|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 15:32:22 GMT -5
Oh absolutely, a specific karmic thread survives. Just briefly... Physical DNA is passed down from parent to child. A similar spiritual "DNA" gets passed down from life to life. When I was about 17 my mother knew I was getting interested in ~this kind of stuff~. My Dad had an uncle who was a Rosicrucian and the whole family thought he was nutty. So, my Mother forbid me to become a Rosicrucian (the mail order thingy). I had seen a similar magazine-ad organization. So I joined Astara, out of Upton, Calif. In their material was the idea of a seed atom (I haven't seen this anywhere else, not saying it isn't anywhere else). You have a physical seed atom, an emotional seed atom and an intellectual seed atom (maybe more, don't remember). But when you die these (sort of a "blueprint copy"/snapshot/DNA) leave your mind/body/organism/etc. and get ~stored~, and upon the next incarnation they form the basis of the next body/mind/emotions. The ~next~ ego/personality/cultural self is completely new, completely newly formed from new learning/new experiences, but ~on the foundation~ of the previous samskaras (seed atom thingys). So in some sense one is reincarnated, in a sense not. The ~in a sense one is~ is enough for me to take it seriously. And this in a sense doesn't fit the Gurdjieff teaching (the teaching covers only one life and Liberation can happen in this one life which we obviously know about) but in a sense it does (but one pretty-much has to figure out/sort this out on one's own, it's sort of a test of understanding). So yes, the "personal energy" ~somehow~ moves from life to life. This is the only way to make sense of Buddhist teaching on karma and reincarnation (in Hinduism, no problem. The problem arises in Buddhism because of the idea of no-self. In "esoteric"/mystical Judaism there is also the idea of reincarnation, no problem there either). But the whole point is, if one doesn't ~get all this~ sorted out and understood and dealt-with in this particular life, ~you~ have to deal with it in the future (without going more into the meaning of ~you~ than I already have). Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? Thanks for clarifying. You didn't answer why you think this is true, though, other than seeing confirmation in some places. Is it that it makes sense to you as an explanation of why certain people act certain ways? Just to play devil's advocate (since I don't really have an opinion on this - just some skepticism), there are a LOT of theories on why people act a certain way; environment, genetics, diet, emotional blockages - to name a few. Here's my other thought - and maybe why I have some resistance to what you're saying: There is a particularly toxic way of living that involves setting arbitrary (and changeable) standards , striving to meet them, 'succeeding' for a while, and inevitably failing (because of the nature of impermanence). You're familiar with the voice in the head called The Task Master/Score-Keeper, right? This version of karma that you're describing sounds a lot like that. You asked: Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? That's why I said earlier: "what constitutes self/Self". It's all rather complicated. Let's look at quinn (now), and a past incarnation (we'll say pre-quinn). The ordinary day-to-day self of that former incarnation, pre-quinn, died. If you look at the Tibetan idea of the Bardo, pre-quinn disintegrated pretty shortly after the death of the body. So no, quinn is not the reincarnation of pre-quinn, but the samskaras, the pattern of energy, which came-from pre-quinn, did go into the making of quinn. So it wasn't ~me~, but it is the karmic residue of pre-quinn. So the question is, what(who) is quinn? Is quinn the ordinary everyday self? Or is quinn something ~deeper~, Self? quinn has to answer the question, what constitutes quinn? What constitutes self? Essentially it's a kind of information. What is information? It's a stable pattern of energy. I'm typing right now. The energy of my hands goes to the keyboard. That goes into the computer where the computer changes the information to an ordered series of 1's and 0's, binary language. And that leaves the library by cable. And then the information is converted to light as it travels down an optic "cable". And then that information is converted to an electromagnetic wave and it's sent via WiFi, etc., etc., etc. And then it's sent to St's Forums and it goes through a similar reverse process and eventually quinn reads it, and it happens virtually at the speed of light (but not quite). But quinn also consists of information, just vastly more complicated information. But ~Life~ knows how to pass that information from lifetime to lifetime in a similar manner as physicists and engineers have constructed the WWW. Why do I think it's true? Although raised as Southern Baptist, about age ten I was introduced to the idea of karma and reincarnation, a local TV program, a local psychic. It made sense immediately, I wasn't frightened of the idea. One could also say I intuitively knew it was true. So from an early age this possibility was in the back of my mind. Then at 17 I started studying Theosophy first. At 24 I discovered the Gurdjieff teaching. Outwardly, it does not teach reincarnation. Basically it teaches that when you die, you die. However, one can form a ~something~ that survives the death of the physical body. But it's more complicated. We are our essence. Essence exists previous to the birth of the physical body. Essence comes from a higher order of reality. The little self, ego/personality/cultural self is formed around essence, this false sense of self is going nowhere and can go nowhere, by definition. It's a dead end. I know that, I understand that. Is that a toxic way to live? For me, absolutely not. Many things with the Gurdjieff teaching corresponds very similarly with the nondual "teaching" here on ST's. I can translate many things from ~one side to the other~. Sorry, I'm out of time presently, at the library, computer shuts down in two minutes....whether I like it or not. For me, not toxic. It just means if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated. But that happends day by day anyway |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2016 8:44:44 GMT -5
Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? Thanks for clarifying. You didn't answer why you think this is true, though, other than seeing confirmation in some places. Is it that it makes sense to you as an explanation of why certain people act certain ways? Just to play devil's advocate (since I don't really have an opinion on this - just some skepticism), there are a LOT of theories on why people act a certain way; environment, genetics, diet, emotional blockages - to name a few. Here's my other thought - and maybe why I have some resistance to what you're saying: There is a particularly toxic way of living that involves setting arbitrary (and changeable) standards , striving to meet them, 'succeeding' for a while, and inevitably failing (because of the nature of impermanence). You're familiar with the voice in the head called The Task Master/Score-Keeper, right? This version of karma that you're describing sounds a lot like that. You asked: Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? That's why I said earlier: "what constitutes self/Self". It's all rather complicated. Let's look at quinn (now), and a past incarnation (we'll say pre-quinn). The ordinary day-to-day self of that former incarnation, pre-quinn, died. If you look at the Tibetan idea of the Bardo, pre-quinn disintegrated pretty shortly after the death of the body. So no, quinn is not the reincarnation of pre-quinn, but the samskaras, the pattern of energy, which came-from pre-quinn, did go into the making of quinn. So it wasn't ~me~, but it is the karmic residue of pre-quinn. So the question is, what(who) is quinn? Is quinn the ordinary everyday self? Or is quinn something ~deeper~, Self? quinn has to answer the question, what constitutes quinn? What constitutes self? Essentially it's a kind of information. What is information? It's a stable pattern of energy. I'm typing right now. The energy of my hands goes to the keyboard. That goes into the computer where the computer changes the information to an ordered series of 1's and 0's, binary language. And that leaves the library by cable. And then the information is converted to light as it travels down an optic "cable". And then that information is converted to an electromagnetic wave and it's sent via WiFi, etc., etc., etc. And then it's sent to St's Forums and it goes through a similar reverse process and eventually quinn reads it, and it happens virtually at the speed of light (but not quite). But quinn also consists of information, just vastly more complicated information. But ~Life~ knows how to pass that information from lifetime to lifetime in a similar manner as physicists and engineers have constructed the WWW. Why do I think it's true? Although raised as Southern Baptist, about age ten I was introduced to the idea of karma and reincarnation, a local TV program, a local psychic. It made sense immediately, I wasn't frightened of the idea. One could also say I intuitively knew it was true. So from an early age this possibility was in the back of my mind. Then at 17 I started studying Theosophy first. At 24 I discovered the Gurdjieff teaching. Outwardly, it does not teach reincarnation. Basically it teaches that when you die, you die. However, one can form a ~something~ that survives the death of the physical body. But it's more complicated. We are our essence. Essence exists previous to the birth of the physical body. Essence comes from a higher order of reality. The little self, ego/personality/cultural self is formed around essence, this false sense of self is going nowhere and can go nowhere, by definition. It's a dead end. I know that, I understand that. Is that a toxic way to live? For me, absolutely not. Many things with the Gurdjieff teaching corresponds very similarly with the nondual "teaching" here on ST's. I can translate many things from ~one side to the other~. Sorry, I'm out of time presently, at the library, computer shuts down in two minutes....whether I like it or not. For me, not toxic. It just means if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated. But that happends day by day anyway Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. Threw me on the last part, though - "if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated", but then you say it happens day by day anyway. What happens, change? or perpetuation? What I'm referring to as toxic is a belief that we have to somehow do better or be better in order to not have a negative impact on future ~me(s)~. I have no problem in the context of social order with improving oneself - mastering a job, learning to communicate well, not putting negative energy out into the world. But in terms of the "spiritual self" (maybe soul would be a good word there), it strikes me as extrapolating a school-house model and laying it on Creation/Source/Watchacallit. If you're really really good and work hard, you can advance to the next level. If I look around at nature, I do see a natural intelligence that could be said to be 'working behind the scenes', but I don't see anything that resembles striving to improve for future incarnations. Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? Maybe the difference is in focus - to me, the focus is this life, this incarnation, just for the sake of living in a natural organic way - maybe even joyously. Karma is about a cycle of suffering (discontent) that was 'handed' to us. Self is aware of karma, but is not on that wheel. My understanding from teachings is that the only way of not perpetuating karma is to 'know' Self. Trying to purify karma is still being on the wheel of karma. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2016 12:22:20 GMT -5
You asked: Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? That's why I said earlier: "what constitutes self/Self". It's all rather complicated. Let's look at quinn (now), and a past incarnation (we'll say pre-quinn). The ordinary day-to-day self of that former incarnation, pre-quinn, died. If you look at the Tibetan idea of the Bardo, pre-quinn disintegrated pretty shortly after the death of the body. So no, quinn is not the reincarnation of pre-quinn, but the samskaras, the pattern of energy, which came-from pre-quinn, did go into the making of quinn. So it wasn't ~me~, but it is the karmic residue of pre-quinn. So the question is, what(who) is quinn? Is quinn the ordinary everyday self? Or is quinn something ~deeper~, Self? quinn has to answer the question, what constitutes quinn? What constitutes self? Essentially it's a kind of information. What is information? It's a stable pattern of energy. I'm typing right now. The energy of my hands goes to the keyboard. That goes into the computer where the computer changes the information to an ordered series of 1's and 0's, binary language. And that leaves the library by cable. And then the information is converted to light as it travels down an optic "cable". And then that information is converted to an electromagnetic wave and it's sent via WiFi, etc., etc., etc. And then it's sent to St's Forums and it goes through a similar reverse process and eventually quinn reads it, and it happens virtually at the speed of light (but not quite). But quinn also consists of information, just vastly more complicated information. But ~Life~ knows how to pass that information from lifetime to lifetime in a similar manner as physicists and engineers have constructed the WWW. Why do I think it's true? Although raised as Southern Baptist, about age ten I was introduced to the idea of karma and reincarnation, a local TV program, a local psychic. It made sense immediately, I wasn't frightened of the idea. One could also say I intuitively knew it was true. So from an early age this possibility was in the back of my mind. Then at 17 I started studying Theosophy first. At 24 I discovered the Gurdjieff teaching. Outwardly, it does not teach reincarnation. Basically it teaches that when you die, you die. However, one can form a ~something~ that survives the death of the physical body. But it's more complicated. We are our essence. Essence exists previous to the