|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 14, 2020 14:43:59 GMT -5
I will answer only in part for now (as it will be late tomorrow for you if I reply tomorrow). We are two, personality and essence. This quote is related to essence: "A man (meaning woman too, of course) is unable say what he himself really is". Mostly what we know of ourselves, is personality. Our usual sense of self is from personality. So where is our sense of identity derived from? This sense of annihilation, is annihilation of personality, is sensed, as in cognitive, by personality. Higher bodies are always related to essence. The realization of one's nothingness is a positive thing. You can (use this to) connect some (of your) dots... Edit: Consider a seed. A seed is kernel and shell. The kernel is the essence, the shell is the personality. The very purpose of the outer shell is to protect the kernel until it is ready to germinate, but then the shell dies, it cracks open and dies. Everything in your post can be applied to this, symbol. But the symbol only goes so far. Process, unfolding, time, but conditions are necessary. If you placed an acorn on a shelf, it will never germinate. (...) In world 48 we depend on outside stimulation, and we "experience ourselves only through asserting ourselves against an external impact". Somebody offends us and we defend ourselves or someone gives us a praise and we swagger.. Bennett calls this "a fictitious sort of identity with the shell of the personality in the middle to keep it going." So I see why that can be called a false sense of self, meaning the source of this 'sense' is the outside. And here I think some advices like seeing both the positive and negative in a situation, or being aware of both inside and outside of ourselves can change this 'sense of self' at least temporarily (& this almost reminds me of bringing down some of the 'buffers'). About bodies.. maybe when you create the body you are also creating the 'world' of it.. enlarging the universe? just an idea.. Thanks for the replies. I will write some more later, separately. 1st paragraph, yes. And the positive and the negative are usually like being in two different rooms, when the positive is present we are in one room and don't see the other, and vice versa. You can picture cubicles, not whole rooms, beginning to see both sides is like standing on the top of the wall between two cubicles, being able to see both simultaneously. And yes, this is like bringing down a buffer (and so you can see both rooms). But it is not just the inside and outside of self, it's seeing different aspect of self, or sub-personalities, or different "I's". Second, yes, you could look at it as enlarging the universe. Going from something that ~not now is~ to something that is. And finer Hydrogens are more intelligent than lower-coarse Hydrogens, can see how things are connected. And the something that now is, is more ordered.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2020 19:28:28 GMT -5
You can bring all that down to right now. You can bring all that down to energy. You are either gaining energy or losing energy. We are either transforming energy or wasting energy. Any move upward must necessarily take place right now. The move upward is just that, vertical. The horizontal movement is in time, the movement of past, present, future. Real movement is not a movement in time, horizontally. If we deal with ordinary energy, this is a movement in time. For us this is world 48. But where are the planets? (.....) For the time being I will write only for the above part of your post. Bennett talks about energies, and I am interested in his definitions of conscious energy and creative energy (he says the latter is related to world 6). He tells a bit on their effects: "One of the ways in which the creative energy works in us is in the revelation of our own nothingness. If consciousness shows us that we are asleep, creativity shows us that we are nothing at all. The conscious energy can produce in us the feeling that 'I' am seeing my sleep. Before the creative energy the 'I' vanishes altogether and nothing at all is left. ... even if only for a moment, we are dead to ourselves and to the world. It is said that "to 'do' we must give up the illusion of doing". Imo the 'I' feeling, the transformation of energies, the problem of identity are all related to 'going towards unity'. And I don't know how it can feel more personal than that : ) He says we are afraid of transformation of conscious energy in us (its transformation into creative energy) because then our feeling of I disappears and this is like annihilation.. I don't know whether it feels exactly like that but I do have a sense that 'I' is a way.
Still, I am not sure whether individuality gets lost at any point. I find it most interesting that to participate in world 12 or world 6, one needs to have a 'vehicle', the 'higher being body'. If going up means annihilation, why the need for another body? (I read and write sometimes on this sometimes on that, from among the subjects in this thread; hope it's not a problem).
