|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 6, 2015 13:18:42 GMT -5
Did you read his books? He's pretty insistent in the first three about his deep distaste for interfacing with most people, his own sister included. He really drives home the point that he's got little patience/tolerance for non-awakened folks....and, important to note, he regards the majority of folks the world over to be sleeping. Regardless of a realization of Oneness, if one is purposefully creating a buffer between him and interaction with 'others' appearing in his world, because his dislike of them is so strong, there is indeed a 'surface sense of separation' happening there. For a short while I felt the same way 'after', because the common language with the majority was lost. I didn;t understand their concerns, their worries, their dramas, couldn;t relate to all this anymore.
However... one is moved on, further. Moved on, NOT moves himself/herself. It becomes an automatic process, I have no say in it anymore. Jed was moved on too. As he said to me once... "I suspect 'it' did you, and keeps doing so." If the author/character truly has moved on in that way, I'd say then it would be a good thing for him to write another book talking about that....most folks I've talked to who have read the trilogy are not even aware of the "invisible Guru" forum, and are therefore not privy to the info you are relaying regarding this supposed movement beyond Jed's deep distaste/dislike for 'most people.' Fwiw, re: the boldeld, I would say that being awake means understanding more than ever what gives rise to concerns, worries, dramas....as it's now seen with crystal clarity, precisely what's behind that; Emotional need....Attachment to/belief in some very specific ideas/thoughts. ....how can you see through your own drama and somehow fail to make the connection between that and the drama experienced by others? This is why I have trouble understanding the idea of supposedly awakened folks becoming less compassionate, less able or willing to relate to the suffering (or even just mere presence) of others. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 6, 2015 21:41:36 GMT -5
That's fine, I read it. But that's not what Niz said, it distorts what Niz meant. That's why I said look carefully at the words confused and confusion (their context with the whole excerpt). But it doesn't matter, very few on ST's are interested in this sort of thing, even thought Niz is probably the most quoted person here. How do you know what he meant? I read The Masters and the Path by CW Leadbeater when I was 18. I've studied ~this stuff~ since then, 'up one side and down the other'. I know what he means by causal body. What he said is in very clear and simple language and I'm sure he meant what he said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 4:44:27 GMT -5
For a short while I felt the same way 'after', because the common language with the majority was lost. I didn;t understand their concerns, their worries, their dramas, couldn;t relate to all this anymore.
However... one is moved on, further. Moved on, NOT moves himself/herself. It becomes an automatic process, I have no say in it anymore. Jed was moved on too. As he said to me once... "I suspect 'it' did you, and keeps doing so." If the author/character truly has moved on in that way, I'd say then it would be a good thing for him to write another book talking about that....most folks I've talked to who have read the trilogy are not even aware of the "invisible Guru" forum, and are therefore not privy to the info you are relaying regarding this supposed movement beyond Jed's deep distaste/dislike for 'most people.' Fwiw, re: the boldeld, I would say that being awake means understanding more than ever what gives rise to concerns, worries, dramas....as it's now seen with crystal clarity, precisely what's behind that; Emotional need....Attachment to/belief in some very specific ideas/thoughts. ....how can you see through your own drama and somehow fail to make the connection between that and the drama experienced by others? This is why I have trouble understanding the idea of supposedly awakened folks becoming less compassionate, less able or willing to relate to the suffering (or even just mere presence) of others. I can relate to this. When I shift into´´enlightened mode´´ I see folks ´´spirit´´ (I saw it as a bright white light shining from the location of the heartchakra, and sometime above their heads)and at first I thought, ´´omg, they re ALL enlightened!!!´´. It was as if there had been this secret everybody knew, and I was the newcomer in the club.But when I started talking to them ,i was baffled by the crap that came out of their mouths. I looked closer and saw that their words came from a different place, grey,confused, as if it was something not real stuck on the surface of who they really were.I also noticed that those with the brightest light, were less ignorant,but still confused. And,yes,after the trilogy i was not interested in what else Jed had to say.A trusted friend had read a follow up on it and said it was ´´more of the same´´... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 4:59:45 GMT -5
I didn't say I don't understand. I said it took too many words, for something which is so very simple.please tell that to Jed, he wrote lots of books didnt he?You call that shouting as well,surely--his bragging ans boasting and dislike of other humans? and no,you dont understand you said earlier that true genius is effortless you comment on someone you know nothing about, SA wrote 6 books simultanuously, in 6 years time, each 600 plus pages, four of which are widely acknowledged masterworks. Ever tried to write oNE book? Then you´d acknowledge that indeed it is an incredible feat of genius. as for the quote i gave you, they re letters to students, several written to different students on the same topic--it was before email and copy-machines, and initially never intended to be published.This is why he appears to repeat himself in the quote.I thought that was obvious. He never asked for disciples, but they came (´´but alas--such is fate´´)and he was too kind to turn them away...that was his life and he went on with it. your comments show no real intention to try and understand. So you say clairvoyancy doesnt exist?'Compare it to Santa Clause? so, what are you doing here on STF, Tano ?
