now have no idea what he meant by the phrase. G. was an unusual character, and considering various possible language issues I wonder if anyone else actually knows in any accurate sense what he meant by that phrase. Hey zd.....no problem. This is the reason I wanted to explore a little your use of the term self remembering. In Search of the Miraculous is pretty accurate, however, there are places where Ouspensky reports of his "experiments" in self-remembering, his first attempts at trying to understand the meaning of the term just days (pg 120) after having learned of it, these descriptions not coming from Gurdjieff, so one has to read even this primary source with some discrimination. It must also be noted that in these experiments Ouspensky stated he was using a very incomplete definition of self-remembering. (pg 118) Another quote concerning self-remembering and its not being merely a mental state, Gurdjieff speaking (somewhere around 1915 +): "But man does not know of the third state of consciousness or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Facts that contradict that, he considers to be accidental or temporary, which will change by themselves. By considering that he possesses self-consciousness, as it were by nature, a man will not of course try to approach it or obtain it". (page 145, In Search of the Miraculous) ................... So self-remembering is in a real sense the antithesis of self-referential thinking. But just as in our ordinary state of consciousness there can be times when we are more conscious and times when we are less conscious, there are likewise degrees of self-remembering, but atst, minimal requirements thereof. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2014 21:20:14 GMT -5
SDP: Thanks. Self-remembering was explained to me several years ago quite differently by someone who was at that time studying Gurdjieff. After reading the Gurdjieff quotes you posted, I now have no idea what he meant by the phrase. G. was an unusual character, and considering various possible language issues I wonder if anyone else actually knows in any accurate sense what he meant by that phrase. Hey zd.....no problem. This is the reason I wanted to explore a little your use of the term self remembering. In Search of the Miraculous is pretty accurate, however, there are places where Ouspensky reports of his "experiments" in self-remembering, his first attempts at trying to understand the meaning of the term just days (pg 120) after having learned of it, these descriptions not coming from Gurdjieff, so one has to read even this primary source with some discrimination. It must also be noted that in these experiments Ouspensky stated he was using a very incomplete definition of self-remembering. (pg 118) Another quote concerning self-remembering and its not being merely a mental state, Gurdjieff speaking (somewhere around 1915 +): "But man does not know of the third state of consciousness or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Facts that contradict that, he considers to be accidental or temporary, which will change by themselves. By considering that he possesses self-consciousness, as it were by nature, a man will not of course try to approach it or obtain it". (page 145, In Search of the Miraculous) ................... So self-remembering is in a real sense the antithesis of self-referential thinking. But just as in our ordinary state of consciousness there can be times when we are more conscious and times when we are less conscious, there are likewise degrees of self-remembering, but atst, minimal requirements thereof. sdp To me, self-remembering has to do with (re)cognizing one's pure, original primary consciousness in existence as an unbroken continuity. There was a first time, for all of us, somewhere in the earliest years, when we became aware of our own silent inner presence, looking out eyes into the world for the first time, with pure, silent perception, untouched by an iota of the conditioning yet to come. But come it will, and it will bring a fog of forgetfulness, and direct recognition of this silent, inner presence will be lost for a time. But when by grace the overlay of mental fog obscuring self recognition lifts, and self is recognized again as the continuous silent, inner, alert presence and background of every moment of our existence, it can be called self-remembrance. And although this self-remembrance is a most auspicious (re)cognition to be sure, some suggest it as only a doorway, to the realization of who you are prior to, and beyond, this temporary experience of conscious existence. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 23, 2014 12:33:03 GMT -5
Hey zd.....no problem. This is the reason I wanted to explore a little your use of the term self remembering. In Search of the Miraculous is pretty accurate, however, there are places where Ouspensky reports of his "experiments" in self-remembering, his first attempts at trying to understand the meaning of the term just days (pg 120) after having learned of it, these descriptions not coming from Gurdjieff, so one has to read even this primary source with some discrimination. It must also be noted that in these experiments Ouspensky stated he was using a very incomplete definition of self-remembering. (pg 118) Another quote concerning self-remembering and its not being merely a mental state, Gurdjieff speaking (somewhere around 1915 +): "But man does not know of the third state of consciousness or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Facts that contradict that, he considers to be accidental or temporary, which will change by themselves. By considering that he possesses self-consciousness, as it were by nature, a man will not of course try to approach it or obtain it". (page 145, In Search of the Miraculous) ................... So self-remembering is in a real sense the antithesis of self-referential thinking. But just as in our ordinary state of consciousness there can be times when we are more conscious and times when we are less conscious, there are likewise degrees of self-remembering, but atst, minimal requirements thereof. sdp To me, self-remembering has to do with (re)cognizing one's pure, original primary consciousness in existence as an unbroken continuity. There was a first time, for all of us, somewhere in the earliest years, when we became aware of our own silent inner presence, looking out eyes into the world for the first time, with pure, silent perception, untouched by an iota of the conditioning yet to come. But come it will, and it will bring a fog of forgetfulness, and direct recognition of this silent, inner presence will be lost for a time. But when by grace the overlay of mental fog obscuring self recognition lifts, and self is recognized again as the continuous silent, inner, alert presence and background of every moment of our existence, it can be called self-remembrance. And although this self-remembrance is a most auspicious (re)cognition to be sure, some suggest it as only a doorway, to the realization of who you are prior to, and beyond, this temporary experience of conscious existence. Excellent justlikeyou...most excellent....I would say this is not inaccurate, but not exhaustive.* The early experience you describe, would have been self-remembering, then (the previous sentence noted*), but the memory of it, now, is not (that might be stating the obvious). Additionally, the memory of it, could be an indication that it was an experience of self-remembering, then. For most people the "obscuring fog" never lifts, so as I said, self-remembering remains for them an unknown unknown. As far as self being the "background of every moment of our existence", that's a possibility that can be actualized (according to Gurdjieff), and would be the (minimal) state Gurdjieff referred to in the earlier quote concerning the time when he was hit by a (third) stray bullet. You also raise a pertinent point that will help zd (and somewhat unscramble the information he received from the person studying Gurdjieff) here (and is also why I wanted to clarify the issue), as the quotes don't quite fit into his (zd's) paradigm, what self * are you remembering in self-remembering? sdp |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2014 17:52:41 GMT -5
.I would say this is not inaccurate, but not exhaustive.* The early experience you describe, would have been self-remembering, then (the previous sentence noted*), but the memory of it, now, is not (that might be stating the obvious). Additionally, the memory of it, could be an indication that it was an experience of self-remembering, then. Yes, the memory of it now is not it. But present moment awareness of one's actual beingness, seen to be ever the same from then to now, is different than remembering now a past moment in time. For most people the "obscuring fog" never lifts, so as I said, self-remembering remains for them an unknown unknown. As far as self being the "background of every moment of our existence", that's a possibility that can be actualized (according to Gurdjieff), and would be the (minimal) state Gurdjieff referred to in the earlier quote concerning the time when he was hit by a (third) stray bullet. The witness is always in the background silently witnessing everything. What evidence is there to this? Without a witness to the event to recall it, there would be no recalling it. You also raise a pertinent point that will help zd (and somewhat unscramble the information he received from the person studying Gurdjieff) here (and is also why I wanted to clarify the issue), as the quotes don't quite fit into his (zd's) paradigm, what self * are you remembering in self-remembering? You are self-remembered when you realize that you are, and have always been, the ever-present witness to every consecutive now moment you've experienced, from your very first until this very present one. |
|