birth of the physical body. Essence comes from a higher order of reality. The little self, ego/personality/cultural self is formed around essence, this false sense of self is going nowhere and can go nowhere, by definition. It's a dead end. I know that, I understand that. Is that a toxic way to live? For me, absolutely not. Many things with the Gurdjieff teaching corresponds very similarly with the nondual "teaching" here on ST's. I can translate many things from ~one side to the other~. Sorry, I'm out of time presently, at the library, computer shuts down in two minutes....whether I like it or not. For me, not toxic. It just means if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated. But that happends day by day anyway Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. Threw me on the last part, though - "if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated", but then you say it happens day by day anyway. What happens, change? or perpetuation? What I'm referring to as toxic is a belief that we have to somehow do better or be better in order to not have a negative impact on future ~me(s)~. I have no problem in the context of social order with improving oneself - mastering a job, learning to communicate well, not putting negative energy out into the world. But in terms of the "spiritual self" (maybe soul would be a good word there), it strikes me as extrapolating a school-house model and laying it on Creation/Source/Watchacallit. If you're really really good and work hard, you can advance to the next level. If I look around at nature, I do see a natural intelligence that could be said to be 'working behind the scenes', but I don't see anything that resembles striving to improve for future incarnations. Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? Maybe the difference is in focus - to me, the focus is this life, this incarnation, just for the sake of living in a natural organic way - maybe even joyously. Karma is about a cycle of suffering (discontent) that was 'handed' to us. Self is aware of karma, but is not on that wheel. My understanding from teachings is that the only way of not perpetuating karma is to 'know' Self. Trying to purify karma is still being on the wheel of karma. Above, first question. No, it's not (significant) change that occurs day by day, real change is really difficult. Little self gets perpetuated on a day by day basis, one doesn't have to think in terms of lifetimes (more on this later). Next, what's toxic is that we somehow have to get better and better. No, this is not what I'm saying. The little self can do nothing. Little self (ego/cultural self, etc.) is nothing but an obstruction, it's the major part of the problem. Thinking in terms of reincarnation can be an obstruction also. One can think, there will be next life, and another and another. But time is not unlimited, possibilities are not unlimited. The best way to look at it is, there is only now, right now. Liberation is not primarily a factor of time. If it happens it will happen in a particular life, why not this life? This is how it has to be looked at. Next, again, the little s self can do nothing. Working with attention and awareness is the only thing that accomplishes real change. Your attention exists outside of thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations. The same with awareness. These are what take the energy out of that which perpetuates karma, the samskaras. sdp can do nothing, quinn can do nothing. Using attention, using awareness (instead of attention and awareness ~going into~ and being captured by thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations), is called making a conscious effort, this is the only thing we can do, for a very long time. First you have to row a little boat. Conscious efforts ~go against~ self/ego/persona/mask/cultural self. The idea reincarnation is not even explicitly in the Gurdjieff teaching. The aim is to get done in this one life we know we have, and this is specifically possible. But erasing the influence of self Is not all there Is, there is much more to the teaching. This shift from personality/ego/false self/cultural self to essence, is so essence can grow. This growth is about the evolution of consciousness. Essence is a seed of potential. It's about BEING something that ~not now is~. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 7:30:37 GMT -5
You asked: Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? That's why I said earlier: "what constitutes self/Self". It's all rather complicated. Let's look at quinn (now), and a past incarnation (we'll say pre-quinn). The ordinary day-to-day self of that former incarnation, pre-quinn, died. If you look at the Tibetan idea of the Bardo, pre-quinn disintegrated pretty shortly after the death of the body. So no, quinn is not the reincarnation of pre-quinn, but the samskaras, the pattern of energy, which came-from pre-quinn, did go into the making of quinn. So it wasn't ~me~, but it is the karmic residue of pre-quinn. So the question is, what(who) is quinn? Is quinn the ordinary everyday self? Or is quinn something ~deeper~, Self? quinn has to answer the question, what constitutes quinn? What constitutes self? Essentially it's a kind of information. What is information? It's a stable pattern of energy. I'm typing right now. The energy of my hands goes to the keyboard. That goes into the computer where the computer changes the information to an ordered series of 1's and 0's, binary language. And that leaves the library by cable. And then the information is converted to light as it travels down an optic "cable". And then that information is converted to an electromagnetic wave and it's sent via WiFi, etc., etc., etc. And then it's sent to St's Forums and it goes through a similar reverse process and eventually quinn reads it, and it happens virtually at the speed of light (but not quite). But quinn also consists of information, just vastly more complicated information. But ~Life~ knows how to pass that information from lifetime to lifetime in a similar manner as physicists and engineers have constructed the WWW. Why do I think it's true? Although raised as Southern Baptist, about age ten I was introduced to the idea of karma and reincarnation, a local TV program, a local psychic. It made sense immediately, I wasn't frightened of the idea. One could also say I intuitively knew it was true. So from an early age this possibility was in the back of my mind. Then at 17 I started studying Theosophy first. At 24 I discovered the Gurdjieff teaching. Outwardly, it does not teach reincarnation. Basically it teaches that when you die, you die. However, one can form a ~something~ that survives the death of the physical body. But it's more complicated. We are our essence. Essence exists previous to the birth of the physical body. Essence comes from a higher order of reality. The little self, ego/personality/cultural self is formed around essence, this false sense of self is going nowhere and can go nowhere, by definition. It's a dead end. I know that, I understand that. Is that a toxic way to live? For me, absolutely not. Many things with the Gurdjieff teaching corresponds very similarly with the nondual "teaching" here on ST's. I can translate many things from ~one side to the other~. Sorry, I'm out of time presently, at the library, computer shuts down in two minutes....whether I like it or not. For me, not toxic. It just means if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated. But that happends day by day anyway Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? I would make a comparison here between genes and memes. The samskaras are a kind of gene (which science knows nothing about, so emphasis on the kind of). The 'imprints' you might be referring to here would be a kind of meme (information which can be transferred in various ways, pen and paper, typewriter [there are probably a few around], the cloud, CD, radio waves, fiber optics, HDMI...thought forms, many etcs...)... So no, we don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 29, 2016 7:32:59 GMT -5