I did, as a matter of fact. How one manages to squeeze pages and pages out of something that is no more than a few words - is beyond me. But good that some do. You seem to be missing similarities between the two. Jed never asked either, just wrote the books, then buggered off inot the world. However, people write to him in thousands. In the end of the day... whoever resonates with whatever person best. So what is the issue? "so, what are you doing here on STF, Tano ?"
I haven't got a clue, nor do I ask. That's just what seems to be happening for now. . SA mainly wrote about this process of ´´unfolding-expanding-moving on´´ after realisation.He insists however that first one must be ´´realised´´, and for that one can use whatever method or non-mehod one is inclined to.There are hundreds of ´´methods´´ and he didnt concern himself with those. And..reading a book puts you automatically in inner contact with the author...his energy resonates with the reader´s, and the reader can benefit from that, even if he is not consciously aware of it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2015 10:41:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2015 11:27:17 GMT -5
I would like to hear YOUR understanding. In your words. Thank you. The causal body is an individuation (exists as a finer level of vibrations, much finer that the physical). The causal body exists before physical birth. The new birth of a physical body is "seeded" with certain attributes which ~come from~ the causal body, these include ~impurities~, the samskaras. As the new body grows it collects information which is stored in the new neural structure. This becomes what Niz calls the knower, also called ego, personality, cultural self, false self, many different names, what I referred to as "Tom", "D!ck", "Harry". So, nobody really starts 'from scratch'. We 'start' with certain samskaras which had been 'stored' in the causal body. This is what Niz called the confusion of the unlimited and the limited. The purpose behind life is to clear out all the samskaras, all distortions. If these are cleared out then an individuated ~person~ becomes a vehicle for Atman to manifest in life. If they are not dissolved, upon the death of the physical body the samskaras (can be more or less depending upon the life lived) go back into the causal body, repeat. The self we think ourselves to be, the named ego-personality-cultural self, dies. Dead means forever dead. The memories are stored in the causal body, as Niz said. These are individuated, ~in~ the causal body, although probably accessible, if one can reach the vibratory level of the causal body, not exactly very easy. In any one life, all the samskaras can be eliminated, but this is not so easy to do. Unless all the confusion (the word used by Niz) is eliminated, the confusion (samskaras) will necessitate another physical birth (as described by Niz in the quote). The idea of reincarnation can be a good thing or a bad thing. Gurdjieff didn't explicitly include reincarnation in his teaching (not in the usual accepted sense anyway), seeing it probably more detrimental that advantageous, an aspect of what he called the disease, tomorrow. I saw all of this is the Niz quote, because, like I said, this has been an interest of mine, since 18...really since about the age of about 12....well....really about ten...well....really earlier (long story)... But all this is why TR or SR is not the end. There isn't an ~end~ at least until all the samskaras are eliminated from the causal body. Sorry people... |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 7, 2015 11:33:49 GMT -5
It is exactly because I could see through my own drama (and thus all the drama has miraculously left my life) - that I can make connection to others' dramas.. and see them for exactly what they are - dramas. But you were saying in the quote below that for a time you were unable to connect to or understand others dramas..That's what I was speaking to. Doesn't make sense that one could see through their own drama, and then somehow be unable to understand the dramas, worries, concerns of others. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/1902/jed-mckenna?page=20#ixzz3teWkyUSq This has not been my experience...the majority in my world DO know compassion...but some have simply lost touch with it..purposefully put up walls to buffer a sense of hopelessness with regards to mitigating the suffering they see....in most children, compassion is foundational to their being...to look on at an animal or person in pain, mental, emotional or physical, is to evoke a sense of caring, an interest to help mitigate that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2015 11:42:00 GMT -5
The causal body is an individuation (exists as a finer level of vibrations, much finer that the physical). The causal body exists before physical birth. The new birth of a physical body is "seeded" with certain attributes which ~come from~ the causal body, these include ~impurities~, the samskaras. As the new body grows it collects information which is stored in the new neural structure. This becomes what Niz calls the knower, also called ego, personality, cultural self, false self, many different names, what I referred to as "Tom", "D!ck", "Harry". So, nobody really starts 'from scratch'. We 'start' with certain samskaras which had been 'stored' in the causal body. This is what Niz called the confusion of the unlimited and the limited. The purpose behind life is to clear out all the samskaras, all distortions. If these are cleared out then an individuated ~person~ becomes a vehicle for Atman to manifest in life. If they are not dissolved, upon the death of the physical body the samskaras (can be more or less depending upon the life lived) go back into the causal body, repeat. The self we think ourselves to be, the named ego-personality-cultural self, dies. Dead means forever dead. The memories are stored in the causal body, as Niz said. These are individuated, ~in~ the causal body, although probably accessible, if one can reach the vibratory level of the causal body, not exactly very easy. In any one life, all the samskaras can be eliminated, but this is not so easy to do. The idea of reincarnation can be a good thing or a bad thing. Gurdjieff didn't explicitly include reincarnation in his teaching (not in the usual accepted sense anyway), seeing it probably more detrimental that advantageous, an aspect of what he called the disease, tomorrow.
