|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 7:41:02 GMT -5
First, I don't blame you for misunderstanding my position, it's unusual. Second, this, what you give, isn't my position. You have Buddhism, there is no permanent self in any sense, anatta, there is no beginning and no permanent Ground. You have Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta, there is a Ground, there is a permanent self, Atman, which derives from the Ground, Brahma. Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul, we only have a soul in embryo. Reincarnation was/is not a direct part of the teaching. We have to assume only this life, we know this life, there are no guarantees of anything further. So, we are born as essence. Essence is the seed, essence is the embryo. Essence is what we are born with or born as. Essence is our True Self. As a baby is born, it grows and develops, energy is taken in directly and feeds essence. Picture a clean white sheet of paper. Via attention and awareness, a baby collects data from the world. Now, picture a line drawn on that white sheet of paper for every bit of data collected and stored in memory, in the neural structure, the connections between neurons. A baby and a young child lives through their True Self. This is called essence being active. By about age six, sometimes later, personality is formed, and the young child begins to live through thoughts, learned emotions, mostly negative emotions copied from people (we are not born with negative emotions), and imprints of negative bodily actions, I don't believe in hitting children, otherwise known as spanking. Picture hundreds of thousands of lines drawn on the white paper, it's no longer white, you can't even see the white. But the white is still there, underneath all the marks. The child's sense of identity shifts from essence to the false self, the stored data. This is called essence becoming passive and the false imaginary self becoming active. The false imaginary self takes all the energy, so essence ceases to grow. So our True Self is still there, underneath, clean, pure, white. I say all that to say, so you are wrong, sdp does not believe in any entanglement of false self/cultural self and True Self. True Self is just covered over. Correct interior spiritual practice is about once again living through one's essence, it's about reversing the process whereby personality, the false self-cultural self was formed. You see, once personality-false self-cultural self is formed, it takes all our attention and awareness. This is what identification is, it's a technical term. So correct interior spiritual practice is about living through one's awareness and or attention. It's just that simple. So practice can only come from the living ~side~, not the recordings side. The recordings side can't do anything, except react. Different circumstances pull up different recordings. Now, I've said all just-this at least 100 times on ST's, here. I have told ZD at least 25 times, I agree with you up to here. I do, actually do. The 'self', the 'ego', the persona, the cultural self, IS imaginary. It's just a collection of memories. Gurdjieff called it recordings on rolls. This, in 1912, was Edison's phonograph. It was a wax tube, and turned, with a needle applied, it recorded sounds. And then you could play it back with a needle. So Gurdjieff called the tube, a roll. Now, just transfer all those marks on the paper to-be anything mechanically stored. Recordings became vinyl, then magnetic tape, then CD, then MP3, now streaming. The 'self' is just a set of recordings, hundreds of thousands of bits. Yes, they will probably eventually be able to make a copy from the neural structure of the brain, and put it in a computer. But will it be a living thing? No. So the imaginary you, is imaginary, it just consists of stored data. That's why Gurdjieff called it a machine. The false self can only react to people, places, things and events, it can never initiate action. It's basically garbage in, garbage out. So the practices are about recovering that living essence, living through essence, our True Self. Reversing the process essence is once again active and the persona-false self-cultural self becomes passive. I've searched high and low and everywhere, there is no other teaching like this. So I understand when you think I'm about disentangling one from the other. Now, this is just about as brief as I could be, to be clear. Maybe tomorrow I will post on the Macrocosm Microcosm thread a quote about acquiring our own I. Gurdjieff said as we are, we do not have our own I, all we have as a sense of self is this imaginary self, the stored data. But under the right circumstances, essence can begin to grow again. So this is why I've told ZD many times, I agree with you, up to here. Absolutely correct. But the beyond here, is acquiring a soul. Beyond here is the possibility of having one's own I, Real I. But there are no guarantees. "A man is unable to say what he himself really is" is accurate. essence is the possibility of true individuation, but only a possibility. Can you see how much of this corresponds to your view? I can put your view within my 'framework', but you can't put sdp within your 'framework'. I've said that also many times, here. And too, some people have more essence still peeking through, more of the white paper showing between the marks. Everyone is different. Purification is about erasing the marks. To be honest it's really difficult to unpack what your point is here. It doesn't help that in a fundamental way you have made a wrong comparison between Buddhism and Vedanta. There is no permanent self in Vedanta just like Buddhism. You are not comparing self with self but self with (S)elf. There is personal self and Transcendent Self. In terms of personal self there is no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. self as personal egoity is impermanent in both traditions. The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:15:58 GMT -5
The single sentence fifth paragraph from the end states: "Well, there is nothing to be reborn." The remaining four paragraphs then go on to completely contradict that statement. I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:20:08 GMT -5
I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. (I'm reading the link, lolly's link. It wouldn't link, I had to type in the complete URL to find it, found it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:20:20 GMT -5
To be honest it's really difficult to unpack what your point is here. It doesn't help that in a fundamental way you have made a wrong comparison between Buddhism and Vedanta. There is no permanent self in Vedanta just like Buddhism. You are not comparing self with self but self with (S)elf. There is personal self and Transcendent Self. In terms of personal self there is no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. self as personal egoity is impermanent in both traditions. The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology]. That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:22:33 GMT -5