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. Threw me on the last part, though - "if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated", but then you say it happens day by day anyway. What happens, change? or perpetuation? What I'm referring to as toxic is a belief that we have to somehow do better or be better in order to not have a negative impact on future ~me(s)~. I have no problem in the context of social order with improving oneself - mastering a job, learning to communicate well, not putting negative energy out into the world. But in terms of the "spiritual self" (maybe soul would be a good word there), it strikes me as extrapolating a school-house model and laying it on Creation/Source/Watchacallit. If you're really really good and work hard, you can advance to the next level. If I look around at nature, I do see a natural intelligence that could be said to be 'working behind the scenes', but I don't see anything that resembles striving to improve for future incarnations. Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? Maybe the difference is in focus - to me, the focus is this life, this incarnation, just for the sake of living in a natural organic way - maybe even joyously. Karma is about a cycle of suffering (discontent) that was 'handed' to us. Self is aware of karma, but is not on that wheel. My understanding from teachings is that the only way of not perpetuating karma is to 'know' Self. Trying to purify karma is still being on the wheel of karma. Above, first question. No, it's not (significant) change that occurs day by day, real change is really difficult. Little self gets perpetuated on a day by day basis, one doesn't have to think in terms of lifetimes (more on this later). Next, what's toxic is that we somehow have to get better and better. No, this is not what I'm saying. The little self can do nothing. Little self (ego/cultural self, etc.) is nothing but an obstruction, it's the major part of the problem. Thinking in terms of reincarnation can be an obstruction also. One can think, there will be next life, and another and another. But time is not unlimited, possibilities are not unlimited. The best way to look at it is, there is only now, right now. Liberation is not primarily a factor of time. If it happens it will happen in a particular life, why not this life? This is how it has to be looked at. Next, again, the little s self can do nothing. Working with attention and awareness is the only thing that accomplishes real change. Your attention exists outside of thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations. The same with awareness. These are what take the energy out of that which perpetuates karma, the samskaras. sdp can do nothing, quinn can do nothing. Using attention, using awareness (instead of attention and awareness ~going into~ and being captured by thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations), is called making a conscious effort, this is the only thing we can do, for a very long time. First you have to row a little boat. Conscious efforts ~go against~ self/ego/persona/mask/cultural self. The idea reincarnation is not even explicitly in the Gurdjieff teaching. The aim is to get done in this one life we know we have, and this is specifically possible. But erasing the influence of self Is not all there Is, there is much more to the teaching. This shift from personality/ego/false self/cultural self to essence, is so essence can grow. This growth is about the evolution of consciousness. Essence is a seed of potential. It's about BEING something that ~not now is~. Ok, I understand a little better now. Your description of working with attention sounds like meditation. Yes, I agree that attention may really be the only thing we can work with. In the beginning it's hard for attention to disengage from thoughts/feelings/etc. and that's the little-boat-rowing. I see awareness differently. Not something to work with or something that's pulled, rather it's always running in a pure state. We have just lost touch with the purity of it, to a larger or smaller degree, by 'being in our heads'. That's a simplified description of how I see awareness, but it's the gist of it. To swing it back to karma: from this conversation, I'm thinking of karma as an aspect of how ego is formed. Some people do seem to have a heavier load to deal with than others and it isn't always apparent from their early conditioning. DNA is such a complex, almost magical, structure - maybe it's really a karma receptor.  Really, the unknown element of all this is - does the energy that is the specific conflux of a particular person (memories/personality/intentions/etc.) move as a unit after death? And then, does it get picked up as a unit by another body/mind? I don't know, of course, but I tend to believe this does happen. I've read hundreds of reports implying both are true. So then, it's really just a matter of dealing with ego, regardless of how that ego was formed. Makes me think of a Pema Chodron book title: Start Where You Are. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 29, 2016 7:36:58 GMT -5
Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? I would make a comparison here between genes and memes. The samskaras are a kind of gene (which science knows nothing about, so emphasis on the kind of). The 'imprints' you might be referring to here would be a kind of meme (information which can be transferred in various ways, pen and paper, typewriter [there are probably a few around], the cloud, CD, radio waves, fiber optics, HDMI...thought forms, many etcs...)... So no, we don't agree. Ha! Posting at the same time. I don't understand your distinction. I was using 'imprints' as a common word for my (surface) understanding of samskaras. Can you give an example of the two things you're talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 8:25:33 GMT -5
