|
|
Post by zin on Aug 3, 2017 9:03:04 GMT -5
Something a bit related: Sometimes they say about Beelzebub's Tales (Gurdjieff's book) that new paragraphs appear in it by time : ) I get quite astonished at how I skip things and the next year I say "but this is about this and this!!"  By the second sentence do you mean you finds something new in it every time you read it? Yes, but more-so for one who is working. Yes I meant that. It's valid for parts on 'Being' mostly. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 11, 2017 22:21:00 GMT -5
Value fulfillment (1)
Seth: The term “value fulfillment” is very difficult to explain, but it is very important. Obviously it deals with the development of values — not moral values, however, but values for which you really have no adequate words. Quite simply, these values have to do with increasing the quality of whatever life the being feels at its center. The quality of that life is not simply to be handed down or experienced, for example, but is to be creatively added to, multiplied, in a way that has nothing to do with quantity. (Session 863) This is part of a value fulfillment quote on the Seth quotes thread. Although in the next one it says "Value fulfillment always implies the search for excellence—not perfection, but excellence", I will add here something from Gurdjieff which seems related to me (it mentions perfection). I don't wish to equate the two materials but I wish to bring things on development of values together. Gurdjieff talks about 'being strivings' and one is this: "To have a constant and unflagging instinctive need for self-perfection in the sense of being." When I first read it I looked at whether I felt such a need. Thought on whether it is a natural need or it is something that must be cultivated (maybe for humans both are valid). I think most of the time natural impulses are drown during education, so one may need to dwell on this some... And then here what Seth calls 'conscious mind' must come into play imo. Actually it (conscious mind) is still the most interesting concept in this material for me. Because frequently we are either mechanical (sort of, unconscious) or we talk as "this is beyond us, it can't be talked about" about spiritual subjects, whereas a bit of conscious looking is needed sometimes for clearing the way (for natural impulses) and sometimes for combining things on different scales. What I mean by scales may be the 'personal need' for values and the general importance of them for humanity. And another thing a bit related is, Gurdjieff talks about centers in man: thinking, feeling, moving/instinctive centers. In a book of his he says "... with a desire issuing from all the three separate spiritualized parts [ie these centers] and with the conscious striving to transform yourself into a..." This makes me think on what difference man can make in creation in terms of quality - the difference may be related to this first separate and then united state of the centers... And this again necessitates the use of conscious mind in order to see how things change. Can one talk on quality of feeling, of thought, of movement? Then talk on what their combination will bring? These may all be a huge TMT! But I will return to them. (Thanks for the value fulfillment quotes!) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 12, 2017 9:01:47 GMT -5
Value fulfillment (1)
Seth: The term “value fulfillment” is very difficult to explain, but it is very important. Obviously it deals with the development of values — not moral values, however, but values for which you really have no adequate words. Quite simply, these values have to do with increasing the quality of whatever life the being feels at its center. The quality of that life is not simply to be handed down or experienced, for example, but is to be creatively added to, multiplied, in a way that has nothing to do with quantity. (Session 863) This is part of a value fulfillment quote on the Seth quotes thread. Although in the next one it says "Value fulfillment always implies the search for excellence—not perfection, but excellence", I will add here something from Gurdjieff which seems related to me (it mentions perfection). I don't wish to equate the two materials but I wish to bring things on development of values together. Gurdjieff talks about 'being strivings' and one is this: "To have a constant and unflagging instinctive need for self-perfection in the sense of being." When I first read it I looked at whether I felt such a need. Thought on whether it is a natural need or it is something that must be cultivated (maybe for humans both are valid). I think most of the time natural impulses are drown during education, so one may need to dwell on this some... And then here what Seth calls 'conscious mind' must come into play imo. Actually it (conscious mind) is still the most interesting concept in this material for me. Because frequently we are either mechanical (sort of, unconscious) or we talk as "this is beyond us, it can't be talked about" about spiritual subjects, whereas a bit of conscious looking is needed sometimes for clearing the way (for natural impulses) and sometimes for combining things on different scales. What I mean by scales may be the 'personal need' for values and the general importance of them for humanity. And another thing a bit related is, Gurdjieff talks about centers in man: thinking, feeling, moving/instinctive centers. In a book of his he says "... with a desire issuing from all the three separate spiritualized parts [ie these centers] and with the conscious striving to transform yourself into a..." This makes me think on what difference man can make in creation in terms of quality - the difference may be related to this first separate and then united state of the centers... And this again necessitates the use of conscious mind in order to see how things change. Can one talk on quality of feeling, of thought, of movement? Then