|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 10:12:01 GMT -5
Correct, there's no intermediary. Awareness can eventually be aware of the Totality, all thoughts [if there happen to be any], all emotions [if there happen to be any], the totality of the body, all simultaneously, in the present moment. That's the 3rd state of consciousness, self-remembering. This is knowing oneself, objectively. How do you know it's Extraordinary if there's no intermediary? I think we were defining intermediary differently. But it doesn't matter, with both definitions, no intermediary. Consider the most extraordinary something that has ever happened to you. This, will be more-extraordinary. There is a parable about it. A man found a treasure hid in a field. So he went and sold everything he had so that he could buy the field and possess the treasure. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 10:48:36 GMT -5
How do you know it's Extraordinary if there's no intermediary? I think we were defining intermediary differently. But it doesn't matter, with both definitions, no intermediary. Consider the most extraordinary something that has ever happened to you. This, will be more-extraordinary. There is a parable about it. A man found a treasure hid in a field. So he went and sold everything he had so that he could buy the field and possess the treasure. Serious question.. what do you hope to gain from possession of the Unpossessable? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 11:29:02 GMT -5
I think we were defining intermediary differently. But it doesn't matter, with both definitions, no intermediary. Consider the most extraordinary something that has ever happened to you. This, will be more-extraordinary. There is a parable about it. A man found a treasure hid in a field. So he went and sold everything he had so that he could buy the field and possess the treasure. Serious question.. what do you hope to gain from possession of the Unpossessable? You can't think of the Gurdjieff teaching in terms of ND-speak. It's not something unpossessable. Kind of an analogy, consider it in terms of playing in a different field. I'm happy for anybody who is happy...where they are, who they are. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 12:18:07 GMT -5
Serious question.. what do you hope to gain from possession of the Unpossessable? You can't think of the Gurdjieff teaching in terms of ND-speak. It's not something unpossessable. Kind of an analogy, consider it in terms of playing in a different field. I'm happy for anybody who is happy...where they are, who they are. Are you in possession of the Unpossessable? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2024 13:03:40 GMT -5
Sitting practice for me was (and on occasion these days even, is) a way of confirmation and stabilization. And also a focus of curiosity. Eyes/mind open 16/7 questioning was my primary mode of exploration. Witnessing inner movements as the outside flowed. Ever subtler - similar to your descriptions of sitting. Seems to me that it's common for many people to seek out a a quiet moment now and then. And solitary walks. Skiing is an added dimension to the walks. Swimming an added dimension to the quiet moment. These are a sort of pre-cursor to the two kinds of meditation. Something people do that they might not connect with meditation, but similar effects. Likely that the predilection for one or the other effects the mode of meditation they eventually pursue - assuming they ever "get that far". And then there are some folks who have minds that are like sharks. They always have to be on the move. It's as if they feel that if they stop talking/thinking/doing, even for a minute, they will cease to exist.An elderly Jamaican woman once told me that, you have to get through a lot of Sharks to get to the Dolphin. I'll meditate on that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2024 13:07:13 GMT -5
You still have a separation between Extraordinary awareness and the perceiver of it. No, the awareness is the perceiver. That's the whole point. But, "presence" comes and goes? We all know what that means, and my question is just another form of self-inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2024 13:08:56 GMT -5
What does he know? He died of cancer.  I now crown myself with a potted cactus. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2024 13:12:34 GMT -5
It isn't a who, or a you, it's just awareness (Extraordinary awareness  ). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world. That would be a good trick. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 13:22:14 GMT -5
You can't think of the Gurdjieff teaching in terms of ND-speak. It's not something unpossessable. Kind of an analogy, consider it in terms of playing in a different field. I'm happy for anybody who is happy...where they are, who they are. Are you in possession of the Unpossessable? No, that's not possible. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 14:05:11 GMT -5