You asked: Would it be ~me~ though, or some random body/mind that got my samskaras? That's why I said earlier: "what constitutes self/Self". It's all rather complicated. Let's look at quinn (now), and a past incarnation (we'll say pre-quinn). The ordinary day-to-day self of that former incarnation, pre-quinn, died. If you look at the Tibetan idea of the Bardo, pre-quinn disintegrated pretty shortly after the death of the body. So no, quinn is not the reincarnation of pre-quinn, but the samskaras, the pattern of energy, which came-from pre-quinn, did go into the making of quinn. So it wasn't ~me~, but it is the karmic residue of pre-quinn. So the question is, what(who) is quinn? Is quinn the ordinary everyday self? Or is quinn something ~deeper~, Self? quinn has to answer the question, what constitutes quinn? What constitutes self? Essentially it's a kind of information. What is information? It's a stable pattern of energy. I'm typing right now. The energy of my hands goes to the keyboard. That goes into the computer where the computer changes the information to an ordered series of 1's and 0's, binary language. And that leaves the library by cable. And then the information is converted to light as it travels down an optic "cable". And then that information is converted to an electromagnetic wave and it's sent via WiFi, etc., etc., etc. And then it's sent to St's Forums and it goes through a similar reverse process and eventually quinn reads it, and it happens virtually at the speed of light (but not quite). But quinn also consists of information, just vastly more complicated information. But ~Life~ knows how to pass that information from lifetime to lifetime in a similar manner as physicists and engineers have constructed the WWW. Why do I think it's true? Although raised as Southern Baptist, about age ten I was introduced to the idea of karma and reincarnation, a local TV program, a local psychic. It made sense immediately, I wasn't frightened of the idea. One could also say I intuitively knew it was true. So from an early age this possibility was in the back of my mind. Then at 17 I started studying Theosophy first. At 24 I discovered the Gurdjieff teaching. Outwardly, it does not teach reincarnation. Basically it teaches that when you die, you die. However, one can form a ~something~ that survives the death of the physical body. But it's more complicated. We are our essence. Essence exists previous to the birth of the physical body. Essence comes from a higher order of reality. The little self, ego/personality/cultural self is formed around essence, this false sense of self is going nowhere and can go nowhere, by definition. It's a dead end. I know that, I understand that. Is that a toxic way to live? For me, absolutely not. Many things with the Gurdjieff teaching corresponds very similarly with the nondual "teaching" here on ST's. I can translate many things from ~one side to the other~. Sorry, I'm out of time presently, at the library, computer shuts down in two minutes....whether I like it or not. For me, not toxic. It just means if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated. But that happends day by day anyway Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. Threw me on the last part, though - "if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated", but then you say it happens day by day anyway. What happens, change? or perpetuation? What I'm referring to as toxic is a belief that we have to somehow do better or be better in order to not have a negative impact on future ~me(s)~. I have no problem in the context of social order with improving oneself - mastering a job, learning to communicate well, not putting negative energy out into the world. But in terms of the "spiritual self" (maybe soul would be a good word there), it strikes me as extrapolating a school-house model and laying it on Creation/Source/Watchacallit. If you're really really good and work hard, you can advance to the next level. If I look around at nature, I do see a natural intelligence that could be said to be 'working behind the scenes', but I don't see anything that resembles striving to improve for future incarnations. Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? Maybe the difference is in focus - to me, the focus is this life, this incarnation, just for the sake of living in a natural organic way - maybe even joyously. Karma is about a cycle of suffering (discontent) that was 'handed' to us. Self is aware of karma, but is not on that wheel. My understanding from teachings is that the only way of not perpetuating karma is to 'know' Self. Trying to purify karma is still being on the wheel of karma. Just this morning was reading from The Heart of Meditation by The Dalai Lama, 2016 (the book is about Dzogchen, the pinnacle of in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which The Dalai Lama "here teaches simply but thoroughly"). The following is a pertinent quote. Here, mind ( sems) would be our ordinary functioning mind, which you would be describing here as "trying to purify karma", purifying karma just can't be done with ordinary mind. The other is innermost awareness ( rig pa). ~Living through~ this innermost awareness is what will purify karma (and prevent the accumulation of further karma). I will let the quote speak for itself, except to say, if one does not understand, experience and *practice* making this distinction, IOW, live through rig pa, they're just meditating on training wheels. "To identify innermost awareness, the most difficult part is to make the distinction between mind (Tib. sems) and innermost awareness (Tib. rig pa). It is easy to talk about this difference from our mouth, to say "Innermost awareness has never been infected by mistake, whereas mind is under the influence of conceptualization and polluted by mistake thought." This is easy to say, but in terms of actual experience in our own mental continuum, it is very difficult. Dodrubchen said that although we might fancy that we are meditating on innermost awareness, there is a dnager that we are actually, in fact, merely maintaining concentration on the clear and cognitive nature of a more superficial mind, and so we need to take care. It is helpful to do the latter, but not so profound. Here in this book, we will explore how to place oneself in the core of innermost awareness by examining a Tibetan text of the Old Translation School of Tibetan Buddhism.You may find it psychologically and spiritually thrilling". pg 45 (And BTW, Gurdjieff visited Tibet, 1902 where he was wounded by a stray bullet, mentioned in Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, the Prologue, pg 9. I am firmly convinced he learned about Dzogchen teaching). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 8:51:02 GMT -5
