|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 8:04:55 GMT -5
Perhaps you could dare to share what's not clear to you. Is it still the heavily conditioned, scholarly nonsense on the Biblical stories you've studied to the Nth degree that has you so IRRITATED and confused?!   Whether the Bible is correct or incorrect is a separate matter entirely. The issue at hand, however, is that you have not fully grasped the messages that these stories are trying to convey. But the Jews saw there are 4 levels of meaning in the Tanakh, PaRDeS. www.gatewaytofreedom.org/teachings/writings/item/31-pardes-four-levels-of-hebraic-study/understanding.html Origen also saw there are 4 levels of meaning in scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 8:18:32 GMT -5
Perhaps you could dare to share what's not clear to you. Is it still the heavily conditioned, scholarly nonsense on the Biblical stories you've studied to the Nth degree that has you so IRRITATED and confused?! Whether the Bible is correct or incorrect is a separate matter entirely. The issue at hand, however, is that you have not fully grasped the messages that these stories are trying to convey. Correct or incorrect? Oh dear.  If you want to say I don't know what the bible is talking about, that's fine. It has been said that the beginning of wisdom is knowing what you do not know. That would take contemplation. But, you're right, I'm not a biblical scholar. The weakness in your argument is that no one has to be. Maybe I have missed some of your interpretations, so if I have, you can point me to them. The only one's I remember are you saying that you know what the Jesus character thought, what his ambitions were, what his innermost realization was, etc, which I find preposterous.  I read some of the stories, hear various interpretations, can identify with some of the situations quite easily, and can contemplate and inquire into them like anyone else willing to take the time. I take into consideration the potentials of the storied context, the people peeps in it, the intentions, the meaning/pointing via allegory/parable/metaphor/etc, and I share some potential perspectives. Have I shared all of them or gone into them in supreme depth? No. If you want to avoid the dare of sharing what you think is misunderstood, that's fine, too. Have it your way, Gopal. I still loves ya!  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 8:30:12 GMT -5
Yes, this is more like my style of inquiry. "The word "history" does indeed have its roots in the Greek language. The Greek word for "history" is "ἱστορία" (historía), which means "inquiry" or "knowledge acquired by investigation."" There is the conceptual basis of knowledge (like scholarship, which is limited to aligned or provable facts), and then there is the aspect of knowledge which requires 'acquaintence with/experience of' (i.e., of having been there...). Interpretation can vary greatly, and can be fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 8:46:41 GMT -5
Christianity could have seamlessly integrated with Judaism if the identity of Jesus had been accurately recognized. However, a divergent interpretation emerged, which was met with resistance from the Jewish community. The Jewish faith acknowledges a single deity, Yahweh. The Jewish people are awaiting the arrival of a human messiah. Christians, on the other hand, deified Jesus and attributed his birth to virgin birth. These concepts, however, clashed with the monotheistic principles of Judaism. As a result, the notion of Jesus being the awaited messiah was dismissed by them. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 8:49:15 GMT -5
Whether the Bible is correct or incorrect is a separate matter entirely. The issue at hand, however, is that you have not fully grasped the messages that these stories are trying to convey. Correct or incorrect? Oh dear. If you want to say I don't know what the bible is talking about, that's fine. It has been said that the beginning of wisdom is knowing what you do not know. That would take contemplation. But, you're right, I'm not a biblical scholar. The weakness in your argument is that no one has to be. Maybe I have missed some of your interpretations, so if I have, you can point me to them. The only one's I remember are you saying that you know what the Jesus character thought, what his ambitions were, what his innermost realization was, etc, which I find preposterous. I read some of the stories, hear various interpretations, can identify with some of the situations quite easily, and can contemplate and inquire into them like anyone else willing to take the time. I take into consideration the potentials of the storied context, the people peeps in it, the intentions, the meaning/pointing via allegory/parable/metaphor/etc, and I share some potential perspectives. Have I shared all of them or gone into them in supreme depth? No. If you want to avoid the dare of sharing what you think is misunderstood, that's fine, too. Have it your way, Gopal. I still loves ya! Alright, could you share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity? I’m not asking for a judgment on its correctness, but rather your interpretation of its principles. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 9:21:04 GMT -5