talk on what their combination will bring? These may all be a huge TMT! But I will return to them. (Thanks for the value fulfillment quotes!) Nice post, these are good things to ponder. First, instinctive. When you see the word instinctive think that which you were born with. You were born with the instinctive center functioning, there is nothing you had to learn, the heart beats, the blood flows and carries needed substances to every cell of the body, the same with all instinctive functions. So likewise instinctive here means you were born with this need. But it could be buried. But in considering types of men the instinctive center and moving center are spoken of together, but of course you know they are separate centers. Concerning how the four centers are related you can think of each center as one side of a pyramid, instinctive, moving, emotional, intellectual. Where are all four centers connected? At the top of the pyramid, the capstone. Consciousness is the capstone, or, to be more clear, consciousness of one's self, or more succinctly, self-consciousness, or self-remembering (so self-consciousness for Gurdjieff means consciousness of the whole). In our ordinary consciousness much of the time we function mainly through one center. In a "higher" state, two centers. But "capstone" consciousness is more of a result than something we can ~do~. But we can try. And one thing more, you know each center is divided into parts. The highest part of each center works with voluntary attention. (dot, dot, dot) |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 14, 2017 22:22:58 GMT -5
This is part of a value fulfillment quote on the Seth quotes thread. Although in the next one it says "Value fulfillment always implies the search for excellence—not perfection, but excellence", I will add here something from Gurdjieff which seems related to me (it mentions perfection). snip Nice post, these are good things to ponder. First, instinctive. When you see the word instinctive think that which you were born with. You were born with the instinctive center functioning, there is nothing you had to learn, the heart beats, the blood flows and carries needed substances to every cell of the body, the same with all instinctive functions. So likewise instinctive here means you were born with this need. But it could be buried. But in considering types of men the instinctive center and moving center are spoken of together, but of course you know they are separate centers. Concerning how the four centers are related you can think of each center as one side of a pyramid, instinctive, moving, emotional, intellectual. Where are all four centers connected? At the top of the pyramid, the capstone. Consciousness is the capstone, or, to be more clear, consciousness of one's self, or more succinctly, self-consciousness, or self-remembering ( so self-consciousness for Gurdjieff means consciousness of the whole). In our ordinary consciousness much of the time we function mainly through one center. In a "higher" state, two centers. But "capstone" consciousness is more of a result than something we can ~do~. But we can try. And one thing more, you know each center is divided into parts. The highest part of each center works with voluntary attention. (dot, dot, dot) For the bolded: Only then can one 'see' I think! .. There are some other subjects which are both in Seth and Gurdjieff. One is about how we hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously and are not aware of this situation. Gurdjieff talks about 'buffers' and Seth talks about 'bridge beliefs'. (Also there is the subject of natural guilt and artificial guilt in Seth which is related to conscience). I think this contradictory beliefs issue is very important. I will add later. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 15, 2017 10:40:08 GMT -5
Nice post, these are good things to ponder. First, instinctive. When you see the word instinctive think that which you were born with. You were born with the instinctive center functioning, there is nothing you had to learn, the heart beats, the blood flows and carries needed substances to every cell of the body, the same with all instinctive functions. So likewise instinctive here means you were born with this need. But it could be buried. But in considering types of men the instinctive center and moving center are spoken of together, but of course you know they are separate centers. Concerning how the four centers are related you can think of each center as one side of a pyramid, instinctive, moving, emotional, intellectual. Where are all four centers connected? At the top of the pyramid, the capstone. Consciousness is the capstone, or, to be more clear, consciousness of one's self, or more succinctly, self-consciousness, or self-remembering ( so self-consciousness for Gurdjieff means consciousness of the whole). In our ordinary consciousness much of the time we function mainly through one center. In a "higher" state, two centers. But "capstone" consciousness is more of a result than something we can ~do~. But we can try. And one thing more, you know each center is divided into parts. The highest part of each center works with voluntary attention. (dot, dot, dot) For the bolded: Only then can one 'see' I think! .. There are some other subjects which are both in Seth and Gurdjieff. One is about how we hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously and are not aware of this situation. Gurdjieff talks about 'buffers' and Seth talks about 'bridge beliefs'. (Also there is the subject of natural guilt and artificial guilt in Seth which is related to conscience). I think this contradictory beliefs issue is very important. I will add later. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2017 15:34:55 GMT -5
I chanced across a reference to Seth speaking about Gurdjieff. Four pages of the book Conversations With Seth, Vol. 2, the book (I guess published by) SM Watkins.