In American English we have this aphorism: "get out of your own way". Now in one sense, this is a matter of degree. Bear with me on the "Worlds", as I've only ever read what you've written on the topic. But if we could say that 48 is a typical, normally functioning person in the world, then those moments of creativity described by the Bennet quote (quite well, imo) where the false sense of self falls away, are a glimpse into at least 24. Now, it seems to me from general common knowledge that not everyone has an experiential reference for this, but I've got no data on it or even much first-hand anecdotal experience from having either watched or questioned others about it. Be that as it may, my take is it's something that can happen intermittently (or not), and with a varying matter of depth, whether it's intermittent or not. One way to approach the question of what identity remains is to listen to what people who have had the experience have to say about it. Whether they realize it or not, when the false sense of self falls away, what remains is what one truly is. When this happens in action and motion, that conditioned aspect of our body/mind tends to operate optimally. You might be familiar with the expression: "a bird doesn't fly, it is flown, a fish doesn't swim, it is swum". I intuit and think this is why Bennet relates it to creativity, as the products of a creative process where the creator has gotten out of their own way often have a generalized appeal that gets recognized in various ways. Now, I'm just an internet guy, but I say that those who've been lucky enough to experience this and who are existentially clear will tell you what was expressing in those moments was a commonality between all human beings, one that anyone can access at any time if they allow the body/mind to quiesce. So that "residual I", you see, is actually a "cosmic eye", without limitation, and yet yes, the personal experience continues in the flow of time before, during and after. But if the interlude is intense enough, and permanent, it really does make sense to describe it as an absence of the apparent limitation of a time and materially bound body/mind. Not that these are annihilated, but that they're never again mistaken for what they are not.
|
|
|
Post by zin on May 29, 2020 18:46:54 GMT -5
Was looking for a Gurdjieff-related thread.. Sorry I didn't come back to these exchanges for a long time. But now I have a quote from Bennett.. It's about the 'parable of talents', but it can be taken independently too, I think:
"If you had not the force to do this by yourself, you should have put yourself into a relationship with others, through which this transformation could have taken place."
The transformation here is a spiritual one.. Maybe the word 'force' could've been another word too - like 'understanding'.. But what I wish to know is, have you ever lived such a transformation, one which happened because you were with other spiritual seekers? Many times I heard about the importance of the 'presence' of a teacher; the atmosphere, the manners.. But I don't remember much about the effect of other seekers.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2020 11:53:41 GMT -5
Was looking for a Gurdjieff-related thread.. Sorry I didn't come back to these exchanges for a long time. But now I have a quote from Bennett.. It's about the 'parable of talents', but it can be taken independently too, I think:
"If you had not the force to do this by yourself, you should have put yourself into a relationship with others, through which this transformation could have taken place." The transformation here is a spiritual one.. Maybe the word 'force' could've been another word too - like 'understanding'.. But what I wish to know is, have you ever lived such a transformation, one which happened because you were with other spiritual seekers? Many times I heard about the importance of the 'presence' of a teacher; the atmosphere, the manners.. But I don't remember much about the effect of other seekers.
I was (we were) told many times, all you need to become a conscious man (always means also, or conscious woman) is food, air and impressions. Now, if you (anyone), not you personally, don't know much about the Gurdjieff work you will not know what all is involved in that simple statement. So I will unfold a little. That statement implies no one else, no other people are necessary for a single person to become a conscious man. So first, no, we do not have what it takes to work alone, maybe for a long time. But even if one has a teacher, they will not always have one, because everybody dies. So we all need relationships, people working together to a common purpose, at least at some point in time. What is a teacher in the work sense? In the work sense a teacher is someone who knows more about the work than you do. So by this definition if there are two people interested in the work, one of them is going to be the teacher. A significant aspect of the teaching is there has to be three lines of work. First line work is work for oneself. Second line work is work with others in the work, this is where Bennett's statement comes in. Third line work is work for the work's sake, perpetuating the work, the main aspect in the beginning is introducing others to the work. So why 3 lines of work? Here, the law of seven comes in, the law of octaves. There is a lot behind this, much in Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson. But briefly. Nothing moves in a straight line. Everything operates from the law of seven (and law of 3). The whole universe is structured according to the laws 3 and 7, called by Gurdjieff the laws of world creation and world maintenance. A musical octave is an example of an octave. (The person who designed the Periodic Table recognized repeating patterns among the elements, and laid out the table according to this pattern, the octave. He left spaces where there should be an element, but which hadn't been found by scientists. He was later proved to be right. Sorry, couldn't help myself). An ascending octave begins with a do. Any