|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2015 8:56:28 GMT -5
Hey quinn, I've read tons of New Age and all kinds of metaphysical goobledygook. I pretty-much hated Gurdjieff for years, lots of reasons. If not for some personal experience, all that I've written here would just be more goobledygook, and would have been left behind years ago. So, all that has virtually nothing to do with any type of intellectual resonance. One reason I don't discuss personal experience, specifically, is I don't want to be a punching bag, but that's really a minor reason. The number one principle I was taught from day one is that you must verify what's taught. I read In Search of the Miraculous in March of 1976 and it answered many questions I already had, mostly the why of many experiences even from an early age. The answer is experience. You move from theory to practice to experience which leads to further theory, further practice and on and on. So you've experienced crystallization of the second body and acquired a soul through your efforts and such? Without explaining why (no), I can safely truthfully and accurately say the answer to your question is no. I have asked questions and made comments directly related to my experience over the years, and have gotten nothing except answers in the negative. That is not unexpected. Thanks for your question and your interest. (At least you understand my first language is English, unlike sca). First you have to row a little boat. edit: and, can sometimes be a problematic word, resulting in an emphatic no.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 19, 2016 15:53:05 GMT -5
................bumped.............
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 20:33:25 GMT -5
This thread has been considered for a few days, and finally comes as a response to a post by wren, June 29, 4:42 PM, sdp seems to be a lot clearer in his view the last month or so. My reply to this post (What?) was also recently commented on by E (about an hour+ ago). So I will briefly give my view, again. Becoming more conscious is like juggling, it cannot be passive, it takes effort. You begin to learn to juggle using three objects, usually balls. With two hands, one ball has to be in the air at all times. So there is a movement of catching and throwing with an expenditure of energy. If the throwing and catching stops, the juggling stops. Becoming more conscious, similarly, requires certain effort, but conscious efforts. One cannot become more conscious, passively. Awakening requires a certain quantity of a certain quality of energy, and this energy cannot be come by, passively. The energy of awakening can be accumulated, but if conscious efforts, which concern the use of attention and awareness, cease, the energy will leak away, like the flow of the balls ceasing when one stops juggling. Now, some are going to say, but that's not how I understand awakening. So I will use the term, self-remembering, that's what self-remembering is, the state of being awake. I do this to try in a small way to circumvent the problem of language we are having with the use of the term Self Realization. The term Self Realization is obviously being defined differently by different people here. So I will use the term self-remembering for the state of being awake, not to be equated with Self Realization, which I have said before is not in my vocabulary (for various reasons). One significant difference is that self-remembering can come and go, one can be more awake or less awake, one can be more conscious or less conscious. This, again, depends upon this quantity of a certain quality of energy. So what is the role of ego/personality/cultural self/imaginary self in all this? Ego/etc. is a drain of energy. If one lives primarily through ego/etc., he or she can never accumulate the energy required for awakening, excuse me, for self-remembering. So, one has to "keep the balls in the air" via conscious efforts to such an extent that the energy entering the organism exceeds that exiting the organism, generally through the sieve that ego/personality/imaginary self, is. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it. I realize that most of this is at odds with the view and ideas spoken to primarily here on ST's (non-volition and such). For others maybe this will give some additional perspective. Almost everything I have ever posted here on ST's relates in some manner to this information (the OP). So this is my view in a nutshell. Basically, any ordinary effort, that by ego/imaginary self, is a mechanical effort and is non-volitional. Conscious efforts, obviously and by definition, cannot occur unconsciously, that is, resulting from habit, conditioning or through ego/imaginary self. Additionally, awakening/self-remembering does not involve the repair of ego/personality/imaginary self, it involves making ego/etc. passive. .....bumped, ironically...for Bakk....