Above, first question. No, it's not (significant) change that occurs day by day, real change is really difficult. Little self gets perpetuated on a day by day basis, one doesn't have to think in terms of lifetimes (more on this later). Next, what's toxic is that we somehow have to get better and better. No, this is not what I'm saying. The little self can do nothing. Little self (ego/cultural self, etc.) is nothing but an obstruction, it's the major part of the problem. Thinking in terms of reincarnation can be an obstruction also. One can think, there will be next life, and another and another. But time is not unlimited, possibilities are not unlimited. The best way to look at it is, there is only now, right now. Liberation is not primarily a factor of time. If it happens it will happen in a particular life, why not this life? This is how it has to be looked at. Next, again, the little s self can do nothing. Working with attention and awareness is the only thing that accomplishes real change. Your attention exists outside of thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations. The same with awareness. These are what take the energy out of that which perpetuates karma, the samskaras. sdp can do nothing, quinn can do nothing. Using attention, using awareness (instead of attention and awareness ~going into~ and being captured by thoughts, feelings, bodily actions and sensations), is called making a conscious effort, this is the only thing we can do, for a very long time. First you have to row a little boat. Conscious efforts ~go against~ self/ego/persona/mask/cultural self. The idea reincarnation is not even explicitly in the Gurdjieff teaching. The aim is to get done in this one life we know we have, and this is specifically possible. But erasing the influence of self Is not all there Is, there is much more to the teaching. This shift from personality/ego/false self/cultural self to essence, is so essence can grow. This growth is about the evolution of consciousness. Essence is a seed of potential. It's about BEING something that ~not now is~. Ok, I understand a little better now. Your description of working with attention sounds like meditation. Yes, I agree that attention may really be the only thing we can work with. In the beginning it's hard for attention to disengage from thoughts/feelings/etc. and that's the little-boat-rowing. I see awareness differently. Not something to work with or something that's pulled, rather it's always running in a pure state. We have just lost touch with the purity of it, to a larger or smaller degree, by 'being in our heads'. That's a simplified description of how I see awareness, but it's the gist of it. To swing it back to karma: from this conversation, I'm thinking of karma as an aspect of how ego is formed. Some people do seem to have a heavier load to deal with than others and it isn't always apparent from their early conditioning. DNA is such a complex, almost magical, structure - maybe it's really a karma receptor. Really, the unknown element of all this is - does the energy that is the specific conflux of a particular person (memories/personality/intentions/etc.) move as a unit after death? And then, does it get picked up as a unit by another body/mind? I don't know, of course, but I tend to believe this does happen. I've read hundreds of reports implying both are true. So then, it's really just a matter of dealing with ego, regardless of how that ego was formed. Makes me think of a Pema Chodron book title: Start Where You Are. Yes, meditation is working with attention. But a specific use which we have discussed previously. Yes, precisely, "it's hard for attention to disengage...". Yes, not-disengaged, that's the ordinary mind functioning in ordinary life. Disengaged, true meditation. Learning to move from one to the other, little boat rowing, yes, we're on the same page. (A similar distinction is made with awareness in the Dalai Lama quote, later post). And yes, Dzogchen says the "pristine awareness" is always there, "we have just lost touch with the purity of it". But working with it I mean ~entering into it~, ~being it~. (Somewhat described in the later quote). Correct about karma, next paragraph. I think the samskaras are transferred by a kind of DNA (not physical, or not physical as science would describe). So, yes, I'd say 'that energy' does "move as a unit" after death. And yes, it does get picked up as a unit by another new baby in conception, this maybe even ~chooses~ the specific sperm and maybe even specific egg, maybe just even in a LOA way, or maybe there is some kind of mechanism for this. And yes, it is really just a matter of dealing with ego, however it is formed. Yes, we start where we are. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 29, 2016 8:54:16 GMT -5
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. Threw me on the last part, though - "if I do not change, the pattern of ~self~ gets perpetuated", but then you say it happens day by day anyway. What happens, change? or perpetuation? What I'm referring to as toxic is a belief that we have to somehow do better or be better in order to not have a negative impact on future ~me(s)~. I have no problem in the context of social order with improving oneself - mastering a job, learning to communicate well, not putting negative energy out into the world. But in terms of the "spiritual self" (maybe soul would be a good word there), it strikes me as extrapolating a school-house model and laying it on Creation/Source/Watchacallit. If you're really really good and work hard, you can advance to the next level. If I look around at nature, I do see a natural intelligence that could be said to be 'working behind the scenes', but I don't see anything that resembles striving to improve for future incarnations. Anyway - having said all that, it seems reasonable to me that mental 'imprints' are a form of energy that can move outside the body. And that at a certain point, a new body forming could pick that up. We agree on that part? Maybe the difference is in focus - to me, the focus is this life, this incarnation, just for the sake of living in a natural organic way - maybe even joyously. Karma is about a cycle of suffering (discontent) that was 'handed' to us. Self is aware of karma, but is not on that wheel. My understanding from teachings is that the only way of not perpetuating karma is to 'know' Self. Trying to purify karma is still being on the wheel of karma. Just this morning was reading from The Heart of Meditation by The Dalai Lama, 2016 (the book is about Dzogchen, the pinnacle of in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which The Dalai Lama "here teaches simply but thoroughly"). The following is a pertinent quote. Here, mind ( sems) would be our ordinary functioning mind, which you would be describing here as "trying to purify karma", purifying karma just can't be done with ordinary mind. The other is innermost awareness ( rig pa). ~Living through~ this innermost awareness is what will purify karma (and prevent the accumulation of further karma). I will let the quote speak for itself, except to say, if one does not understand, experience and *practice* making this distinction, IOW, live through rig pa, they're just meditating on training wheels. "To identify innermost awareness, the most difficult part is to make the distinction between mind (Tib. sems) and innermost awareness (Tib. rig pa). It is easy to talk about this difference from our mouth, to say "Innermost awareness has never been infected by mistake, whereas mind is under the influence of conceptualization and polluted by mistake thought." This is easy to say, but in terms of actual experience in our own mental continuum, it is very difficult. Dodrubchen said that although we might fancy that we are meditating on innermost awareness, there is a dnager that we are actually, in fact, merely maintaining concentration on the clear and cognitive nature of a more superficial mind, and so we need to take care. It is helpful to do the latter, but not so profound. Here in this book, we will explore how