|
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 17, 2017 5:23:11 GMT -5
I chanced across a reference to Seth speaking about Gurdjieff. Four pages of the book Conversations With Seth, Vol. 2, the book (I guess published by) SM Watkins. Thanks for telling! I searched a bit, it says the related pages are 105-109, and I could see only a few sentences from each page. I don't know whether he talks much 'about' Gurdjieff there or not.. the parts I saw were general comments on G's teaching style. Will look more later. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2017 6:33:53 GMT -5
It is very important then that you understand the true innocence of all feelings, for each of them, if left alone and followed, will lead you back to the reality of love. - Seth(** likes the same post twice **) |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Oct 6, 2017 20:48:08 GMT -5
For the bolded: Only then can one 'see' I think! .. There are some other subjects which are both in Seth and Gurdjieff. One is about how we hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously and are not aware of this situation. Gurdjieff talks about 'buffers' and Seth talks about 'bridge beliefs'. (Also there is the subject of natural guilt and artificial guilt in Seth which is related to conscience). I think this contradictory beliefs issue is very important. I will add later. Yes. Below is a part on bridge beliefs from Seth (session 645). I thought a little about myself, what might be a bridge belief in me? I am not sure, maybe I can say I have a not much recognized belief that I am a 'thinker', I approach things through that belief. But how does this "contain great motion and energy" as mentioned in the quote? Maybe I didn't understand the concept at all. But it's an interesting subject anyway. Also I will look for 'buffers' from Gurdjieff later but as far as I remember it was mentioned quite shortly in In Search. If you have some idea on buffers, please tell here. "As you examine the contents of your conscious mind, it may seem to you that you hold so many different beliefs at different times that you cannot correlate them. They will, however, form into clear patterns. You will find a grouping of core beliefs about which the others gather. If you think of these as planets, then your other ideas orbit about them. There may be some 'invisible beliefs', and there may be one or two invisible core beliefs. These, following the analogy, would be hidden behind the other brighter, more obvious 'planets', and yet would show their presence through their effects upon your relationships with all of the other visible core beliefs in your 'planetary system'. Questions you cannot seem to answer as you study your own ideas, for example, may lead you to suspect the existence of such invisible core beliefs. Let me emphasize that they are consciously available. You can find them through the approaches mentioned earlier, working from your feelings or by beginning with the beliefs that become most readily available. This subject leads to what I will call bridge beliefs. .. As you examine your ideas you will discover that even some apparently contradictory ones have similarities, and these resemblances may be used to bridge the gaps between beliefs — even those that seem to be the most diverse. Because you are the individual who holds the beliefs you will stamp them, so to speak, with certain characteristics that you will recognize. These aspects will themselves emerge as bridge beliefs. They contain great motion and energy. When you discover what they are, you will find a point of unity within yourself from which you can with some detachment, view your other systems of belief. The emotions connected with these bridge beliefs may indeed surprise you, but standing upon such unifying structures you are also free to let the emotional flow sweep past, feeling it, but aware for the first time, perhaps, of the origin of those feelings in your beliefs, and no longer afraid of being swept away by them. It is impossible to tell you of the emotional reality of such an experience. You will have to discover it for yourself. Such bridge beliefs often allow you to perceive the 'invisible' beliefs mentioned this evening, and these can then appear to you as a revelation. On second thought, however, you will realize that another belief blocked that one from your view, but that you were always aware of it; and that in a strange way it was also invisible because you took it for granted. You did not consider it a belief about reality but as reality itself, and never questioned it." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2017 21:35:42 GMT -5
It may be that a buffer is kind of like a quark, nobody has ever seen a quark, and by definition and their very nature, an individual quark cannot be seen. However, we have indirect evidence that quarks exist.
Most people have some contradictory views. Sometimes others see our contradictions easier than we do. If we see our contradictory views, sometimes we call them paradoxes. Gurdjieff said we are taxicabs, one "I" jumps in and goes on a shopping spree, via plastic. Another "I" has to pay the cc bill when it comes in the mail. To say they are one and the same "I", is imaginary I. Buffers are what allow this, a wall of separation. To become conscious concerning this is to be lifted above the wall of separation, and see both sides at once. (This inevitably causes suffering). What happens next is significant. (Does imaginary I "double down", or can we bear the suffering?)
|
|
|
|
Post by zin on Oct 11, 2017 19:55:43 GMT -5
It may be that a buffer is kind of like a quark, nobody has ever seen a quark, and by definition and their very nature, an individual quark cannot be seen. However, we have indirect evidence that quarks exist. Most people have some contradictory views. Sometimes others see our contradictions easier than we do. If we see our contradictory views, sometimes we call them paradoxes. Gurdjieff said we are taxicabs, one "I" jumps in and goes on a shopping spree, via plastic. Another "I" has to pay the cc bill when it comes in the mail. To say they are one and the same "I", is imaginary I. Buffers are what allow this, a wall of separation. To become conscious concerning this is to be lifted above the wall of separation, and see both sides at once. (This inevitably causes suffering). What happens next is significant. (Does imaginary I "double down", or can we bear the suffering?) Ok, I will put a few things from In Search of the Miraculous (Gurdjieff's words written by Ouspensky): " 'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers, the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.
Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different 'I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. ...
'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many buffers are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of buffers. Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar buffers in himself. ... Buffers will lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. ...
In order to understand the interrelation of truth to falsehood in life a man must understand falsehood in himself, the constant incessant lies he tells to himself. These lies are created by buffers. In order to destroy the lies in oneself as well as lies told unconsciously to others, buffers must be destroyed. But then a man cannot live without buffers. Buffers automatically control a man's actions, words, thoughts, and feelings. If buffers were destroyed all control would disappear. A man cannot exist without control even though it is only automatic control. Only a man who possesses will, that is, conscious control, can live without buffers." I am interested in the last part mostly: "If buffers were destroyed all control would disappear." How much of the control a person has is automatic, and does it change if the person has lived some spiritual realizations? I think much of it is automatic.. And if buffers were destroyed at least the automatic siding with people of one's own nation, religion, social group etc would not happen easily. I mean it has social results, too. Regarding Seth's bridge beliefs, I think they are different from buffers. They may be assumptions about oneself but they need not be selfish thoughts.. whereas buffers look like serving selfishness. (I am mostly just thinking here : )) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 12, 2017 8:01:18 GMT -5
It may be that a buffer is kind of like a quark, nobody has ever seen a quark, and by definition and their very nature, an individual quark cannot be seen. However, we have indirect evidence that quarks exist. Most people have some contradictory views. Sometimes others see our contradictions easier than we do. If we see our contradictory views, sometimes we call them paradoxes. Gurdjieff said we are taxicabs, one "I" jumps in and goes on a shopping spree, via plastic. Another "I" has to pay the cc bill when it comes in the mail. To say they are one and the same "I", is imaginary I. Buffers are what allow this, a wall of separation. To become conscious concerning this is to be lifted above the wall of separation, and see both sides at once. (This inevitably causes suffering). What happens next is significant. (Does imaginary I "double down", or can we bear the suffering?) Ok, I will put a few things from In Search of the Miraculous (Gurdjieff's words written by Ouspensky): " 'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers, the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.
Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different 'I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. ...
'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many buffers are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of buffers. Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar buffers in himself. ... Buffers will lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. ...
In order to understand the interrelation of truth to falsehood in life a man must understand falsehood in himself, the constant incessant lies he tells to himself. These lies are created by buffers. In order to destroy the lies in oneself as well as lies told unconsciously to others, buffers must be destroyed. But then a man cannot live without buffers. Buffers automatically control a man's actions, words, thoughts, and feelings. If buffers were destroyed all control would disappear. A man cannot exist without control even though it is only automatic control. Only a man who possesses will, that is, conscious control, can live without buffers." I am interested in the last part mostly: "If buffers were destroyed all control would disappear." How much of the control a person has is automatic, and does it change if the person has lived some spiritual realizations? I think much of it is automatic.. And if buffers were destroyed at least the automatic siding with people of one's own nation, religion, social group etc would not happen easily. I mean it has social results, too. Regarding Seth's bridge beliefs, I think they are different from buffers. They may be assumptions about oneself but they need not be selfish thoughts.. whereas buffers look like serving selfishness. (I am mostly just thinking here : )) I don't have time to really explore this now. Think laughter's double-bind. We live constantly in a double-bind. There is a philosophical/psychological problem/example/question called Buridan's ass (once proposed by Aristotle). A donkey starves to death between two stacks of hay because it can't decide which stack to eat from. We have in us multiple selves (I's) which have contradictory drives and motives. We don't see both together because of buffers, they make walls of separation within us. We have at one time a yes, a day or a week, or maybe even an hour later we have in us a no. It's very uncomfortable to sees both sides simultaneously, the illusion of a single self is exposed. Buffers are what hold the illusion of a single self, and protects the illusion. At the same time they guide the impact of the external world, make us act and react in a certain manner, knee-jerk reactions. As we are, everything is automatic. With buffers in place, at any particular time, when you say yes you couldn't have said no, and when you said no you couldn't have said yes. A person with will (which is not what we think it might be) can see ~both sides of the wall~. I'd say seeing both sides simultaneously is a very special kind of "realization", the significant kind. What "we're" seeking is freedom, freedom from compulsion, freedom to ~do~. It's much easier not to be free, to just go with the flow. But much has to occur between living with buffers and living without buffers, "roast duck doesn't just fly into your mouth". |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 31, 2024 19:20:59 GMT -5
First, I don't deny any claim by any ND-non-person. I will give the Gurdjieff cosmology and anthropology simplified. I will try to do it vertically, but not sure it will post that way. World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________ World #3, the One, as a kind of step-down transformer, becomes three [forces, active/positive, passive/negative, neutralizing-reconciling-balancing; or, the 3 Gunas, Rajas, Tamas, Sattva]. A more-coarse vibration ~~~~~~~~ World #6, by a combining of triads, 3 becomes 6, again, a step-down transformer, a yet more coarse vibration ~~~~~~World #12, again, by combining triads, 6 becomes 12, again, stepping down the energy, yet coarser vibration. ~~~~~~World #24, again, by a combining of triads (of the 3 forces or the 3 Gunas), 12 becomes 24, yet coarser vibration ~~~~~~World #48, same process, 24 becomes 48. This is our manifest world, the periodic table of Elements, ~~~~~~~~~~~World #96, this is a realm below us, the "hungry ghost" world ~~~~~~~~~~Gurdjieff taught this in 1912, eleven years after Planck's 1901 quantum theory. And Planck even thought his quantum theory was a mathematical trick. It took Einstein in his 1905 Photoelectric Effect Paper to demonstrate reality does indeed operate according to quantum principles. Why do I bring this up? Gurdjieff taught in 1912 that reality was structured on the principle of discontinuity, just like quantum mechanics (physics). In a very real sense there is a gap, a void, between each World. Quantum means a discrete packet of energy. So the flow of energy is not continuous, it comes in chunks. (Again, Einstein showed this in his 1905 PEEP). In the famous quantum leap, taking an electron for example, when an electron absorbs a photon, it jumps to a higher orbit, as it has more energy. And, this is the kicker, it does so instantaneously, not traversing either time or space. In the '20s one of the formers of QM said if he had known about all this damn quantum jumping he'd have become a plumber. "If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay, I should be sorry, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory". — Erwin Schrödinger So, Gurdjieff said that the Worlds are discontinuous, IOW, there is a gap between each World. He said each World can be taken as zero to infinity. Did Gurdjieff get his idea of discontinuity from Planck and Einstein? He stayed up on current news, but he said he did not create the teaching, he was merely passing on what he had been taught. So I would say he knew of this discontinuity previous to Planck or Einstein. OK, all that gets me to your answer. I have a predilection to consider that [your] nonduality, is the nonduality of World #48, or possibly World #48 + World #24. Gopal is stuck in the rollercoaster world