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Feb 7, 2018 0:28:45 GMT -5
conscious efforts cannot occur through the imaginary self...hmmm..so if there is consciousness,it has to come from true self?..is that your experience?...and the personality is also imagined?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 8:48:04 GMT -5
conscious efforts cannot occur through the imaginary self...hmmm..so if there is consciousness,it has to come from true self?..is that your experience?...and the personality is also imagined? Yes. Yes. Is personality imagined? Personality exists as neural connections in the brain, so there is a basis that is not imagined. What is imagined is the sense we are a singular self, one person. We are not, we are fragmented, when a thought arises, imaginary I claims that thought for the whole, as if it is the whole. One "I" can buy something on impulse, but another "I" has to pay the credit card bill. But it is not easy to see our inner contradictions. Also, what is imagined is that thoughts, feelings and actions are that which self consists. But these are a false sense of self, lead nowhere. True self is small and fragile, and yes, consciousness only arises from our essence. What we can be, not-now-is. Personality imagines it is, but personality, the false sense of self, is a dead end. Maybe the beginning of consciousness is the seeing of our contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2018 9:29:02 GMT -5
conscious efforts cannot occur through the imaginary self...hmmm..so if there is consciousness,it has to come from true self?..is that your experience?...and the personality is also imagined? Yes. Yes. Is personality imagined? Personality exists as neural connections in the brain, so there is a basis that is not imagined. What is imagined is the sense we are a singular self, one person. We are not, we are fragmented, when a thought arises, imaginary I claims that thought for the whole, as if it is the whole. One "I" can buy something on impulse, but another "I" has to pay the credit card bill. But it is not easy to see our inner contradictions. Also, what is imagined is that thoughts, feelings and actions are that which self consists. But these are a false sense of self, lead nowhere. True self is small and fragile, and yes, consciousness only arises from our essence. What we can be, not-now-is. Personality imagines it is, but personality, the false sense of self, is a dead end. Maybe the beginning of consciousness is the seeing of our contradictions. True Self is small and fragile? Personality imagines? Maybe the beginning of understanding is seeing the difference between our ideas and the living truth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 14:39:45 GMT -5
Yes. Yes. Is personality imagined? Personality exists as neural connections in the brain, so there is a basis that is not imagined. What is imagined is the sense we are a singular self, one person. We are not, we are fragmented, when a thought arises, imaginary I claims that thought for the whole, as if it is the whole. One "I" can buy something on impulse, but another "I" has to pay the credit card bill. But it is not easy to see our inner contradictions. Also, what is imagined is that thoughts, feelings and actions are that which self consists. But these are a false sense of self, lead nowhere. True self is small and fragile, and yes, consciousness only arises from our essence. What we can be, not-now-is. Personality imagines it is, but personality, the false sense of self, is a dead end. Maybe the beginning of consciousness is the seeing of our contradictions. True Self is small and fragile? Personality imagines? Maybe the beginning of understanding is seeing the difference between our ideas and the living truth. Maybe you can't see past concepts... Personality (here) = ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self/false sense of self. The Emperor imagined everybody saw clothes on him. Only the unspoiled innocent little boy could say the truth: Dude, you're naked. So yes, personality imagines it is something that it is not, in most people. That's not that complicated. (And you say it all the time).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2018 15:24:17 GMT -5
True Self is small and fragile? Personality imagines? Maybe the beginning of understanding is seeing the difference between our ideas and the living truth. Maybe you can't see past concepts... Personality (here) = ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self/false sense of self. The Emperor imagined everybody saw clothes on him. Only the unspoiled innocent little boy could say the truth: Dude, you're naked. So yes, personality imagines it is something that it is not, in most people. That's not that complicated. (And you say it all the time). Can a hallucinated cab driver get you home or will you instead just sit in the empty car until you snap out of it? The source of the imagination isn't what is imagined, as, without that source, there is no imagination. The cultural self is layered, complex, and creates the illusion if itself by non-stop recursive self-referential thought. Doesn't what you consider the process of becoming conscious involve the intermittent interruption of that stream of false consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 15:39:57 GMT -5