to place oneself in the core of innermost awareness by examining a Tibetan text of the Old Translation School of Tibetan Buddhism.You may find it psychologically and spiritually thrilling". pg 45 (And BTW, Gurdjieff visited Tibet, 1902 where he was wounded by a stray bullet, mentioned in Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, the Prologue, pg 9. I am firmly convinced he learned about Dzogchen teaching). Well, now you're talking my language. I studied the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche pretty heavily, then his student Pema Chodron. Trungpa taught in the ri-me style - basically from the core of the teachings without the sectarian fluff. He's also from the Nyingma school and followed the Dalai Lama out of Tibet. Wise words you quoted above. I'm not set on the idea that what you're saying about "working with karma" means mind working with mind or ego trying to kill ego. You've clarified very well that it's not what you meant. I'm questioning whether the focus on eradicating karma can generate an internal battle of sorts, the good-guys of attention and awareness vs the bad-guys of karma. (Just had a mental picture of an old western show-down.) As I'm sure you know, ego comes in to usurp even the purest of intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 9:11:11 GMT -5
I would make a comparison here between genes and memes. The samskaras are a kind of gene (which science knows nothing about, so emphasis on the kind of). The 'imprints' you might be referring to here would be a kind of meme (information which can be transferred in various ways, pen and paper, typewriter [there are probably a few around], the cloud, CD, radio waves, fiber optics, HDMI...thought forms, many etcs...)... So no, we don't agree. Ha! Posting at the same time. I don't understand your distinction. I was using 'imprints' as a common word for my (surface) understanding of samskaras. Can you give an example of the two things you're talking about? Your question was, can we pick up ~other people's~ samskaras?, (essentially). I was just saying I think not. Samskaras are transferred by a kind of DNA (if you consider yourself your own "parent"). This would be transfer by a kind of gene. Ordinary information (who won yesterday's football game) is not transferred in this way. Culture is passed down from person to person by memes. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 29, 2016 9:23:42 GMT -5
Ha! Posting at the same time. I don't understand your distinction. I was using 'imprints' as a common word for my (surface) understanding of samskaras. Can you give an example of the two things you're talking about? Your question was, can we pick up ~other people's~ samskaras?, (essentially). I was just saying I think not. Samskaras are transferred by a kind of DNA (if you consider yourself your own "parent"). This would be transfer by a kind of gene. Ordinary information (who won yesterday's football game) is not transferred in this way. Culture is passed down from person to person by memes. Oh. I didn't mean "we" as in existing humans. I meant a 'new' human (at birth or conception). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 9:26:38 GMT -5
Just this morning was reading from The Heart of Meditation by The Dalai Lama, 2016 (the book is about Dzogchen, the pinnacle of in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which The Dalai Lama "here teaches simply but thoroughly"). The following is a pertinent quote. Here, mind ( sems) would be our ordinary functioning mind, which you would be describing here as "trying to purify karma", purifying karma just can't be done with ordinary mind. The other is innermost awareness ( rig pa). ~Living through~ this innermost awareness is what will purify karma (and prevent the accumulation of further karma). I will let the quote speak for itself, except to say, if one does not understand, experience and *practice* making this distinction, IOW, live through rig pa, they're just meditating on training wheels. "To identify innermost awareness, the most difficult part is to make the distinction between mind (Tib. sems) and innermost awareness (Tib. rig pa). It is easy to talk about this difference from our mouth, to say "Innermost awareness has never been infected by mistake, whereas mind is under the influence of conceptualization and polluted by mistake thought." This is easy to say, but in terms of actual experience in our own mental continuum, it is very difficult. Dodrubchen said that although we might fancy that we are meditating on innermost awareness, there is a dnager that we are actually, in fact, merely maintaining concentration on the clear and cognitive nature of a more superficial mind, and so we need to take care. It is helpful to do the latter, but not so profound. Here in this book, we will explore how to place oneself in the core of innermost awareness by examining a Tibetan text of the Old Translation School of Tibetan Buddhism.You may find it psychologically and spiritually thrilling". pg 45 (And BTW, Gurdjieff visited Tibet, 1902 where he was wounded by a stray bullet, mentioned in Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, the Prologue, pg 9. I am firmly convinced he learned about Dzogchen teaching). Well, now you're talking my language. I studied the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche pretty heavily, then his student Pema Chodron. Trungpa taught in the ri-me style - basically from the core of the teachings without the sectarian fluff. He's also from the Nyingma school and followed the Dalai Lama out of Tibet. Wise words you quoted above. I'm not set on the idea that what you're saying about "working with karma" means mind working with mind or ego trying to kill ego. You've clarified very well that it's not what you meant. I'm questioning whether the focus on eradicating karma can generate an internal battle of sorts, the good-guys of attention and awareness vs the bad-guys of karma. (Just had a mental picture of an old western show-down.) As I'm sure you know, ego comes in to usurp even the purest of intentions. OK, very good. I've read some stuff by CT Rinpoche, CTSM was the first, recently bought a new book, Mindfulness in Action, haven't gotten into it yet. I find him very good. I lived briefly in Colorado in 1974-75. I moved back to NC in '75, had plans to move back to Colo. (That's a long story, met a girl from Colorado Springs, where I lived, who went to the University of Colorado in Boulder, went back to visit her twice, 1978, 1979). I applied to Naropa Institute, 1975, was accepted, but all that basically fell through because of depression, long story, but all turned out good.....also long story. But I did visit an almost deserted Naropa Institute in the summer of 1978. Yes, very exceptional quote (I try to quote only very exceptional quotes  ). Just curious, the people you meditate with, a direct connection to CTR? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 9:28:40 GMT -5
