|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2015 22:05:31 GMT -5
This thread has been considered for a few days, and finally comes as a response to a post by wren, June 29, 4:42 PM, sdp seems to be a lot clearer in his view the last month or so. My reply to this post (What?) was also recently commented on by E (about an hour+ ago). So I will briefly give my view, again. Becoming more conscious is like juggling, it cannot be passive, it takes effort. You begin to learn to juggle using three objects, usually balls. With two hands, one ball has to be in the air at all times. So there is a movement of catching and throwing with an expenditure of energy. If the throwing and catching stops, the juggling stops. Becoming more conscious, similarly, requires certain effort, but conscious efforts. One cannot become more conscious, passively. Awakening requires a certain quantity of a certain quality of energy, and this energy cannot be come by, passively. The energy of awakening can be accumulated, but if conscious efforts, which concern the use of attention and awareness, cease, the energy will leak away, like the flow of the balls ceasing when one stops juggling.
Now, some are going to say, but that's not how I understand awakening. So I will use the term, self-remembering, that's what self-remembering is, the state of being awake. I do this to try in a small way to circumvent the problem of language we are having with the use of the term Self Realization. The term Self Realization is obviously being defined differently by different people here. So I will use the term self-remembering for the state of being awake, not to be equated with Self Realization, which I have said before is not in my vocabulary (for various reasons). One significant difference is that self-remembering can come and go, one can be more awake or less awake, one can be more conscious or less conscious. This, again, depends upon this quantity of a certain quality of energy.
So what is the role of ego/personality/cultural self/imaginary self in all this? Ego/etc. is a drain of energy. If one lives primarily through ego/etc., he or she can never accumulate the energy required for awakening, excuse me, for self-remembering. So, one has to "keep the balls in the air" via conscious efforts to such an extent that the energy entering the organism exceeds that exiting the organism, generally through the sieve that ego/personality/imaginary self, is. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it.
I realize that most of this is at odds with the view and ideas spoken to primarily here on ST's (non-volition and such). For others maybe this will give some additional perspective. Almost everything I have ever posted here on ST's relates in some manner to this information (the OP). So this is my view in a nutshell. Basically, any ordinary effort, that by ego/imaginary self, is a mechanical effort and is non-volitional. Conscious efforts, obviously and by definition, cannot occur unconsciously, that is, resulting from habit, conditioning or through ego/imaginary self.
Additionally, awakening/self-remembering does not involve the repair of ego/personality/imaginary self, it involves making ego/etc. passive.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 2, 2015 7:29:24 GMT -5
Hey there, sdp.
Do you think the juggling ever ends during a lifetime or only after death (or not at all!)?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 8:52:16 GMT -5
Hey there, sdp. Do you think the juggling ever ends during a lifetime or only after death (or not at all!)? Hey quinn, There is a great deal packed into that question, but I will be brief, not thorough. First of all, you can juggle, or not juggle, so in that sense it can end any time. The point is it's a choice. Concerning death. We know the physical body eventually dies. Through "juggling", if enough energy of this finer quality, which comes from the transformation of food, air and impressions, is saved and accumulated, what's called the second body can be formed, it's also called the body kesdjan, also called a higher being body, also called a body of consciousness. This body can survive the death of the physical body. So yes, survival of death is possible, with the second body. But the juggling must continue...