Maybe you can't see past concepts... Personality (here) = ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self/false sense of self. The Emperor imagined everybody saw clothes on him. Only the unspoiled innocent little boy could say the truth: Dude, you're naked. So yes, personality imagines it is something that it is not, in most people. That's not that complicated. (And you say it all the time). Can a hallucinated cab driver get you home or will you instead just sit in the empty car until you snap out of it? The source of the imagination isn't what is imagined, as, without that source, there is no imagination. The cultural self is layered, complex, and creates the illusion if itself by non-stop recursive self-referential thought. Doesn't what you consider the process of becoming conscious involve the intermittent interruption of that stream of false consciousness?It involves seeing the false stream. But yes, that seeing interrupts the false stream. Eventually it can take the energy out of the false stream (causing more interruption). Eventually it can take all of the energy out of the false stream.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2018 16:09:04 GMT -5
Can a hallucinated cab driver get you home or will you instead just sit in the empty car until you snap out of it? The source of the imagination isn't what is imagined, as, without that source, there is no imagination. The cultural self is layered, complex, and creates the illusion if itself by non-stop recursive self-referential thought. Doesn't what you consider the process of becoming conscious involve the intermittent interruption of that stream of false consciousness?It involves seeing the false stream. But yes, that seeing interrupts the false stream. Eventually it can take the energy out of the false stream (causing more interruption). Eventually it can take all of the energy out of the false stream. Isn't seeing it concurrent with it's interruption or at least the attenuation of it's volume? Can the source of the imagination be what is imagined?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 17:21:18 GMT -5
It involves seeing the false stream. But yes, that seeing interrupts the false stream. Eventually it can take the energy out of the false stream (causing more interruption). Eventually it can take all of the energy out of the false stream. Isn't seeing it concurrent with it's interruption or at least the attenuation of it's volume? Can the source of the imagination be what is imagined? First question, no, not in the beginning and not for a very long time. Ego/personality/cultural self/conditioned self, isn't easily "defeated", is a pretty tough ole bas*ar*. The problem is that the false sense of self takes all your energy, wastes it. This has to be stopped. Yes, imagination is exceptionally 'crafty', powerful. Only attention and awareness can keep things straight. Any thought or feeling is subject to error. In fact, deliberate errors are introduced into the teaching at times (and these show up in public sometimes, in written material). One has to come to understand, what actually is. If you don't understand, you can pass on errors. One has to find everything the Work teaches, in themselves, eventually. Otherwise progress ceases. You can't build the second story without first having built the first story.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2018 2:28:18 GMT -5
Isn't seeing it concurrent with it's interruption or at least the attenuation of it's volume? Can the source of the imagination be what is imagined? First question, no, not in the beginning and not for a very long time. Ego/personality/cultural self/conditioned self, isn't easily "defeated", is a pretty tough ole bas*ar*. The problem is that the false sense of self takes all your energy, wastes it. This has to be stopped. Yes, imagination is exceptionally 'crafty', powerful. Only attention and awareness can keep things straight. Any thought or feeling is subject to error. In fact, deliberate errors are introduced into the teaching at times (and these show up in public sometimes, in written material). One has to come to understand, what actually is. If you don't understand, you can pass on errors. One has to find everything the Work teaches, in themselves, eventually. Otherwise progress ceases. You can't build the second story without first having built the first story. Can the source of imagination be what is imagined? Is this your answer?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2018 5:52:03 GMT -5
True Self is small and fragile? Personality imagines? Maybe the beginning of understanding is seeing the difference between our ideas and the living truth. Maybe you can't see past concepts... Personality (here) = ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self/false sense of self. The Emperor imagined everybody saw clothes on him. Only the unspoiled innocent little boy could say the truth: Dude, you're naked. So yes, personality imagines it is something that it is not, in most people. That's not that complicated. (And you say it all the time). I assume that you equate True Self with Source. Is Source small and fragile? Source is what sees and also what imagines. It is infinite. There is nothing else here. Discover THAT, and see if it is small and fragile. There is no entity that can become unified with Source because Source is all there is. A seeker imagines progress toward unity, but there is no one who can make progress. Progress is a story created by imagination. When Source stops imagining, the truth becomes obvious. This is why the Buddha said, "In all the universe I am the only one." It's why Kabir said, "Behold, but one in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." It's why Ramana said on his deathbed in response to a follower's question about where he was going, "Where could I possibly go?" It's why Laughter is asking, "Can the Source of imaqination be imaginary?"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 13:51:52 GMT -5