of duality, World #48. He thinks he sees the Whole, he can't see above his own level of being. So why do I say this? Gurdjieff said the being of human beings does not originate in World #1. So no human being can experience the Origin, World #1. Gurdjieff was a little fuzzy on man's origin, could be World #6, possibly World #3, most likely World #6. You see how it would be impossible to experience the universe above whatever it is your being is ~constructed-from~? So that's what further means. It is possible to experience World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3. That's the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. I've said numerous times, it's possible to take-in more of time and more of space. And all that's why I say I value experience over realization. OK, one more thing. Gurdjieff said we do not have a soul, we only have the embryo of a soul, we are a seed. The embryo comes-from World #6 (or possibly World #3, again, Gurdjieff didn't say specifically). The practices are about growing the embryo, they have absolutely zero to do with the so-called SVP, or the self-avatar (called personality in the teaching, it's the conditioning, I've gone into it extensively). And this is precisely the same as taught in Taoist alchemy, the language is very nearly the same, Taoist alchemy was the 4th way of its time, and it actually still exists today. In Taoist alchemy practice is called cultivation. OK, one more thing. Niz was taught all this by his teacher, Niz made a book from his teacher's teachings, you can get it on Amazon. The soul would be equivalent to the Causal body. The Causal body is not fully formed, life is about ~growing~ the Causal body. So all this is traditional Vedanta. Our Source derives from World #1 (as World #1 is the basis of everything existing, World #48 could not exist without World #1), but our-life is merely loaned to us, ~*"we"*~ are still subject to the law of entropy. OK, I'd better stop there...but most of this is covered in In Search of the Miraculous (PD Ouspensky) We can only experience >what's [out] there< only to the extent our higher bodies are formed (for example the Causal body-soul). CME (coronal mass ejections) have existed for thousands of years, but we didn't know of their existence until we have instruments to measure them. We had auroras for thousands of years, but nobody knew why. I promise I will stop, but there would be nonduality of World #48, nonduality of World #24 [which would include #48]. There would be a nonduality of World #12, which would include #24 and #48. There would be a nonduality of World #6, which would include #12, #24, #48. But the reverse is not true, unless one has formed a finer body composed of the vibratory level of that higher world. Again, this is the principle, you can see above your own level of being. We're all waiting for Gopal to get the encompassing beyond the dual world. Yes, I like the pendulum dealio with its axis mundi flavor a bit more than the roller coaster. So, if what by you mean as 'further/more' is that the pendulum keeps swinging as the life of the mind-body within 'oneness', then you've been understood and agreed with numerous times. At times, you seem to take it a bit further, by seemingly adding or proposing an 'en summum' argument (one's gotta do all these things and understand this/that to get to the 'unmoving point', rather than being content with 'ipsum esse' and saying, "But, I like exploring potentials." Does that make sense? I thought it might help to just put this back into a thread focused on Gurdjieff. First of all, thanks for spelling out the G system. I do not know much about it, but overall, it does seem to follow a general neo-platonic framework, which is not uncommon for most metaphysical systems since that time (and before). I mean, it has the same general structure as the Plotinus model we poked around on, yeah? Christianity an obvious one, too. So, if by 'more/further' you mean to suggest that there's always more to transcend and include, I'm with you, until of course one's realized they're done. That would negate the 'en summum'. The 'ipsum esse' can be apprehended, which is what the G system is attempting to describe and/or map out, it seems. You mention here that G was 'fuzzy' on man's Origin, which would be something of a 'conclusion'. That argument starts to devolve into a worldly-existential context mix, kind of exemplifying where the limitations of mind come onto play. An alpha 'and' omega dealio. I haven't read on Plotinus in a while, but it seems like this is that 'fuzzy' area in that model referred to as Nous (i.e., it seems to align purddy well with the Worlds #6 and #3). In conclusion, I think your general synopsis is, based on the G system, basically that everything talked about here pertaining to ND/SR/TR or whatever is more like an 'experiential insight' (ND of "World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3") along the way and that no 'person/non-person' can actually realize Wholeness or whatever is pointed to? Is that right? FWIW, I do not really think of ND in '-ists' or '-ism' ways, but more as a varied set of pointers which I guess one might say constitutes an '-ality' of sorts with respect to how a convo might need an organizational set of ideas to ward off the chaos. Off the cuff, I'd suggest communicating in such terms attempts to express the ineffable in a way that points to "World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________". That line basically points to someNOTHING, so I'm good with it.  Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2024 20:00:29 GMT -5