There is no purpose behind life. Gurdjieff didn't explicitly include reincarnation in his teaching.. I suspect he was a tad more realistic. You take writings literally, LITERALLY. And that's the rabbit hole. I'm happy for you for your understanding of life. ........I've been down more rabbit holes than you can imagine.....I'm an expert on rabbit holes.... |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 7, 2015 11:44:02 GMT -5
But you were saying in the quote below that for a time you were unable to connect to or understand others dramas..That's what I was speaking to. Doesn't make sense that one could see through their own drama, and then somehow be unable to understand the dramas, worries, concerns of others. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/1902/jed-mckenna?page=20#ixzz3teWkyUSq This has not been my experience...the majority in my world DO know compassion...but some have simply lost touch with it..purposefully put up walls to buffer a sense of hopelessness with regards to mitigating the suffering they see....in most children, compassion is foundational to their being...to look on at an animal or person in pain, mental, emotional or physical, is to evoke a sense of caring, an interest to help mitigate that. How do you understand compassion? Not sure exactly what you're asking there..are you asking how compassion is understood to 'be' in another I am looking at or how I define it?..or something else? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2015 11:48:23 GMT -5
It is exactly because I could see through my own drama (and thus all the drama has miraculously left my life) - that I can make connection to others' dramas.. and see them for exactly what they are - dramas. But you were saying in the quote below that for a time you were unable to connect to or understand others dramas..That's what I was speaking to. Doesn't make sense that one could see through their own drama, and then somehow be unable to understand the dramas, worries, concerns of others. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/1902/jed-mckenna?page=20#ixzz3teWkyUSq This has not been my experience...the majority in my world DO know compassion...but some have simply lost touch with it..purposefully put up walls to buffer a sense of hopelessness with regards to mitigating the suffering they see....in most children, compassion is foundational to their being...to look on at an animal or person in pain, mental, emotional or physical, is to evoke a sense of caring, an interest to help mitigate that. Yeah, well said. A wide scale conditioned belief is one of 'well, what can I do about that?', and so although many folks are deeply compassionate, they have to put a lid on it, because they just don't know what to do with it or where to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 7, 2015 12:07:25 GMT -5
Not sure exactly what you're asking there..are you asking how compassion is understood to 'be' in another I am looking at or how I define it?..or something else? How you define it for yourself, what it means to you. Thanks. In the broadest sense, It's just the movement of Love. to be more specific.... a gnosis (non-conceptual knowing) of the other as Self...and an acknowledgement that suffering in some form is happening, which results in a sense of caring..a desire to uplift and unburden of that pain in some way, even if only through heartfelt intent. In short, Johnny perceives A dog in his world to be hurting....he understand himself what 'hurt' means....When nothing is standing in the way of blocking out the Love that is foundational to his being, he naturally cares about and desires for the dogs hurting to cease. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2015 23:23:51 GMT -5
I'm happy for you for your understanding of life. ........I've been down more rabbit holes than you can imagine.....I'm an expert on rabbit holes.... So have I, SDP. This one, from the quote, was also on the list of all chased at some point. Niz gave the answer which resolves every question, already quoted: "What was born must die. Only the unborn is deathless. Find what is it that never sleeps and never wakes, and whose pale reflection is our sense of 'I' " That is not metaphorical, it is quite literal. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2015 18:09:56 GMT -5
ola Farmer! no one ever is though there seem to be separate minds who think they are ...  the quote I posted was created in humor, so well, there's that As Jed wrote in the first book, that no peep ever gets enlightened really is the best part of the answer. All the speculation about feeling states and what peace means is just caterpillar chatter. Butterflies chime in from time to time to say what it explicitly isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2015 18:11:56 GMT -5
Nope, not the peace I'm pointing to. Unconditional peace isn't contingent upon any conditions. never mind, we speak different languages and come from different backgrounds~pasts. peace is always there, unlimited and infinite at some point the veil drops, or is torn, and one becomes aware of it. c'est tout. paz No that's a cop-out. We clearly are referring to very different subjects with the word peace. "always there, unlimited and infinite", in the way you've used it is just a platitude. I've met minds with several peeps from several different backgrounds, each very different from mine, on what the pointer of peace refers to. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2015 18:14:03 GMT -5
The journey's over when ya' die, and karma's constantly created and resolved -- partially or otherwise -- for as long as that lasts. Karma isn't some spiritual accounting ledger in the sky. That's a Western misconception of it that makes for a nice lever of control. It's the same boogeyman as the Devil, just reformulated.
Thing 'bout karma is that any action has the entirety of eternity as it's possible target, and while you might assume a given reaction is because of the impure thought you had over lunch last Tuesday, fact is it might instead match up exactly to the misbehavior of some 5 year old sentient squid on a planet orbiting Orion a century in the future.
Any conceptual meaning you try to make of this reality is doomed dude. Give it up. btw not only ´´western ´´ misconception.The entire Hindu kast-system is based on it. But here the belief in reincarnation is optional, so it becomes nothing more than a set of books like Santa keeps to figure who's been naughty or nice. |
|