Your question was, can we pick up ~other people's~ samskaras?, (essentially). I was just saying I think not. Samskaras are transferred by a kind of DNA (if you consider yourself your own "parent"). This would be transfer by a kind of gene. Ordinary information (who won yesterday's football game) is not transferred in this way. Culture is passed down from person to person by memes. Oh. I didn't mean "we" as in existing humans. I meant a 'new' human (at birth or conception). OK, that's how I took it (from you). |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 29, 2016 9:45:00 GMT -5
Well, now you're talking my language. I studied the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche pretty heavily, then his student Pema Chodron. Trungpa taught in the ri-me style - basically from the core of the teachings without the sectarian fluff. He's also from the Nyingma school and followed the Dalai Lama out of Tibet. Wise words you quoted above. I'm not set on the idea that what you're saying about "working with karma" means mind working with mind or ego trying to kill ego. You've clarified very well that it's not what you meant. I'm questioning whether the focus on eradicating karma can generate an internal battle of sorts, the good-guys of attention and awareness vs the bad-guys of karma. (Just had a mental picture of an old western show-down.) As I'm sure you know, ego comes in to usurp even the purest of intentions. OK, very good. I've read some stuff by CT Rinpoche, CTSM was the first, recently bought a new book, Mindfulness in Action, haven't gotten into it yet. I find him very good. I lived briefly in Colorado in 1974-75. I moved back to NC in '75, had plans to move back to Colo. (That's a long story, met a girl from Colorado Springs, where I lived, who went to the University of Colorado in Boulder, went back to visit her twice, 1978, 1979). I applied to Naropa Institute, 1975, was accepted, but all that basically fell through because of depression, long story, but all turned out good.....also long story. But I did visit an almost deserted Naropa Institute in the summer of 1978. Yes, very exceptional quote (I try to quote only very exceptional quotes ). butofcourse!  A pipe dream of mine: attend Naropa. Maybe some day. (CTSM is my favorite) No, the people I meditate with are a majorly mixed bag. The Friday group is long-time meditators of all sorts. That's the one I'm the 'sub' for, and once as a sub I asked if each would try to put in to words why they meditate. It was fascinatingly interesting and varied. The regular Friday teacher was trained at the Barre Center of Buddhist Studies, started by Goldstein and Salzberg - so Tibetan, I think? But she never read Trungpa. I tried playing a CD of Chodron one time and one of the people said her voice was too annoying LOL. The Tuesday group is mostly brand new to meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2016 10:02:55 GMT -5
Just this morning was reading from The Heart of Meditation by The Dalai Lama, 2016 (the book is about Dzogchen, the pinnacle of in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which The Dalai Lama "here teaches simply but thoroughly"). The following is a pertinent quote. Here, mind ( sems) would be our ordinary functioning mind, which you would be describing here as "trying to purify karma", purifying karma just can't be done with ordinary mind. The other is innermost awareness ( rig pa). ~Living through~ this innermost awareness is what will purify karma (and prevent the accumulation of further karma). I will let the quote speak for itself, except to say, if one does not understand, experience and *practice* making this distinction, IOW, live through rig pa, they're just meditating on training wheels. "To identify innermost awareness, the most difficult part is to make the distinction between mind (Tib. sems) and innermost awareness (Tib. rig pa). It is easy to talk about this difference from our mouth, to say "Innermost awareness has never been infected by mistake, whereas mind is under the influence of conceptualization and polluted by mistake thought." This is easy to say, but in terms of actual experience in our own mental continuum, it is very difficult. Dodrubchen said that although we might fancy that we are meditating on innermost awareness, there is a dnager that we are actually, in fact, merely maintaining concentration on the clear and cognitive nature of a more superficial mind, and so we need to take care. It is helpful to do the latter, but not so profound. Here in this book, we will explore how to place oneself in the core of innermost awareness by examining a Tibetan text of the Old Translation School of Tibetan Buddhism.You may find it psychologically and spiritually thrilling". pg 45 (And BTW, Gurdjieff visited Tibet, 1902 where he was wounded by a stray bullet, mentioned in Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, the Prologue, pg 9. I am firmly convinced he learned about Dzogchen teaching). I'm not set on the idea that what you're saying about "working with karma" means mind working with mind or ego trying to kill ego. You've clarified very well that it's not what you meant. I'm questioning whether the focus on eradicating karma can generate an internal battle of sorts, the good-guys of attention and awareness vs the bad-guys of karma. (Just had a mental picture of an old western show-down.) As I'm sure you know, ego comes in to usurp even the purest of intentions. Yes, I know precisely what you mean by this internal battle. Yes, "ego always comes in to usurp the purest of intentions". All this is very complicated, nobody much is interested, so I haven't written about it much here on ST's. Speaking shorthand, the battle is between attention captured by thoughts, feelings and bodily actions and attention disengaged from them (your previous word, a good way to put it). You are the only one who has ever gotten this distinction here, I've tried to point it out in many posts (maxdprophet said he got it, said in one post, but he didn't further elaborate, so I'm not sure). But this is basically everything. Further, briefly, everything significant in the Gurdjieff tradition is based on energy, saving energy and transforming energy. Consciousness is a form of energy. So this ~battle~ is not avoided, it's necessary and expected. Gurdjieff called this battle friction, and this friction is necessary to release energy, this energy is the samskaras, that is, the samskaras consist of stored energy (think of E = MC 2). And actually consider karma as virtually literally burned up, a transformation of energy. Colin Wilson wrote a book about Gurdjieff called The War Against Sleep. It is a battle, it is a war. But it is in a very real sense, not personal. I was taught to be impartial, to try to be impartial towards thinking, feeling and bodily doing. That is, don't put one's sense of I into what one thinks, feels or even what you do. IOW, don't say "I" to what you think, feel and bodily do. So it is not an emotional battle, it's a battle in the sense that you just continually keep coming back to this "disengaged attention". (You have to keep coming back because attention automatically goes-back-into thoughts, feelings/emotions and bodily actions, and sensations). This goes-back-into has become our default position. We are trying to make ~bare~ attention and ~bare~ awareness ( rig pa, innermost awareness) the default position, not so easy. |
|
).