First, I don't deny any claim by any ND-non-person. I will give the Gurdjieff cosmology and anthropology simplified. I will try to do it vertically, but not sure it will post that way. World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________ World #3, the One, as a kind of step-down transformer, becomes three [forces, active/positive, passive/negative, neutralizing-reconciling-balancing; or, the 3 Gunas, Rajas, Tamas, Sattva]. A more-coarse vibration ~~~~~~~~ World #6, by a combining of triads, 3 becomes 6, again, a step-down transformer, a yet more coarse vibration ~~~~~~World #12, again, by combining triads, 6 becomes 12, again, stepping down the energy, yet coarser vibration. ~~~~~~World #24, again, by a combining of triads (of the 3 forces or the 3 Gunas), 12 becomes 24, yet coarser vibration ~~~~~~World #48, same process, 24 becomes 48. This is our manifest world, the periodic table of Elements, ~~~~~~~~~~~World #96, this is a realm below us, the "hungry ghost" world ~~~~~~~~~~Gurdjieff taught this in 1912, eleven years after Planck's 1901 quantum theory. And Planck even thought his quantum theory was a mathematical trick. It took Einstein in his 1905 Photoelectric Effect Paper to demonstrate reality does indeed operate according to quantum principles. Why do I bring this up? Gurdjieff taught in 1912 that reality was structured on the principle of discontinuity, just like quantum mechanics (physics). In a very real sense there is a gap, a void, between each World. Quantum means a discrete packet of energy. So the flow of energy is not continuous, it comes in chunks. (Again, Einstein showed this in his 1905 PEEP). In the famous quantum leap, taking an electron for example, when an electron absorbs a photon, it jumps to a higher orbit, as it has more energy. And, this is the kicker, it does so instantaneously, not traversing either time or space. In the '20s one of the formers of QM said if he had known about all this damn quantum jumping he'd have become a plumber. "If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay, I should be sorry, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory". — Erwin Schrödinger So, Gurdjieff said that the Worlds are discontinuous, IOW, there is a gap between each World. He said each World can be taken as zero to infinity. Did Gurdjieff get his idea of discontinuity from Planck and Einstein? He stayed up on current news, but he said he did not create the teaching, he was merely passing on what he had been taught. So I would say he knew of this discontinuity previous to Planck or Einstein. OK, all that gets me to your answer. I have a predilection to consider that [your] nonduality, is the nonduality of World #48, or possibly World #48 + World #24. Gopal is stuck in the rollercoaster world of duality, World #48. He thinks he sees the Whole, he can't see above his own level of being. So why do I say this? Gurdjieff said the being of human beings does not originate in World #1. So no human being can experience the Origin, World #1. Gurdjieff was a little fuzzy on man's origin, could be World #6, possibly World #3, most likely World #6. You see how it would be impossible to experience the universe above whatever it is your being is ~constructed-from~? So that's what further means. It is possible to experience World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3. That's the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. I've said numerous times, it's possible to take-in more of time and more of space. And all that's why I say I value experience over realization. OK, one more thing. Gurdjieff said we do not have a soul, we only have the embryo of a soul, we are a seed. The embryo comes-from World #6 (or possibly World #3, again, Gurdjieff didn't say specifically). The practices are about growing the embryo, they have absolutely zero to do with the so-called SVP, or the self-avatar (called personality in the teaching, it's the conditioning, I've gone into it extensively). And this is precisely the same as taught in Taoist alchemy, the language is very nearly the same, Taoist alchemy was the 4th way of its time, and it actually still exists today. In Taoist alchemy practice is called cultivation. OK, one more thing. Niz was taught all this by his teacher, Niz made a book from his teacher's teachings, you can get it on Amazon. The soul would be equivalent to the Causal body. The Causal body is not fully formed, life is about ~growing~ the Causal body. So all this is traditional Vedanta. Our Source derives from World #1 (as World #1 is the basis of everything existing, World #48 could not exist without World #1), but our-life is merely loaned to us, ~*"we"*~ are still subject to the law of entropy. OK, I'd better stop there...but most of this is covered in In Search of the Miraculous (PD Ouspensky) We can only experience >what's [out] there< only to the extent our higher bodies are formed (for example the Causal body-soul). CME (coronal mass ejections) have existed for thousands of years, but we didn't know of their existence until we have instruments to measure them. We had auroras for thousands of years, but nobody knew why. I promise I will stop, but there would be nonduality of World #48, nonduality of World #24 [which would include #48]. There would be a nonduality of World #12, which would include #24 and #48. There would be a nonduality of World #6, which would include #12, #24, #48. But the reverse is not true, unless one has formed a finer body composed of the vibratory level of that higher world. Again, this is the principle, you can see above your own level of being. We're all waiting for Gopal to get the encompassing beyond the dual world. Yes, I like the pendulum dealio with its axis mundi flavor a bit more than the roller coaster. So, if what by you mean as 'further/more' is that the pendulum keeps swinging as the life of the mind-body within 'oneness', then you've been understood and agreed with numerous times. At times, you seem to take it a bit further, by seemingly adding or proposing an 'en summum' argument (one's gotta do all these things and understand this/that to get to the 'unmoving point', rather than being content with 'ipsum esse' and saying, "But, I like exploring potentials." Does that make sense? I thought it might help to just put this back into a thread focused on Gurdjieff. First of all, thanks for spelling out the G system. I do not know much about it, but overall, it does seem to follow a general neo-platonic framework, which is not uncommon for most metaphysical systems since that time (and before). I