new beginning can be called a do. The event proceeds to and through re, to mi. But between mi and fa there is an interval, a gap. Gurdjieff began teaching in Russia about 1912. From the beginning he taught about the law of 7, and so about this interval, this gap. This is a principle of discontinuity. The whole of the universe is structured on this principle. And so this principle also matches or at least runs parallel to the principle of discontinuity in quantum mechanics. (A lot can be explored here). So something has to enter here to allow the crossing of the interval between mi and fa. This is some kind of energy. There is another interval between sol and la, but this interval has merely been disharmonzed and proceeds (so this interval can be ignored). This is also part of the natural structure of the universe, in all things. The movement proceeds naturally to si (ti). Between si and do of the next octave there is another interval. Just to note, there are descending octaves also. So why 3 lines of work? Trying to do only one line of work, we will go to sleep. Doing one line of work we will come to an interval. This stops our work unless something enters to bridge the gap. So the purpose of 3 lines of work is that they work together so that one line will fill the gap of another line of work. So it's necessary to work with other people in the work, for our own first line work. And likewise 3rd line work. Because we will always go to sleep until we reach a certain stage of the work. Always. We will always go to sleep so the 3 lines of work are necessary to keep each of the three octaves going. So yes it's true, all we need is food, air and impressions to become a conscious man, this is first line work, work for one's self. However, it's exceptionally difficult to work alone, one's work will eventually diverge, and we may not even fully realize it, this is the meaning, one meaning of sleep. Now that's not a complete answer to your question. I can't answer completely (or if I did, it takes something on your part, to understand). But a little more. There is a food octave, ordinary food enters as do. Now, on your plate is a beef stake, some potatoes and green beans. Can your body use these as they are? No, food has to be transformed to be used as fuel for the body and the brain, transformed to glucose, at minimum. This is the process of digestion. it also operates according to the law of 7. So food comes to a gap between mi and fa. What fills the gap? Air as oxygen allows the food octave to continue. So also air entering is the beginning of the air octave as do. The food octave proceeds to si. The air octave proceeds to mi, and it too stops. Impressions are anything that enters the body through the five senses. So there are impressions through the eyes, nose as odors, sounds through the ears, tastes through the tongue (and if you research this a little, tastes are also effected by the sense of smell, this is why food tastes bland when one is sick. That's for free). And also impressions enter through the sense of touch, the entire skin of one's body. Impressions enter as do, they are not further transformed, mechanically, that is, under ordinary circumstances. (I think this is only the second time in eleven years here I have written about impressions, like this). Yes, impressions enter, but stop as do. This is the full operation of an ordinary man, all the octaves of food, air and impressions. All this happens through mechanical efforts, that is, naturally. For the impression octave to proceed, something has to enter here at do. What? A conscious effort is necessary here. This effort is called the first conscious shock. A shock here allows the impression octave to continue, to mi. A conscious shock here also allows the air octave to proceed further. And so from the first conscious shock new energies are formed in the organism, energies not formed from any natural means, any mechanical means. And one can know when this energy, mi of the impressions octave, is present. And it also has other names. So I'm going to leave some dots there not connected, except to say. Yes, I have lived such a transformation. (That does not mean in any sense it has been completed). Yes, I have worked with others in such a manner. Yes, I was taught how to give myself the first conscious shock, so yes, at least in the work sense, I have had a teacher. To be able to work alone, at minimum, one has to find their conscience. So you see, even at bare minimum, it takes a lot to answer your question. A teacher can never do one's work for one, but can help keep one on track, if one works. And that's a very big if. So if you can do it, which also implies, if you know how, with food, air and impressions one can become a conscious man (or woman). Now, the juggling analogy represents necessary conscious efforts. If you stop juggling, the balls stop. Likewise, if one ceases making conscious efforts, one will never become a conscious man or woman. Gurdjieff said (in In Search of the Miraculous), To remember oneself one has to have the energy of self-remembering. (This energy one comes by through the first conscious shock). But yet still, some dots have to be connected...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2020 18:27:24 GMT -5
Was looking for a Gurdjieff-related thread.. Sorry I didn't come back to these exchanges for a long time. But now I have a quote from Bennett.. It's about the 'parable of talents', but it can be taken independently too, I think:
"If you had not the force to do this by yourself, you should have put yourself into a relationship with others, through which this transformation could have taken place." The transformation here is a spiritual one.. Maybe the word 'force' could've been another word too - like 'understanding'.. But what I wish to know is, have you ever lived such a transformation, one which happened because you were with other spiritual seekers? Many times I heard about the importance of the 'presence' of a teacher; the atmosphere, the manners.. But I don't remember much about the effect of other seekers.