Listened to the AW video in full. It's very good, I'd say the best AW talk I've ever heard. He's going back to his roots. I think I recall he deliberately chose to be an Episcopal priest as it was the easiest avenue to 'earn a living' while being near to his pursuit. But it gets us to the crux of my whole point and dilemma. I agree with his description of the anthropology of man, have for over 40 years. But he kind of papers over a distinction he makes, an accurate distinction. I've written about here before we are Spirit, soul and body, he describes this accurately, from the Hebrew. But here is where I disagree with the ND view. Between actual ~the person~, the true individuation (not the persona, the 'so-called SVP', which I agree is a fiction, it's the false self), between the soul and the Spirit, there is an unbridgeable gap. The actual ~person~ cannot exist without the Spirit, which is Source. On ~our~ side of the gap, we are, on the ~other side~, there is no person. This is the distinction I've tried to express by pan entheism versus pantheism, AW is a pantheist. So there is no identity, with Source. Does that make sense? You don't have to agree, you probably won't agree. ........I should really stop there...... But, IOW, I think AW is just wrong here, he ~carries~ Identification across the gap, he identifies the person with Source (as does ND), which is the whole (incorrect) point. In pan entheism the unity is one way, the Whole knows the Whole, the part does not know the Whole. But this is why I asked, how do you (plural) know what you know (realize), is the Whole? OK, my path. What Gurdjieff taught is unlike anything else you will find anywhere, today (you find hints of it in the past). But he said and wrote and taught that the actual-person (not the so-called SVP, which he referred to as personality) has an inborn capacity to experience more of reality, time and space. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. OK, I will stop there, as I've been through all of it before. ... Generally, I trust experience over realization. I don't know if all that helps. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Added aside note. If Gopal has the time, I'd like for him to listen to the video, I'd like to know what he thinks of it. Considering you are a self-proclaimed Aspy, I think I understand why you like and respect Gurdjieff as much as you do. Interestingly, I have actually traveled a lot of the places he supposedly went to in search of such knowledge, and admittedly, I was on a similar quest, though we probably approached it quite differently. I do not know enough about his expansive set of ideas, but I am curious. You've mentioned that, "First, you have to row a little boat"." Does Gurdge teach that you have to connect a lot of specific dots (i.e., little lives/selves) before you can 'attaimn' Big Self? Or, does he make any allusions to the fact that the boat (maybe this is 'self') has to sink and fall beneath the surface of the ocean to die, before some new bettererer 'level can be attained'? And you say it all alludes to the 'treasure'. I was always in awe of how much 'factual knowledge' that my dad could organize and structure within the his mind, and do some pretty cool stuff. At the same time, as a child of such an Aspy, and with the benefit of hindsight, I am also quite aware of the tipping points when the structure gave way and the subsequent shit storm that arose. As a child, those times were emotionally difficult for me. As a teeen, I rebelled. As an adult, I stood my ground, but in more and more loving ways. Only much later did I make the connections with respect to Aspies, and we met eye-to-eye and enjoyed many rich times together before his passing.It would have been interesting to know as a child what I do now about such events, but it is what it is. The reason I ask is I think that, if Gurdjieff's system was actually meant to help others seek/achieve liberation, then I think the 'treasure' you speak of is synonymous with true ND. As a structure, his system is all well and good, but if he truly understood Beelzebub, he'd know that even it could (i.e., would, should) at some point fail, and that it would be truly auspicious. Hail Satan! (in the original sense) The intellect plays a small part in the Gurdjieff teaching. All men (and women) are born as one of 3, either the intellect predominates, or the emotions, or the body. So a beginning thing to work at is to use your two weaker centers, so as to become a balanced man (or woman). There is a book, nothing to do with the teaching, First You Have To Row A Little Boat, I forget the author, I think it starts with a B, but I robbed that from him, as everybody starts from the beginning. But the center of the teaching is saving energy and transforming energy. The body 'synthesizes' enough energy each day, for the next day. Each center operates by a different quality of energy, and should use its own energy, but the centers can steal energy from each other. So, from day one, we were taught and it was emphasized every meeting, this saving of energy. There are accumulators within the organism (and in the more subtle aspects of our being), where excess energy is stored. We waste energy through unnecessary thinking, negative emotions and through unnecessary tension in the muscles. Energy is saved by working with attention and awareness. self-observation saves energy, self-remembering transforms energy to a finer quality. The only purpose of thinking, is as a reminder to work with attention and awareness. So, when yor attention is taken and held by some thought, feeling/emotion, body activity, event, other person, thing, you lose energy, you waste energy. But if you control attention, you save energy, and this energy goes into the accumulators (to be used as necessary). So if I ever write about practicing, this is what it's all about, saving energy. We take energy into the organism by (ordinary) food, air, and (sensory) impressions. Nature provides for the digestion of food and oxygen. But the digestion of impressions does not occur automatically. As well as ordinary food, air is called food, and impressions are called food. Nobody could ever come to, on their own, how to digest impressions. A person has to be taught how to digest impressions, this is called the first conscious shock. Nature provides mechanical shocks to digest food and oxygen. This is why transforming impressions is called the first conscious shock, as it has to be done consciously, deliberately, it doesn't just happen. The first conscious shock is another name for the practice self-remembering. So rowing a little boat is about learning to save energy. Some people do process impressions somewhat. And if one works with attention enough, impressions are transformed somewhat. This energy is perceptible. Some names for this energy, chi, Qi, Ki, prana. In the teaching it's