mean, it has the same general structure as the Plotinus model we poked around on, yeah? Christianity an obvious one, too. So, if by 'more/further' you mean to suggest that there's always more to transcend and include, I'm with you, until of course one's realized they're done. That would negate the 'en summum'. The 'ipsum esse' can be apprehended, which is what the G system is attempting to describe and/or map out, it seems. You mention here that G was 'fuzzy' on man's Origin, which would be something of a 'conclusion'. That argument starts to devolve into a worldly-existential context mix, kind of exemplifying where the limitations of mind come onto play. An alpha 'and' omega dealio. I haven't read on Plotinus in a while, but it seems like this is that 'fuzzy' area in that model referred to as Nous (i.e., it seems to align purddy well with the Worlds #6 and #3). In conclusion, I think your general synopsis is, based on the G system, basically that everything talked about here pertaining to ND/SR/TR or whatever is more like an 'experiential insight' (ND of "World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3") along the way and that no 'person/non-person' can actually realize Wholeness or whatever is pointed to? Is that right? FWIW, I do not really think of ND in '-ists' or '-ism' ways, but more as a varied set of pointers which I guess one might say constitutes an '-ality' of sorts with respect to how a convo might need an organizational set of ideas to ward off the chaos. Off the cuff, I'd suggest communicating in such terms attempts to express the ineffable in a way that points to "World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________". That line basically points to someNOTHING, so I'm good with it. Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another. Read, just now, once. Yes, Gurdjieff's paradigm is very Plotinus-like. He also called his teaching Esoteric Christianity. One other think I've just briefly mentioned. We have a higher emotional center and a higher intellectual center. This completes seven centers in a human being. So Nous would be equated to these higher centers. The functioning of the higher emotional center would be equated to conscience, already mentioned, feeling everything, all at once, one can feel. And the higher intellectual center, contacting it, would be knowing all at once, everything knowable about oneself. The higher centers are always functioning, the ordinary human being is not aware of them. Man's being goes way deeper than Nous. Gurdjieff was ambiguous about man's origin, World 6 or World 3. This doesn't mean he didn't know. Other than that, I'll have to consider how to say, no. ........I'll ask this, can a human being know infinity? Edit: Gurdjieff-practice-results are experiential, not realizational, if that helps, if that makes sense. (I've said numerous times, I don't ~speak~ realization). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 10:23:42 GMT -5
First, I don't deny any claim by any ND-non-person. I will give the Gurdjieff cosmology and anthropology simplified. I will try to do it vertically, but not sure it will post that way. World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________ World #3, the One, as a kind of step-down transformer, becomes three [forces, active/positive, passive/negative, neutralizing-reconciling-balancing; or, the 3 Gunas, Rajas, Tamas, Sattva]. A more-coarse vibration ~~~~~~~~ World #6, by a combining of triads, 3 becomes 6, again, a step-down transformer, a yet more coarse vibration ~~~~~~World #12, again, by combining triads, 6 becomes 12, again, stepping down the energy, yet coarser vibration. ~~~~~~World #24, again, by a combining of triads (of the 3 forces or the 3 Gunas), 12 becomes 24, yet coarser vibration ~~~~~~World #48, same process, 24 becomes 48. This is our manifest world, the periodic table of Elements, ~~~~~~~~~~~World #96, this is a realm below us, the "hungry ghost" world ~~~~~~~~~~Gurdjieff taught this in 1912, eleven years after Planck's 1901 quantum theory. And Planck even thought his quantum theory was a mathematical trick. It took Einstein in his 1905 Photoelectric Effect Paper to demonstrate reality does indeed operate according to quantum principles. Why do I bring this up? Gurdjieff taught in 1912 that reality was structured on the principle of discontinuity, just like quantum mechanics (physics). In a very real sense there is a gap, a void, between each World. Quantum means a discrete packet of energy. So the flow of energy is not continuous, it comes in chunks. (Again, Einstein showed this in his 1905 PEEP). In the famous quantum leap, taking an electron for example, when an electron absorbs a photon, it jumps to a higher orbit, as it has more energy. And, this is the kicker, it does so instantaneously, not traversing either time or space. In the '20s one of the formers of QM said if he had known about all this damn quantum jumping he'd have become a plumber. "If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay, I should be sorry, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory". — Erwin Schrödinger So, Gurdjieff said that the Worlds are discontinuous, IOW, there is a gap between each World. He said each World can be taken as zero to infinity. Did Gurdjieff get his idea of discontinuity from Planck and Einstein? He stayed up on current news, but he said he did not create the teaching, he was merely passing on what he had been taught. So I would say he knew of this discontinuity previous to Planck or Einstein. OK, all that gets me to your answer. I have a predilection to consider that [your] nonduality, is the nonduality of World #48, or possibly World #48 + World #24. Gopal is stuck in the rollercoaster world of duality, World #48. He thinks he sees the Whole, he can't see above his own level of being. So why do I say this? Gurdjieff said the being of human beings does not originate in World #1. So no human being can experience the Origin, World #1. Gurdjieff was a little fuzzy on man's origin, could be World #6, possibly World #3, most likely World #6. You see how it