|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:16:32 GMT -5
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. You have to know what identification is. I-dentification. Identification means, maybe without even knowing it, you put self first. So if you put self first, that is self-love, selfish love. So, the less you are identified the more you can really love, that is, put others first (or at least equal). |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:18:00 GMT -5
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? It is the Great and Holy Nose. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:19:28 GMT -5
"The Absolute" (Love) could be the (almost) bottomless bottom? Really? It is the Great and Holy Nose. Sounds kinda legit, Max. Are you from Germany? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:20:56 GMT -5
It is actually called self-inquiry. So ~you~ are inquiring into what self is. This actually how it always has-to-be. Otherwise you are putting ~faith~ into some thing or some person. That's never a good idea, not even Jesus Christ himself (or Buddha, who said, don't even ~trust me~. Basically, trust the teaching). Verify, verify, verify, always and everywhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 12:26:19 GMT -5
It is actually called self-inquiry. So ~you~ are inquiring into what self is. This actually how it always has-to-be. Otherwise you are putting ~faith~ into some thing or some person. That's never a good idea, not even Jesus Christ himself (or Buddha, who said, don't even ~trust me~. Basically, trust the teaching). Verify, verify, verify, always and everywhere. Who/what am I? and: What do I want? What I want is for you to stop posting these questions. It's putting a strain on my scrolling arm. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:28:30 GMT -5
It is the Great and Holy Nose. Sounds kinda legit, Max. Are you from Germany? I do have some DNA from there, among other places. Perhaps the nose? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:38:14 GMT -5
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. OK, yes, very good analysis. But there are other ways to ~know one will survive death~, other than having to die. Not explaining that further. I'll ask a few questions: Every wonder how Jesus walked on the water? Just a made-up story? A miracle? Hallucination? If you have a body that will survive death, you will know you have such a body previous to death. It can be simply be called the second body. Maybe Jesus was in his second body when he walked on the water (with his physical body asleep somewhere). "When your eye is single your whole body will be filled with light". Maybe that is a reference to the second body, a "light" body. These are just things to ponder. In the OT Enoch did not die. In the OT Elijah did not die, he went up in a chariot of fire. The whole Bible is merely an outline of possibility. The sayings of the Buddha, the Sutras, are merely an outline of possibility. The Tao Te Ching is merely a outline (a very brief outline) of possibility. The teachings of Sufism, merely an outline of possibility. The Kabbalah, merely an outline of possibility. The Gurdjieff teachings, merely an outline of possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:40:53 GMT -5
You have to know what identification is. I-dentification. Identification means, maybe without even knowing it, you put self first. So if you put self first, that is self-love, selfish love. So, the less you are identified the more you can really love, that is, put others first (or at least equal). Yeah. But that does not answer the questions: Who/what am I? and: What do I want? You have to find out for yourself, or else you will always have second-hand answers, which is nothing but dust blowing in the wind. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 12:44:20 GMT -5
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. OK, yes, very good analysis. But there are other ways to ~know one will survive death~, other than having to die. Not explaining that further. I'll ask a few questions: Every wonder how Jesus walked on the water? Just a made-up story? A miracle? Hallucination? If you have a body that will survive death, you will know you have such a body previous to death. It can be simply be called the second body. Maybe Jesus was in his second body when he walked on the water (with his physical body asleep somewhere). "When your eye is single your whole body will be filled with light". Maybe that is a reference to the second body, a "light" body. These are just things to ponder. In the OT Enoch did not die. In the OT Elijah did not die, he went up in a chariot of fire. The whole Bible is merely an outline of possibility. The sayings of the Buddha, the Sutras, are merely an outline of possibility. The Tao Te Ching is merely a outline (a very brief outline) of possibility. The teachings of Sufism, merely an outline of possibility. The Kabbalah, merely an outline of possibility. The Gurdjieff teachings, merely an outline of possibility. I assume the JC walked on water story is like the Buddha being born from the side of his mother while white elephants floated in the room. Artifacts of human story telling. Perhaps with some educational value, which is why they survived the test of time. But I like the phrase 'outline of possibility.' That's enough; and underscores the speculative nature. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:44:52 GMT -5
I never make absolute statements (almost never). good pun! Yes, there will always be an exception (maybe almost always an exception  ). [And with that gotta go for now....].... |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 8, 2017 15:28:23 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. You might want to look at what I wrote some years back, Conradg: Aspects of the Divine (LOVE):When “I” assumes a body it comes with certain aspects, with certain qualities which this particular “I” represents. This “container” or “seed” or “basket” one can call the soul of this particular embodiement. A soul comes with a purpose always. The first purpose is to remember its purpose. The second is to fullfill the purpose. If someone do not know himself his or her life is wasted untill the embodied “I” remembers its purpose. Every voice that proclaims that there is no purpose in life is a demon. A demon is a spirit that has the purpose to negate and to destroy life. If someone admits he or she do not know now why and what for he or she is here, in this realm, there is a way, a method, a means for this particular embodiement to discover it. The constant and forcefull announcement that there is no meaning and no purpose in life comes from a demon spirit only. This is to recognize for everybody who is searching for truth. Aspects of the Divine (LOVE): (The order in which it appears has no meaning) 1. Humor 2. Integrity 3. Dignity 4. Honesty 5. Kindness 6. Tenderness 7. Courage 8. Wisdom 9. Compassion 10. Willpower 11. Creativity 12. Devotion (Bhakti – devotion for the Divine most High) 13. Feeling 14. Faith 15. Hope 16. Intelligence 17. Humbleness 18. Consideration 19. Genuineness 20. Passion (for Truth) 21. Sacrifice 22. Enthusiasm 23. Sobriety 24. Ecstasy capability 25. Attentiveness 26. Respectability 27. Care 28. Beauty 29. Goodness 30. Power 31. Joy 32. Serenity 33. Fearlessness 34. Righteousness 35. Strength 36. Sensibility 37. Perfection 38. Justice 39. Contentment 40. Style 41. Patience 42. Grace 43. Peacefullness 44. Endurance 45. Forgivness 46. Fighting spirit 47. Authority 48. One HAND clapping  that's all very nice and well, but love is not its bodily human attributes. It is beyond these. My sense is that love cannot be understood unless the one who loves is known. Therefore self-enquiry is an essential aspect of the knowledge of love. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 8, 2017 15:44:37 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. I was under the impression, metaphorically speaking at least, that the purpose of self-enquiry is to find the "ground of being". That's the "bottom" one is to reach, so to speak. So yes, 'the Absolute' is the bottom/ground one reaches through self-enquiry, which then ends. Interestingly, Nisargadatta often referred to the Absolute as "rock solid". |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 8, 2017 16:48:07 GMT -5
OK, yes, very good analysis. But there are other ways to ~know one will survive death~, other than having to die. Not explaining that further. I'll ask a few questions: Every wonder how Jesus walked on the water? Just a made-up story? A miracle? Hallucination? If you have a body that will survive death, you will know you have such a body previous to death. It can be simply be called the second body. Maybe Jesus was in his second body when he walked on the water (with his physical body asleep somewhere). "When your eye is single your whole body will be filled with light". Maybe that is a reference to the second body, a "light" body. These are just things to ponder. In the OT Enoch did not die. In the OT Elijah did not die, he went up in a chariot of fire. The whole Bible is merely an outline of possibility. The sayings of the Buddha, the Sutras, are merely an outline of possibility. The Tao Te Ching is merely a outline (a very brief outline) of possibility. The teachings of Sufism, merely an outline of possibility. The Kabbalah, merely an outline of possibility. The Gurdjieff teachings, merely an outline of possibility. I