called mi12, as different energy has different names, and this is the point of the process, mi12. (The enneagram shows how the energy is processed). [laughter has written about this, so this shows he actually practices]. Gurdjieff made a distinction between the functions*, thinking, feeling/emotions, muscle-body-learned-actions, sensations (and the 5th, sexual function) and consciousness. So when we ordinarily about being conscious, as here on STs, that means the second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state (it's so-called, as Gurdjieff said it is actually a state of sleep, we aren't really awake in the 2nd state). The first state is ordinary sleep. For 99.99% of people, all they know of are these first to states of consciousness. But, basically, to ordinarily talk about being conscious, that's not using the word the way Gurdjieff used it, ordinarily-being-conscious is just operating through the functions*. But, if through the practices (in the beginning, self-remembering, self-observation, conscious breathing, division of attention, and non-identification), one saves enough energy and transforms enough energy, so as to accumulate a certain quantity of a certain quality of energy, then the 3rd state of consciousness shows up. The 3rd state is called self-remembering, the practice brings the state. But for a long time, even if one knows how, we save energy, we lose energy, save, lose. So, rowing a little boat is this process of learning and working to save energy. The interior practices are not done with the intellect, do not involve thinking whatsoever. But it's all about actual experience, experience you can "sink your teeth into". So I'm not interested in realization "that isn't an experience". But yes, the treasure is...ND shows up, but it isn't just a realization. But I've never seen a hint of that written about, here. But, still, as from day one, I don't write about how-to-do practices, I don't write about experiences. I write from theory and experience, but never draw a line as to what's what. So I was lucky, I found the teaching simultaneously with finding my teacher. So I've never dealt with-theory-only, with only the information in books. From the second meeting, the first being just a lecture, and that not by my to-be teacher, I was given things to practice, nuts and bolts practice. But you see, your last two sentences, you always think in terms of putting everything into your (plural) ND paradigm. To be able to dialogue with sdp, you have to get outside your ND paradigm. I know that's probably not possible, as you already consider it the Whole. Sorry for the length, but a good question deserves a complete answer. But for sdp, the whole point of any realization or experience, is as an enticement, to bring it back, to live in it, not put it like a trophy on the mantle, or a remembrance, or a once-knowing. IOW, the Gurdjieff teaching is all about energy. So, and, to, what's meant by awakening, here, STs and generally ND, is not the same as what Gurdjieff meant by being awake (he meant the 3rd state of consciousness. But, too, there is a continuum, one can be more-awake or less-awake, or completely asleep, or in the 3rd state, completely awake. So, for Gurdjieff, awakening doesn't mean once and done. Done, is way down the road). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 9:29:00 GMT -5
Christianity could have seamlessly integrated with Judaism if the identity of Jesus had been accurately recognized. However, a divergent interpretation emerged, which was met with resistance from the Jewish community. The Jewish faith acknowledges a single deity, Yahweh. The Jewish people are awaiting the arrival of a human messiah.Christians, on the other hand, deified Jesus and attributed his birth to virgin birth. These concepts, however, clashed with the monotheistic principles of Judaism. As a result, the notion of Jesus being the awaited messiah was dismissed by them. Yea, but prophecy shows it could have happened only the way it did happen. I guess you know, Paul says the Jews will eventually be grafted back in. That is, somehow Jews and Christians will come to some agreement, in the end. Yes, still, for the Jews, the Messiah is (will be) just a man, not Deity. Yes, the Trinity, is a complicated, complication. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 9:39:34 GMT -5
Correct or incorrect? Oh dear. If you want to say I don't know what the bible is talking about, that's fine. It has been said that the beginning of wisdom is knowing what you do not know. That would take contemplation. But, you're right, I'm not a biblical scholar. The weakness in your argument is that no one has to be. Maybe I have missed some of your interpretations, so if I have, you can point me to them. The only one's I remember are you saying that you know what the Jesus character thought, what his ambitions were, what his innermost realization was, etc, which I find preposterous. I read some of the stories, hear various interpretations, can identify with some of the situations quite easily, and can contemplate and inquire into them like anyone else willing to take the time. I take into consideration the potentials of the storied context, the people peeps in it, the intentions, the meaning/pointing via allegory/parable/metaphor/etc, and I share some potential perspectives. Have I shared all of them or gone into them in supreme depth? No. If you want to avoid the dare of sharing what you think is misunderstood, that's fine, too. Have it your way, Gopal. I still loves ya! Alright, could you share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity? I’m not asking for a judgment on its correctness, but rather your interpretation of its principles. Gopal, the Christianity of Jesus is not taught anywhere on earth. Jesus taught that his followers could do all the things he did. He taught that all his followers could be like him, but they could not supersede him. In talking about Christianity, it's my view you have to take what Jesus taught, as the baseline, the minimum. The Eastern Orthodox Church comes the closest to that. Christianity, as we know it, has strayed very far from what Jesus taught. Somewhere, NT, it says: Jesus is our example that we should follow in his steps. IOW, Jesus didn't do it all, for us, he showed us how. So the church of today, is just a shadow of what it was meant to be. So what you were asking for, is a fundamentalist view of Christianity. That's only one view. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 10:24:56 GMT -5