Not really in the sense that I think Bennett meant to convey. But what I've noticed is that meditation or prayer done as a group is very different from doing it alone.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 10, 2020 9:38:38 GMT -5
Was looking for a Gurdjieff-related thread.. Sorry I didn't come back to these exchanges for a long time. But now I have a quote from Bennett.. It's about the 'parable of talents', but it can be taken independently too, I think:
"If you had not the force to do this by yourself, you should have put yourself into a relationship with others, through which this transformation could have taken place." The transformation here is a spiritual one.. Maybe the word 'force' could've been another word too - like 'understanding'.. But what I wish to know is, have you ever lived such a transformation, one which happened because you were with other spiritual seekers? Many times I heard about the importance of the 'presence' of a teacher; the atmosphere, the manners.. But I don't remember much about the effect of other seekers.
I was (we were) told many times, all you need to become a conscious man (always means also, or conscious woman) is food, air and impressions. Now, if you (anyone), not you personally, don't know much about the Gurdjieff work you will not know what all is involved in that simple statement. So I will unfold a little. That statement implies no one else, no other people are necessary for a single person to become a conscious man. So first, no, we do not have what it takes to work alone, maybe for a long time. But even if one has a teacher, they will not always have one, because everybody dies. So we all need relationships, people working together to a common purpose, at least at some point in time. (....) I was thinking of being inspired by others or something like that. Later I noticed that 'spirituality & other people' mostly mean this to me: We cannot exclude anyone from our experience according to our likes and dislikes when we are in spiritual work. It is possible practically but not so much, psychologically (one can think this in different contexts but no need to go into it I think). So, one will have a lot of valuable friction : ) - valuable for work.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 10, 2020 9:55:03 GMT -5
Was looking for a Gurdjieff-related thread.. Sorry I didn't come back to these exchanges for a long time. But now I have a quote from Bennett.. It's about the 'parable of talents', but it can be taken independently too, I think:
"If you had not the force to do this by yourself, you should have put yourself into a relationship with others, through which this transformation could have taken place." The transformation here is a spiritual one.. Maybe the word 'force' could've been another word too - like 'understanding'.. But what I wish to know is, have you ever lived such a transformation, one which happened because you were with other spiritual seekers? Many times I heard about the importance of the 'presence' of a teacher; the atmosphere, the manners.. But I don't remember much about the effect of other seekers.
Not really in the sense that I think Bennett meant to convey. But what I've noticed is that meditation or prayer done as a group is very different from doing it alone. Is there a mutual support aspect? I have very little experience about collective prayer, non about meditation. In the previous post I wrote a bit, Bennett's is about spiritual progress I think; finding the conditions which inspire or compel you to make efforts.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2020 10:13:35 GMT -5
Not really in the sense that I think Bennett meant to convey. But what I've noticed is that meditation or prayer done as a group is very different from doing it alone. Is there a mutual support aspect? I have very little experience about collective prayer, non about meditation. In the previous post I wrote a bit, Bennett's is about spiritual progress I think; finding the conditions which inspire or compel you to make efforts. Yes, but in my experience, the collective silence is impersonal - which doesn't make it any less supportive. My wife and I have always enjoyed dialog which was mostly philosophical from long ago, but turned spiritual 11 years ago. So, we support each other in that way. The Catholics have "Lent", which is a reminder to make those efforts, and sometimes, these past few months during all this social turmoil, I think, now and then .. "deliver us from evil". I have to admit to having found and still continually find some measure of inspiration from all of the people I've corresponded with on these forums over the years. You included!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 10, 2020 11:12:22 GMT -5
Not really in the sense that I think Bennett meant to convey. But what I've noticed is that meditation or prayer done as a group is very different from doing it alone. Is there a mutual support aspect? I have very little experience about collective prayer, non about meditation. In the previous post I wrote a bit, Bennett's is about spiritual progress I think; finding the conditions which inspire or compel you to make efforts. Perhaps the primary value of group meditation is that one stays there until the meditation session comes to an end. LOL. Even people who are seriously interested in pursuing meditation will often find themselves NOT doing what they THOUGHT they wanted to do or what they THOUGHT they should do, whereas they are unlikely to get up and leave a group of people who are meditating together. I eventually lost interest in the Zen tradition and Zen retreats for various reasons, but I'll have to admit that the Zen format on retreats usually insured that I would continue following the format until the very end of the retreats. This resulted in some interesting oscillations of mind. It was almost like putting the mind in a cage with no escape, and the attitude that often resulted from that was, "Well, if I've got to sit here in silence, I might as well make the most serious effort possible." I can remember feeling resistance at times, and then, as a result of focusing on the task at hand, totally getting into the meditative activity and going deeper than usual. After attending Advaita retreats, I found them to be much more enjoyable because attendees were free to do whatever they wanted to do, and there was no requirement to attend any of the meditation sessions. At times I would attend the group sessions, and at other times I'd go for a walk in the woods while pursuing informal ATA-T. There was no group shaming if someone didn't want to join a sitting session. At Zen retreats the attitude is much more rigid, and every attendee is expected to precisely follow the schedule and to be perfectly on time. Nothing casual about their approach!