would be impossible to experience the universe above whatever it is your being is ~constructed-from~? So that's what further means. It is possible to experience World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3. That's the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. I've said numerous times, it's possible to take-in more of time and more of space. And all that's why I say I value experience over realization. OK, one more thing. Gurdjieff said we do not have a soul, we only have the embryo of a soul, we are a seed. The embryo comes-from World #6 (or possibly World #3, again, Gurdjieff didn't say specifically). The practices are about growing the embryo, they have absolutely zero to do with the so-called SVP, or the self-avatar (called personality in the teaching, it's the conditioning, I've gone into it extensively). And this is precisely the same as taught in Taoist alchemy, the language is very nearly the same, Taoist alchemy was the 4th way of its time, and it actually still exists today. In Taoist alchemy practice is called cultivation. OK, one more thing. Niz was taught all this by his teacher, Niz made a book from his teacher's teachings, you can get it on Amazon. The soul would be equivalent to the Causal body. The Causal body is not fully formed, life is about ~growing~ the Causal body. So all this is traditional Vedanta. Our Source derives from World #1 (as World #1 is the basis of everything existing, World #48 could not exist without World #1), but our-life is merely loaned to us, ~*"we"*~ are still subject to the law of entropy. OK, I'd better stop there...but most of this is covered in In Search of the Miraculous (PD Ouspensky) We can only experience >what's [out] there< only to the extent our higher bodies are formed (for example the Causal body-soul). CME (coronal mass ejections) have existed for thousands of years, but we didn't know of their existence until we have instruments to measure them. We had auroras for thousands of years, but nobody knew why. I promise I will stop, but there would be nonduality of World #48, nonduality of World #24 [which would include #48]. There would be a nonduality of World #12, which would include #24 and #48. There would be a nonduality of World #6, which would include #12, #24, #48. But the reverse is not true, unless one has formed a finer body composed of the vibratory level of that higher world. Again, this is the principle, you can see above your own level of being. We're all waiting for Gopal to get the encompassing beyond the dual world. Yes, I like the pendulum dealio with its axis mundi flavor a bit more than the roller coaster. So, if what by you mean as 'further/more' is that the pendulum keeps swinging as the life of the mind-body within 'oneness', then you've been understood and agreed with numerous times. At times, you seem to take it a bit further, by seemingly adding or proposing an 'en summum' argument (one's gotta do all these things and understand this/that to get to the 'unmoving point', rather than being content with 'ipsum esse' and saying, "But, I like exploring potentials." Does that make sense? I thought it might help to just put this back into a thread focused on Gurdjieff. First of all, thanks for spelling out the G system. I do not know much about it, but overall, it does seem to follow a general neo-platonic framework, which is not uncommon for most metaphysical systems since that time (and before). I mean, it has the same general structure as the Plotinus model we poked around on, yeah? Christianity an obvious one, too. So, if by 'more/further' you mean to suggest that there's always more to transcend and include, I'm with you, until of course one's realized they're done. That would negate the 'en summum'. The 'ipsum esse' can be apprehended, which is what the G system is attempting to describe and/or map out, it seems. You mention here that G was 'fuzzy' on man's Origin, which would be something of a 'conclusion'. That argument starts to devolve into a worldly-existential context mix, kind of exemplifying where the limitations of mind come onto play. An alpha 'and' omega dealio. I haven't read on Plotinus in a while, but it seems like this is that 'fuzzy' area in that model referred to as Nous (i.e., it seems to align purddy well with the Worlds #6 and #3). In conclusion, I think your general synopsis is, based on the G system, basically that everything talked about here pertaining to ND/SR/TR or whatever is more like an 'experiential insight' (ND of "World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3") along the way and that no 'person/non-person' can actually realize Wholeness or whatever is pointed to? Is that right? FWIW, I do not really think of ND in '-ists' or '-ism' ways, but more as a varied set of pointers which I guess one might say constitutes an '-ality' of sorts with respect to how a convo might need an organizational set of ideas to ward off the chaos. Off the cuff, I'd suggest communicating in such terms attempts to express the ineffable in a way that points to "World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________". That line basically points to someNOTHING, so I'm good with it. Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another. I thought of maybe an analogy, for what Gurdjieff taught (the no, don't agree). Take the Sun to be Source (in the same way you mean it). You and I live on earth. The Sun radiates photons. Photons ARE the Sun. They arrive here, the Sun arrives HERE. We could not live without photons, this is true, just as we cannot live without Source. But we are not the Sun. See? Now, what's unique (in a today-modern sense, not unique over history) about Gurdjieff's teaching, he said we can collect these photons, this is the purpose of interior practice. And, by doing so we can eventually become a Sun also. But we are not-that-now, it is only a possibility. See the difference? ...If one is-a-Sun, it's experiential, not realizational. This is a most excellent analogy. Please don't turn it into ~nonduality~. |
|
Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another.