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. well that's a forceful argument indeed. 😃
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:50:05 GMT -5
The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology]. That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology. All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:53:33 GMT -5
That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology. All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words. If that's true then why didn't Gurdjieff just shut up like the Zen people?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:56:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. well that's a forceful argument indeed. 😃 I'm just out of time right now, I'll be back later, your tomorrow. But, basically, it's about energy and information. There is a continuity of movement of energy + information. Actual tangible energy does not necessarily mean a self or a soul. Read the article with that in mind and it will make more sense. But you are correct, the guy should not have used the word nothing. Replace nothing, there, with ~a continuity of a certain movement of energy~, and it will all make sense.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:59:02 GMT -5
All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words. If that's true then why didn't Gurdjieff just shut up like the Zen people? Because Zen doesn't go far enough. Zen doesn't talk about ~a certain continuity of movement of energy~. Gurdjieff didn't claim to be any kind of authority. He just taught, people listened, or didn't. He just wanted his books published, then people could read them, or not. ZD is correct about the parable of the sower.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 9:02:01 GMT -5
I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I observe feelings and thoughts etc, but only assume a self. The aggregates (feelings, thoughts etc) are undeniable because the experience of them is direct, but I have never experienced 'myself'. The was an occasion I did 'see myself' but I immediately knew it's a ghost and not actually me. In contrast, I was still there where I actually belong, in the driver's seat, as opposed to living as that horrid thing which is nothing but wound up impulses from craving and aversion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 9:03:57 GMT -5
Gotta go, my Taco Bell breakfast window is closing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 9:27:33 GMT -5
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I observe feelings and thoughts etc, but only assume a self. The aggregates (feelings, thoughts etc) are undeniable because the experience of them is direct, but I have never experienced 'myself'. The was an occasion I did 'see myself' but I immediately knew it's a ghost and not actually me. In contrast, I was still there where I actually belong, in the driver's seat, as opposed to living as that horrid thing which is nothing but wound up impulses from craving and aversion. You don't assume a sense of self, you experience it. It's a visceral sense, it's tangible and it's not doing any craving. It's not changing or suffering. You will have the sense of self no matter what you are thinking or not thinking. You never say I'm not me today because I'm having some different thoughts. You are you no matter what. But that fundamental sense is entangled with egoity which does partake of craving and aversion. The driver's seat is that sense of self with no one in it. But most people prior to stream entry, if you want to use that particular categorization, can't tell the difference or disentangle the pure sense of self from changing phenomena which is why it's possible to say I'm not myself today. so they work on that which is external and that's a large part of modern-day Buddhist psychology which is nonsense. But go to the absorption states of the Jhanas and mindfulness and you're getting closer to what I believe Buddha would have taught. In the meantime I cannot take at face value a single word that is attributed to the Buddha since nothing was written down for a long time after his passing. Most of what people read today are commentaries. For me it's quite simple. If I read some Buddhist teaching and it's not my experience then I immediately dismiss it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 10:24:08 GMT -5
The lolly linked article is very good, but the whole process is explained much better by Yogacara Buddhism. I've been exploring Yogacara for a while. Living Yogacara is the best concise source I've found, 150 pages. The alaya-vijnana consciousness is not permanent, the word means storehouse consciousness. It, is what carries the seeds of the vasanas and samskaras from incarnation to incarnation, "positive" seeds and "negative" seeds. And even alaya-vijnana is based on dependent origination, IOW, it's not permanent. There isn't a self that reincarnates, just seeds. The Tibetan teachings on the Bardo show how the self disintegrates after death.
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Aug 3, 2023 10:46:27 GMT -5
Gotta go, my Taco Bell breakfast window is closing. “ The moral of "The Myth of Sisyphus" is that there is no greater meaning in life but what we give it. When we accept that the universe has no inherent meaning or reason, we can be free of artificial expectations and embrace the absurd.”
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 3, 2023 11:57:41 GMT -5
Gotta go, my Taco Bell breakfast window is closing. “ The moral of "The Myth of Sisyphus" is that there is no greater meaning in life but what we give it. When we accept that the universe has no inherent meaning or reason, we can be free of artificial expectations and embrace the absurd.” Well, remember that Camus only understood "intellectual meaning" and that's where he was coming from. He apparently never realized that there is a difference between intellectual meaning, which is relative, and absolute meaning. which is not. "What is" is absolute whereas our ideas about "what is" are relative and take the form of images, ideas, and symbols. If language and thought are left behind, the world of non-duality, which is absolute but neither subjective nor objective, is what remains. In this case the word "absolute" is just a pointer to something that can be apprehended but is not intellectually comprehensible. The biblical statement attributed to God, "I am that I am," and Niz's statement, "I am THAT" both point to the same thingness thing.
|
|