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 14, 2020 9:05:22 GMT -5
Is there a mutual support aspect? I have very little experience about collective prayer, non about meditation. In the previous post I wrote a bit, Bennett's is about spiritual progress I think; finding the conditions which inspire or compel you to make efforts. Yes, but in my experience, the collective silence is impersonal - which doesn't make it any less supportive. My wife and I have always enjoyed dialog which was mostly philosophical from long ago, but turned spiritual 11 years ago. So, we support each other in that way. The Catholics have "Lent", which is a reminder to make those efforts, and sometimes, these past few months during all this social turmoil, I think, now and then .. "deliver us from evil". I have to admit to having found and still continually find some measure of inspiration from all of the people I've corresponded with on these forums over the years. You included! Thank you, likewise! And glad that you two are happy with the church experience.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 14, 2020 9:08:19 GMT -5
Is there a mutual support aspect? I have very little experience about collective prayer, non about meditation. In the previous post I wrote a bit, Bennett's is about spiritual progress I think; finding the conditions which inspire or compel you to make efforts. Perhaps the primary value of group meditation is that one stays there until the meditation session comes to an end. LOL. Even people who are seriously interested in pursuing meditation will often find themselves NOT doing what they THOUGHT they wanted to do or what they THOUGHT they should do, whereas they are unlikely to get up and leave a group of people who are meditating together. I eventually lost interest in the Zen tradition and Zen retreats for various reasons, but I'll have to admit that the Zen format on retreats usually insured that I would continue following the format until the very end of the retreats. This resulted in some interesting oscillations of mind. It was almost like putting the mind in a cage with no escape, and the attitude that often resulted from that was, "Well, if I've got to sit here in silence, I might as well make the most serious effort possible." I can remember feeling resistance at times, and then, as a result of focusing on the task at hand, totally getting into the meditative activity and going deeper than usual. After attending Advaita retreats, I found them to be much more enjoyable because attendees were free to do whatever they wanted to do, and there was no requirement to attend any of the meditation sessions. At times I would attend the group sessions, and at other times I'd go for a walk in the woods while pursuing informal ATA-T. There was no group shaming if someone didn't want to join a sitting session. At Zen retreats the attitude is much more rigid, and every attendee is expected to precisely follow the schedule and to be perfectly on time. Nothing casual about their approach! Group shaming didn't come to my mind at all . Seems it does have its place.. Now that I think, I may belong to a loose 'group', people who are drawn to the lighthouse here, near sunset time.. I almost always find their company peaceful.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 6, 2022 13:53:34 GMT -5
I edited this, the OP, down for laughter, the pertinent information. I think this is pretty clear. Any efforts by the Imaginary I/cultural self/conditioned self are insignificant, and they merely happen, there is no doing (see below). Only certain conscious efforts using attention and/or awareness, specifically delineated, lead to actual permanent significant change, the caterpillar becoming a butterfly. But of course you will always try to fit my view into your view. The Give and Take thread is attempting to go into this a little further. Only attention and awareness concern real doing, never thinking, never feelings/emotions, never bodily actions and never sensations. 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. 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. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it. ....... 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.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2022 5:22:20 GMT -5
I edited this, the OP, down for laughter, the pertinent information. I think this is pretty clear. Any efforts by the Imaginary I/cultural self/conditioned self are insignificant, and they merely happen, there is no doing (see below). Only certain conscious efforts using attention and/or awareness, specifically delineated, lead to actual permanent significant change, the caterpillar becoming a butterfly. But of course you will always try to fit my view into your view. The Give and Take thread is attempting to go into this a little further. Only attention and awareness concern real doing, never thinking, never feelings/emotions, never bodily actions and never sensations. 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. 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. Working with attention saves energy, by working with awareness, one creates this finer quality of energy and likewise saves it. ....... 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. Well 'pilgrim, it's like the picture of the duck/bunny, you know? On one hand what you say about practice, involving attention and awareness .. I find that wise. It's good advice, especially to anyone genuinely interested in seeking the existential truth. But, on the other hand ... there's this guy .. .. the false sense of center, the one doing the practice, the "one who is becoming more conscious". He'll never see the duck/bunny for what it really is.
|
|