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 2, 2015 9:07:51 GMT -5
Hey there, sdp. Do you think the juggling ever ends during a lifetime or only after death (or not at all!)? Hey quinn, There is a great deal packed into that question, but I will be brief, not thorough. First of all, you can juggle, or not juggle, so in that sense it can end any time. The point is it's a choice. Concerning death. We know the physical body eventually dies. Through "juggling", if enough energy of this finer quality, which comes from the transformation of food, air and impressions, is saved and accumulated, what's called the second body can be formed, it's also called the body kesdjan, also called a higher being body, also called a body of consciousness. This body can survive the death of the physical body. So yes, survival of death is possible, with the second body. But the juggling must continue... Ok - sorry, by juggling ever end I meant ever come to its fruition. Is it possible in your lifetime that whatever your end-point is (self-recognition?) will happen and there's no more need to juggle? You sort of touched on this with your last sentence. Why must the juggling continue if kesdjan is formed and survives death? Is there a third, forth, ad finitum body to be formed?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 10:17:33 GMT -5
Hey quinn, There is a great deal packed into that question, but I will be brief, not thorough. First of all, you can juggle, or not juggle, so in that sense it can end any time. The point is it's a choice. Concerning death. We know the physical body eventually dies. Through "juggling", if enough energy of this finer quality, which comes from the transformation of food, air and impressions, is saved and accumulated, what's called the second body can be formed, it's also called the body kesdjan, also called a higher being body, also called a body of consciousness. This body can survive the death of the physical body. So yes, survival of death is possible, with the second body. But the juggling must continue... Ok - sorry, by juggling ever end I meant ever come to its fruition. Is it possible in your lifetime that whatever your end-point is (self-recognition?) will happen and there's no more need to juggle? You sort of touched on this with your last sentence. Why must the juggling continue if kesdjan is formed and survives death? Is there a third, forth, ad finitum body to be formed? Good questions. I started to go into this more previous post, but stopped. There is a point of "fruition". There is what's called the crystallization of the second body. One could stop juggling at this point, this body lasts beyond death, but not forever. (As an aside, crystallization makes permanent the characteristics one presently possesses, so crystallization at any one point may not be in one's best interests). For his own reasons, Gurdjieff was ambiguous about the number of higher being bodies, in some places he seems to indicate, two, sometimes three (basically, it's a problem each individual has to solve, or not, but I digress). In Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, he just says, higher being bodies. So, one keeps juggling because there is a higher being body, beyond the second body. This body can survive the death of the second body. Gurdjieff said that it's immortal within the limits of the solar system, meaning, it will last as long as the solar system lasts. Basically, Gurdjieff said that we are not born with a soul, but merely a soul in embryo, merely possibility. A man or woman can acquire a soul through conscious efforts. (So it's 2 or 3, not ad infinitum). I told you there was a lot in your (original) question.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 2, 2015 11:44:26 GMT -5
Ok - sorry, by juggling ever end I meant ever come to its fruition. Is it possible in your lifetime that whatever your end-point is (self-recognition?) will happen and there's no more need to juggle? You sort of touched on this with your last sentence. Why must the juggling continue if kesdjan is formed and survives death? Is there a third, forth, ad finitum body to be formed? Good questions. I started to go into this more previous post, but stopped. There is a point of "fruition". There is what's called the crystallization of the second body. One could stop juggling at this point, this body lasts beyond death, but not forever. (As an aside, crystallization makes permanent the characteristics one presently possesses, so crystallization at any one point may not be in one's best interests). For his own reasons, Gurdjieff was ambiguous about the number of higher being bodies, in some places he seems to indicate, two, sometimes three (basically, it's a problem each individual has to solve, or not, but I digress). In Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, he just says, higher being bodies. So, one keeps juggling because there is a higher being body, beyond the second body. This body can survive the death of the second body. Gurdjieff said that it's immortal within the limits of the solar system, meaning, it will last as long as the solar system lasts. Basically, Gurdjieff said that we are not born with a soul, but merely a soul in embryo, merely possibility. A man or woman can acquire a soul through conscious efforts. (So it's 2 or 3, not ad infinitum). I told you there was a lot in your (original) question. Thanks, sdp. I appreciate the thorough answer. So now I'm curious about this: Has your experience shown you that what you've written is true or is it that these explanations resonate with you (or something else)? In other words, on what do you base the fact that these are your views?