|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:05:21 GMT -5
Yea but where did G's claim come from? This is all religious speculation to bolster a theory/model. May or may not be true. There is philosophy, theory and practice and results from practice, IOW direct experience. Gurdjieff did not teach anything he did not have direct experience of. Today's knowledge-understanding-experience was once theory-practice. And as I have said once or twice, First you have to row a little boat. I don't doubt for a second that G was a man of integrity and based his stuff on direct experience. So you're saying that G had direct experience of beingness or whatever after the body had expired? No, I don't think so. Everything we know of his stuff is from when his body was still ticking, right? Becoming stabilized in what remains in deep sleep, nirvalkpa samadhi, after the I Am is "axed," is proposed to be the test for 'surviving the death of the body.' I don't dispute that there are lots of practices and models and philosophy bound up in that proposal. I'm just wondering what it is based on other than speculation. It's an age-old question, answered by the religious and believers and atheists, and wondered about by agnostics. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:06:14 GMT -5
Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? Simple question, simple answer, isn't it? The answer to any question is simple if you know the answer. If not, koan-time. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:06:45 GMT -5
Who/what am I? And: What do I want? Yes, these are very good questions, foundational questions, imperative questions, obligatory questions, (but not exactly directly related to the posts). That's just your opinion, men. Who/what am I? and: What do I want? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:07:57 GMT -5
But love is sometimes difficult to separate from self-love. Most love we know/experience in the world is self-love. When a cat rubs up against your leg, is it giving you affection? No, it is scratching its own back. When one is identified, that is'can be only self-love, and we don't even realize this. People can become doctors and climb mountains and become a soldier because 'they are identified' with something 'put into them' from their parents, they can become a Major League athlete. And then one day they might suddenly realize, I'd rather be doing something else, I don't really want to be a doctor or lawyer or whatever. Identification is identification with a false sense of self. Awareness always is a very-real-thing. Awareness would be awareness of-the-false (for one thing). One is-not-identified when one is in-awareness. It's almost like walking through a door, one side of the door, identified, the other side of the door, not-identified. Identified side, you ~feel~ compulsion, I have to do this, that. Awareness side, you feel free, alive, no compulsion. Angst, discomfort, a general sense of dis-ease, always in the background, dukkha, functions like pain in the body, it tells you something is wrong (in a "psychological" sense). But it doesn't tell you how to fix it. I said my bit on Love for today, Studdy. K |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:08:23 GMT -5
I'm by no means a Ramana Maharshi expert, scholar, so I can't comment on anything regarding him and his teachings. I have not studied his works and teachings suffieciently enough myself, but I have a pic of him on my wall here. Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? (It is almost bottomless). almost? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:09:39 GMT -5
Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? (It is almost bottomless). almost? Who/what is (almost?) bottomless? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:09:55 GMT -5
I don't get what all the fuss about awareness and identification is all about, actually. It's about Love. Why is that so hard to understand? Who cares about all those definitions and such? Really. It's that simple. That's true, but it brings up the question, "what is love?" And, how does love relate to identification? Even in the inverse sense of, the less identification, the more love.
Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:10:49 GMT -5
Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? (It is almost bottomless). almost? I never make absolute statements (almost never). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:11:39 GMT -5
Who/what is (almost?) bottomless? The inquiry: Who am I? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:12:17 GMT -5
That's true, but it brings up the question, "what is love?" And, how does love relate to identification? Even in the inverse sense of, the less identification, the more love.
Yes.Aha. How so? Please do tell. By the way, I disagree. But go and tell why and how so. But I'm not extremely patient today. Guess why. So make it short. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:12:33 GMT -5
Who/what is (almost?) bottomless? The point of the inquiry is ultimately to vanquish the inquiry. Even the I Am disappears. Seems like bottomless to me. Unless you call 'the Absolute' the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:12:44 GMT -5
Yes, these are very good questions, foundational questions, imperative questions, obligatory questions, (but not exactly directly related to the posts). That's just your opinion, men. Who/what am I? and: What do I want? They are questions. Yes, it's my opinion they are good questions. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:13:08 GMT -5
I never make absolute statements (almost never). good pun! |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:13:12 GMT -5
Who/what is (almost?) bottomless? The inquiry: Who am I? Says/thinks/teaches who? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:15:21 GMT -5
Who/what is (almost?) bottomless? The point of the inquiry is ultimately to vanquish the inquiry. Even the I Am disappears. Seems like bottomless to me. Unless you call 'the Absolute' the bottom. "The Absolute" (Love) could be the (almost) bottomless bottom? Really? |
|