Are you in possession of the Unpossessable? No, that's not possible. I have to take it that you have not yet sold everything you have then. There is a parable about it. A man found a treasure hid in a field. So he went and sold everything he had so that he could buy the field and possess the treasure. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 14:18:31 GMT -5
I have to take it that you have not yet sold everything you have then. There is a parable about it. A man found a treasure hid in a field. So he went and sold everything he had so that he could buy the field and possess the treasure. Is the man (or woman) who can surf, in possession of the ocean? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 15:10:50 GMT -5
I have to take it that you have not yet sold everything you have then. Is the man (or woman) who can surf, in possession of the ocean? In this metaphor the surf board is an intermediary. Is a free diver in 'possession' of the Ocean? Or is the Ocean in possession of the free diver? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 16:54:09 GMT -5
Is the man (or woman) who can surf, in possession of the ocean? In this metaphor the surf board is an intermediary. Is a free diver in 'possession' of the Ocean? Or is the Ocean in possession of the free diver?. The free diver is the same as the surfer. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 7:27:56 GMT -5
I listened to this while doing some work. The practice explained may indeed lead to a hot boil of the psychological sense of self, at which point it may no longer seem advantageous to cling to it so tightly. It could almost work as an inwardly directed form of morality in which one is in a constant state of observation and discernment, whilst inviting the "Knowledge of the absence of self nature". If listened to in light of the potential for their being no inherent self, it would be understood that it is not a mental knowledge per se, which is something we've talked about (Greek: gnossis v episteme, Spanish: conocer v saber, etc). The psycho-mento-personal struggle is to take such ideas as 'fact/belief' and pursue them at all cost (to the self). Some may get a glimpse, let go of a shit ton of baggage, and think they are done, and then the mind takes over again and creates a lot of personal stories around the 'experience', maybe forms a new cult/sect/religion/path (different designer bag, same mind tricks). And maybe they even mean well. Who knows? But the true KNOWLEDGE is having been Here, being Here, and stabilized Here, which kinda brings me to the point I find a bit misleading. At around 17:00, there's a discussion about steeping on a thorn and saying 'ow', which I sense as indicative of some ignorance. I do not know of the intention of presenting that in such an exposition, but I suspect it creates confusion. Maybe I misunderstood it, but to conclude that saying 'ow' means that one is "still subject to the dualistic condition and that the absence of self nature...." seems to be indicative of having had the realization of no self, but then being attached to that Nothingness. Experiencing pain via the body is entirely within the realm of possibilities, and has very little to do with self, if ya know what I mean. This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good. Interestingly, soon thereafter, the video goes on to address something akin to an "attachment to Freedom", which is often part of the subsequent journey to Here after Nothingness (and detachment from it) has been realized. At least that's how I would explain it away in abstractions. I'd be curious to hear others' ideas on this. In the Plotinus model, the journey to Here transcends up through the 'levels' of SVP existence, maybe gets a glimpse of Nous stuff, maybe even The One/ Here. Maybe they even understand IT deeply enough to say (i.e., with a sense of Gnossis/Knowledge) that EVERYTHING emanates from/as/within The One as THIS, right Here, right Now. Either way, to get Here, one will need to travel light. But as you stated later to SDP, same same, but different expression and/or value (and path), depending on how the mind studying/praying/meditating/etc hears it. Dzogchen is known as the practice that isn't a practice. It goes directly to what Dzogchen calls the natural state. So Dzogchen goes directly to ND, without method (it's passed on in private, teacher to student). Gurdjieff is very evasive about his sources. But he spent a lot of time in Tibet. He wasn't interested in 'sightseeing', in his journeying he went directly and found the 'people who know'. When I found out about Dzogchen, the non-practice, and read more and more, it sounded very nearly like self-remembering. So