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 12:07:45 GMT -5
Good questions. I started to go into this more previous post, but stopped. There is a point of "fruition". There is what's called the crystallization of the second body. One could stop juggling at this point, this body lasts beyond death, but not forever. (As an aside, crystallization makes permanent the characteristics one presently possesses, so crystallization at any one point may not be in one's best interests). For his own reasons, Gurdjieff was ambiguous about the number of higher being bodies, in some places he seems to indicate, two, sometimes three (basically, it's a problem each individual has to solve, or not, but I digress). In Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, he just says, higher being bodies. So, one keeps juggling because there is a higher being body, beyond the second body. This body can survive the death of the second body. Gurdjieff said that it's immortal within the limits of the solar system, meaning, it will last as long as the solar system lasts. Basically, Gurdjieff said that we are not born with a soul, but merely a soul in embryo, merely possibility. A man or woman can acquire a soul through conscious efforts. (So it's 2 or 3, not ad infinitum). I told you there was a lot in your (original) question. Thanks, sdp. I appreciate the thorough answer. So now I'm curious about this: Has your experience shown you that what you've written is true or is it that these explanations resonate with you (or something else)? In other words, on what do you base the fact that these are your views? Hey quinn, I've read tons of New Age and all kinds of metaphysical goobledygook. I pretty-much hated Gurdjieff for years, lots of reasons. If not for some personal experience, all that I've written here would just be more goobledygook, and would have been left behind years ago. So, all that has virtually nothing to do with any type of intellectual resonance. One reason I don't discuss personal experience, specifically, is I don't want to be a punching bag, but that's really a minor reason. The number one principle I was taught from day one is that you must verify what's taught. I read In Search of the Miraculous in March of 1976 and it answered many questions I already had, mostly the why of many experiences even from an early age. The answer is experience. You move from theory to practice to experience which leads to further theory, further practice and on and on.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 2, 2015 13:15:04 GMT -5
Thanks, sdp. I appreciate the thorough answer. So now I'm curious about this: Has your experience shown you that what you've written is true or is it that these explanations resonate with you (or something else)? In other words, on what do you base the fact that these are your views? Hey quinn, I've read tons of New Age and all kinds of metaphysical goobledygook. I pretty-much hated Gurdjieff for years, lots of reasons. If not for some personal experience, all that I've written here would just be more goobledygook, and would have been left behind years ago. So, all that has virtually nothing to do with any type of intellectual resonance. One reason I don't discuss personal experience, specifically, is I don't want to be a punching bag, but that's really a minor reason. The number one principle I was taught from day one is that you must verify what's taught. I read In Search of the Miraculous in March of 1976 and it answered many questions I already had, mostly the why of many experiences even from an early age. The answer is experience. You move from theory to practice to experience which leads to further theory, further practice and on and on. Yeah, I got that too. I had pretty much trashed religion/spirituality until I stumbled on one Buddhist teacher who said, "Don't believe me, check it out yourself". Ok now, that I can work with! The question came up because you often use quotes or reference ideologies when you write about spiritual issues, but I see you just prefer to leave out the experiential side. No problemo. I haven't read Gurdjieff and at this point, probably won't. (Not based on what you've written, just based on a general non-interest in reading after a bunch of ravenous years.)