assume the JC walked on water story is like the Buddha being born from the side of his mother while white elephants floated in the room. Artifacts of human story telling. Perhaps with some educational value, which is why they survived the test of time. But I like the phrase 'outline of possibility.' That's enough; and underscores the speculative nature. I see that as more in keeping with the whole immaculate conception thing. According to the legends both mothers had prophetic dreams foretelling they would give birth to a holy child, Mary with the archangel visitation, and Maya involving white elephants, (that's what the white elephant part is supposed to symbolise in the case of the culture of the Shakyamuni, they guide the exalted on passage). As for the walking on water, I see that as more analogous to the stories of Buddha demonstrating his paranormal powers to a group who demanded proof, which he did by, 'flying through the air, and skimming his hand across the surface of the sun and the moon'. The story goes he came to regret that as it agitated them greatly. Their minds weren't ready. I posted a link to an article on de-perception when there was some conversation about gravity a while back. I've often considered that generally speaking folks are likely somewhat deluded about what their reaction would be if the second coming rocked up down the local recreation ground and walked on water before their very eyes. I think many have this romantic notion that it would be some wondrous revelation where all their doubts and fears would be instantly allayed. But I suspect the truth would be more along the lines that it would literally blow their mind, and that actually it would be incredibly intrusive. Violent almost. Anyway, for the most part I consider all that as merely distraction, and wouldn't bother too much with it. Only real reason to mention it is to again highlight that if you look carefully you can see certain similarities between the stories, as we talked about before. Over and above the perennial philosophy, as it's known. And doubtlessly there's allegory in the tales.  |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Feb 8, 2017 16:57:16 GMT -5
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. I don't feel gurdjieff was a man of integrity. He impregnated many of his students, lied much of the time. Why I feel Ouspensky and Bennett distanced themselves from him. He was a salesman mystic. Don't believe the hype. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 17:08:57 GMT -5
You might want to look at what I wrote some years back, Conradg: Aspects of the Divine (LOVE):When “I” assumes a body it comes with certain aspects, with certain qualities which this particular “I” represents. This “container” or “seed” or “basket” one can call the soul of this particular embodiement. A soul comes with a purpose always. The first purpose is to remember its purpose. The second is to fullfill the purpose. If someone do not know himself his or her life is wasted untill the embodied “I” remembers its purpose. Every voice that proclaims that there is no purpose in life is a demon. A demon is a spirit that has the purpose to negate and to destroy life. If someone admits he or she do not know now why and what for he or she is here, in this realm, there is a way, a method, a means for this particular embodiement to discover it. The constant and forcefull announcement that there is no meaning and no purpose in life comes from a demon spirit only. This is to recognize for everybody who is searching for truth. Aspects of the Divine (LOVE): (The order in which it appears has no meaning) 1. Humor 2. Integrity 3. Dignity 4. Honesty 5. Kindness 6. Tenderness 7. Courage 8. Wisdom 9. Compassion 10. Willpower 11. Creativity 12. Devotion (Bhakti – devotion for the Divine most High) 13. Feeling 14. Faith 15. Hope 16. Intelligence 17. Humbleness 18. Consideration 19. Genuineness 20. Passion (for Truth) 21. Sacrifice 22. Enthusiasm 23. Sobriety 24. Ecstasy capability 25. Attentiveness 26. Respectability 27. Care 28. Beauty 29. Goodness 30. Power 31. Joy 32. Serenity 33. Fearlessness 34. Righteousness 35. Strength 36. Sensibility 37. Perfection 38. Justice 39. Contentment 40. Style 41. Patience 42. Grace 43. Peacefullness 44. Endurance 45. Forgivness 46. Fighting spirit 47. Authority 48. One HAND clapping that's all very nice and well, but love is not its bodily human attributes. It is beyond these. My sense is that love cannot be understood unless the one who loves is known. Therefore self-enquiry is an essential aspect of the knowledge of love. Yes, real love, the true love, is knowing, realizing the actual one-ness of all. It's the most intimate connection one can have, it's one-derful, it's hoo u R. |
|
).