I started looking for bread crumbs. But happenstance and reading, I found a few. In Beelzebub's Tales Gurdjieff writes about Saint Buddha, Saint Muhammad, Saint Moses, and Saint Lama. He never identifies him further. But a few years ago I read in a book by and about the Ladies of the Rope (a work group of women Gurdjieff worked with) that Gurdjieff had a small statue of Padmasambhava who Gurdjieff revered. So then I knew that Saint Lama was an actual person, Padmasambhava. Padmasambhava left India and took Dzogchen to Tibet, he's the top one or two teachers of Dzogchen in Tibetan history (he's very famous, storied. He wrote a lot and buried many of the writings later to be found). And Gurdjieff's ultimate source is the Sarmoung Brotherhood. And the ultimate source also for the Dzogchen teachers, is the Sarmoung Brotherhood, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche wrote about the Sarmoung Brotherhood, and Shambhala. But Gurdjieff said he found the main Sarmoung Brotherhood Monastery, and lived there a while, in Central Asia. He writes about this in Meetings With Remarkable Men (and it's depicted in the film by the same name). This is not the best description of Dzogchen, the video. I'll see if I can put some quotes up from The Mirror, by Norbu. Ow is nothing. Anybody would feel the pain, may or may not say Ow! It is a practice, and like most any others worth their weight in salt, dissolve ... the ignorance of being an SVP to the point where the mere sense of it (with its story) is what it is. It is an awesome unfolding within/as, riding that wave and/or enjoying the depths of the ocean's serenity. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 7:35:38 GMT -5
I listened to this while doing some work. The practice explained may indeed lead to a hot boil of the psychological sense of self, at which point it may no longer seem advantageous to cling to it so tightly. It could almost work as an inwardly directed form of morality in which one is in a constant state of observation and discernment, whilst inviting the "Knowledge of the absence of self nature". If listened to in light of the potential for their being no inherent self, it would be understood that it is not a mental knowledge per se, which is something we've talked about (Greek: gnossis v episteme, Spanish: conocer v saber, etc). The psycho-mento-personal struggle is to take such ideas as 'fact/belief' and pursue them at all cost (to the self). Some may get a glimpse, let go of a shit ton of baggage, and think they are done, and then the mind takes over again and creates a lot of personal stories around the 'experience', maybe forms a new cult/sect/religion/path (different designer bag, same mind tricks). And maybe they even mean well. Who knows? But the true KNOWLEDGE is having been Here, being Here, and stabilized Here, which kinda brings me to the point I find a bit misleading. At around 17:00, there's a discussion about steeping on a thorn and saying 'ow', which I sense as indicative of some ignorance. I do not know of the intention of presenting that in such an exposition, but I suspect it creates confusion. Maybe I misunderstood it, but to conclude that saying 'ow' means that one is "still subject to the dualistic condition and that the absence of self nature...." seems to be indicative of having had the realization of no self, but then being attached to that Nothingness. Experiencing pain via the body is entirely within the realm of possibilities, and has very little to do with self, if ya know what I mean. This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good. Interestingly, soon thereafter, the video goes on to address something akin to an "attachment to Freedom", which is often part of the subsequent journey to Here after Nothingness (and detachment from it) has been realized. At least that's how I would explain it away in abstractions. I'd be curious to hear others' ideas on this.In the Plotinus model, the journey to Here transcends up through the 'levels' of SVP existence, maybe gets a glimpse of Nous stuff, maybe even The One/ Here. Maybe they even understand IT deeply enough to say (i.e., with a sense of Gnossis/Knowledge) that EVERYTHING emanates from/as/within The One as THIS, right Here, right Now. Either way, to get Here, one will need to travel light. But as you stated later to SDP, same same, but different expression and/or value (and path), depending on how the mind studying/praying/meditating/etc hears it. Perhaps it's just the nature of experience, to constantly feel like doorways are opened whereas in reality they are never closed to be able to open again. The mind, like the body, likes movement, exploration, and rejuvenation. Luckily, change in the world is the only constant, though one is not of it.  |
|
). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world. 