Maybe you can't see past concepts... Personality (here) = ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self/false sense of self. The Emperor imagined everybody saw clothes on him. Only the unspoiled innocent little boy could say the truth: Dude, you're naked. So yes, personality imagines it is something that it is not, in most people. That's not that complicated. (And you say it all the time). I assume that you equate True Self with Source. Is Source small and fragile? Source is what sees and also what imagines. It is infinite. There is nothing else here. Discover THAT, and see if it is small and fragile. There is no entity that can become unified with Source because Source is all there is. A seeker imagines progress toward unity, but there is no one who can make progress. Progress is a story created by imagination. When Source stops imagining, the truth becomes obvious. This is why the Buddha said, "In all the universe I am the only one." It's why Kabir said, "Behold, but one in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." It's why Ramana said on his deathbed in response to a follower's question about where he was going, "Where could I possibly go?" It's why Laughter is asking, "Can the Source of imaqination be imaginary?" No, not correct. I'm a "middle layer" person. I've given my position dozens of times. Essence, true self, is what we are born with(as) from the standpoint of my tradition (the 4th Way). Source, ~gives birth~ to the universe, IOW, forms a division between itself and what follows (~this~, *look around). This process is called involution. An aspect of Source is the source of life, but certain beings (us) are formed as self-developing organisms. That is, ~we~ are a kind of seed. There is a return path back to Source, this is called evolution, the evolution of consciousness. So when I say true self, it does not refer to the Whole, Source. It's the kernel of possible individuation. Self-developing means possible, not obligatory. Self-developing means chosen by the self, by essence(true self). Richard Rose got "Jacob's ladder" from Gurdjieff (the Ray of creation). He got the name from the Bible. Jacob's ladder is the path of decent, and ascent, involution and evolution. (Gurdjieff described two rivers, involution and evolution. He said it's possible to cross over from one river to the other [and thus return toward Source], but only possible, there is no necessity for any particular person, no necessity whatsoever). What I write cannot be understood from the non-dual paradigm. All the rungs between Source and ~this~*, constitute "middle layers", and they-are-for "climbing". What one follows ~back up~, is what ~came down~ (one has to find and live through their essence, this is the only way). But more goes up than came down. This is the meaning of evolution. (The oak tree is more than the acorn).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 14:41:14 GMT -5
I assume that you equate True Self with Source. Is Source small and fragile? Source is what sees and also what imagines. It is infinite. There is nothing else here. Discover THAT, and see if it is small and fragile. There is no entity that can become unified with Source because Source is all there is. A seeker imagines progress toward unity, but there is no one who can make progress. Progress is a story created by imagination. When Source stops imagining, the truth becomes obvious. This is why the Buddha said, "In all the universe I am the only one." It's why Kabir said, "Behold, but one in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." It's why Ramana said on his deathbed in response to a follower's question about where he was going, "Where could I possibly go?" It's why Laughter is asking, "Can the Source of imaqination be imaginary?" No, not correct. I'm a "middle layer" person. I've given my position dozens of times. Essence, true self, is what we are born with(as) from the standpoint of my tradition (the 4th Way). Source, ~gives birth~ to the universe, IOW, forms a division between itself and what follows (~this~, *look around). This process is called involution. An aspect of Source is the source of life, but certain beings (us) are formed as self-developing organisms. That is, ~we~ are a kind of seed. There is a return path back to Source, this is called evolution, the evolution of consciousness. So when I say true self, it does not refer to the Whole, Source. It's the kernel of possible individuation. Self-developing means possible, not obligatory. Self-developing means chosen by the self, by essence(true self). Richard Rose got "Jacob's ladder" from Gurdjieff (the Ray of creation). He got the name from the Bible. Jacob's ladder is the path of decent, and ascent, involution and evolution. (Gurdjieff described two rivers, involution and evolution. He said it's possible to cross over from one river to the other [and thus return toward Source], but only possible, there is no necessity for any particular person, no necessity whatsoever). What I write cannot be understood from the non-dual paradigm. All the rungs between Source and ~this~*, constitute "middle layers", and they-are-for "climbing". What one follows ~back up~, is what ~came down~ (one has to find and live through their essence, this is the only way). But more goes up than came down. This is the meaning of evolution. (The oak tree is more than the acorn).
|
|