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 2, 2015 14:05:50 GMT -5
(...) So what is the role of ego/personality/cultural self/imaginary self in all this? Ego/etc. is a drain of energy. If one lives primarily through ego/etc., he or she can never accumulate the energy required for awakening, excuse me, for self-remembering. So, one has to "keep the balls in the air" via conscious efforts to such an extent that the energy entering the organism exceeds that exiting the organism, generally through the sieve that ego/personality/imaginary self, is. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it. (...) What is "work with awareness"?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 14:58:57 GMT -5
Hey quinn, I've read tons of New Age and all kinds of metaphysical goobledygook. I pretty-much hated Gurdjieff for years, lots of reasons. If not for some personal experience, all that I've written here would just be more goobledygook, and would have been left behind years ago. So, all that has virtually nothing to do with any type of intellectual resonance. One reason I don't discuss personal experience, specifically, is I don't want to be a punching bag, but that's really a minor reason. The number one principle I was taught from day one is that you must verify what's taught. I read In Search of the Miraculous in March of 1976 and it answered many questions I already had, mostly the why of many experiences even from an early age. The answer is experience. You move from theory to practice to experience which leads to further theory, further practice and on and on. Yeah, I got that too. I had pretty much trashed religion/spirituality until I stumbled on one Buddhist teacher who said, "Don't believe me, check it out yourself". Ok now, that I can work with! The question came up because you often use quotes or reference ideologies when you write about spiritual issues, but I see you just prefer to leave out the experiential side. No problemo. I haven't read Gurdjieff and at this point, probably won't. (Not based on what you've written, just based on a general non-interest in reading after a bunch of ravenous years.) Yes, concerning the quotes used from various sources. I was "incognito" here for years. Some months ago, probably many months ago, ZD referenced self-remembering, as used by someone else who had spoken to him about it. I posted that that's not what self-remembering is. I had probably only referenced Gurdjieff vaguely a couple of times previous to that. Saying that to say I've used quotes to say things I can't directly reference or have chosen not to. Not much is written about the practices which came through Gurdjieff, and nothing specifically. Yes, verify, was important to me, still is. .......I've never been to Claymont although I've known about it for 39 years. Many years ago my teacher read a two page letter/essay written by Pierre Elliot, who had been the director at Claymont but had just moved to Southern France. I talked to someone on the phone there once, but that's the closest I've been.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 15:26:58 GMT -5
(...) So what is the role of ego/personality/cultural self/imaginary self in all this? Ego/etc. is a drain of energy. If one lives primarily through ego/etc., he or she can never accumulate the energy required for awakening, excuse me, for self-remembering. So, one has to "keep the balls in the air" via conscious efforts to such an extent that the energy entering the organism exceeds that exiting the organism, generally through the sieve that ego/personality/imaginary self, is. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it. (...) What is "work with awareness"? Hey (little) zd, I can't specifically say, as these things are never written down. In 1976 I went to a meeting every week for six months before I was given the practices self-remembering and self-observation. I would probably never do otherwise for anyone else, minimally. There are various reasons for this, but basically the interior work is an oral tradition. However, there is what's called preparatory work. This can be given and can be written about, I was given this at my first meeting in March of 1976. It is called noticing, the noticing of sensations, the five senses. You can notice colors, the shapes of material objects, sounds, the tone of your own voice, your facial expression, your posture, tension in the body, your gestures, odors, tastes, touch. I have mentioned these here on ST's before. This is essentially ZD's ATA-T (you eventually notice that +T is an obstruction to noticing). I will add one thing, if you notice say the tension in your face, and later are otherwise occupied, do you ever notice the absence of awareness of what is always present?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 2, 2015 15:37:43 GMT -5
What is "work with awareness"? I can't specifically say, as these things are never written down. In 1976 I went to a meeting every week for six months before I was given the practices self-remembering and self-observation. I would probably never do otherwise for anyone else, minimally. There are various reasons for this, but basically the interior work is an oral tradition. However, there is what's called preparatory work. This can be given and can be written about, I was given this at my first meeting in March of 1976. It is called noticing, the noticing of sensations, the five senses. You can notice colors, the shapes of material objects, sounds, the tone of your own voice, your facial expression, your posture, tension in the body, your gestures, odors, tastes, touch. I have mentioned these here on ST's before. This is essentially ZD's ATA-T (you eventually notice that +T is an obstruction to noticing). I will add one thing, if you notice say the tension in your face, and later are otherwise occupied, do you ever notice the absence of awareness of what is always present? I don't notice the absence of awareness of body, I just become aware of it. (the body) But there must be a way to talk about this "work with awareness"??
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 2, 2015 15:47:20 GMT -5
You WILL say something, right?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2015 16:02:42 GMT -5
You WILL say something, right? What, I replied immediately, only it took 23 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 2, 2015 16:05:36 GMT -5
You WILL say something, right? What, I replied immediately, only it took 23 minutes. I still think you can do better .
|
|