Correct or incorrect? Oh dear. If you want to say I don't know what the bible is talking about, that's fine. It has been said that the beginning of wisdom is knowing what you do not know. That would take contemplation. But, you're right, I'm not a biblical scholar. The weakness in your argument is that no one has to be. Maybe I have missed some of your interpretations, so if I have, you can point me to them. The only one's I remember are you saying that you know what the Jesus character thought, what his ambitions were, what his innermost realization was, etc, which I find preposterous. I read some of the stories, hear various interpretations, can identify with some of the situations quite easily, and can contemplate and inquire into them like anyone else willing to take the time. I take into consideration the potentials of the storied context, the people peeps in it, the intentions, the meaning/pointing via allegory/parable/metaphor/etc, and I share some potential perspectives. Have I shared all of them or gone into them in supreme depth? No. If you want to avoid the dare of sharing what you think is misunderstood, that's fine, too. Have it your way, Gopal. I still loves ya! Alright, could you share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity? I’m not asking for a judgment on its correctness, but rather your interpretation of its principles. I'll have to circle back around to this as I've already been sharing perspectives, and I guess you still are not going to express your perspectives on any I've given except you think it's nonsense. That's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 10:48:48 GMT -5
Christianity could have seamlessly integrated with Judaism if the identity of Jesus had been accurately recognized. However, a divergent interpretation emerged, which was met with resistance from the Jewish community. The Jewish faith acknowledges a single deity, Yahweh. The Jewish people are awaiting the arrival of a human messiah.Christians, on the other hand, deified Jesus and attributed his birth to virgin birth. These concepts, however, clashed with the monotheistic principles of Judaism. As a result, the notion of Jesus being the awaited messiah was dismissed by them. Yea, but prophecy shows it could have happened only the way it did happen. I guess you know, Paul says the Jews will eventually be grafted back in. That is, somehow Jews and Christians will come to some agreement, in the end. That's exactly true. And that's exactly Paul says. yes, that's true and that's what Bible says that as well. Messiah is the man, and this man is the son of God. The concept of the Trinity does not exist. It was in the writings of the 2nd century that Jesus began to be depicted as God, not in the writings of the 1st century. Moreover, the writings of the 1st century strictly adhere to monotheism. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 10:53:13 GMT -5
Alright, could you share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity? I’m not asking for a judgment on its correctness, but rather your interpretation of its principles. Gopal, the Christianity of Jesus is not taught anywhere on earth. Jesus taught that his followers could do all the things he did. He taught that all his followers could be like him, but they could not supersede him. In talking about Christianity, it's my view you have to take what Jesus taught, as the baseline, the minimum. The Eastern Orthodox Church comes the closest to that. Christianity, as we know it, has strayed very far from what Jesus taught. Somewhere, NT, it says: Jesus is our example that we should follow in his steps. IOW, Jesus didn't do it all, for us, he showed us how. So the church of today, is just a shadow of what it was meant to be. So what you were asking for, is a fundamentalist view of Christianity. That's only one view. Christianity is based on the actions of Jesus and Paul’s teachings about those actions. While Jesus provided teachings, Paul interpreted Jesus’s crucifixion as a means to salvation. From my perspective, if the first-century writings on Christianity are correctly interpreted, they align perfectly with the original Jewish monotheistic concept of One God. Christianity does not deviate from Judaism. However, the writings of the second century may mislead people about the identities of God and Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 10:55:56 GMT -5
Alright, could you share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity? I’m not asking for a judgment on its correctness, but rather your interpretation of its principles. I'll have to circle back around to this as I've already been sharing perspectives, and I guess you still are not going to express your perspectives on any I've given except you think it's nonsense. That's fine. Please share your understanding of the teachings of Christianity. To clarify, I’m not asking for your personal interpretation of Christianity’s teachings, but rather what Christianity itself is teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 11:15:04 GMT -5
Considering you are a self-proclaimed Aspy, I think I understand why you like and respect Gurdjieff as much as you do. Interestingly, I have actually traveled a lot of the places he supposedly went to in search of such knowledge, and admittedly, I was on a similar quest, though we probably approached it quite differently. I do not know enough about his expansive set of ideas, but I am curious. You've mentioned that, "First, you have to row a little boat"." Does Gurdge teach that you have to connect a lot of specific dots (i.e., little lives/selves) before you can 'attaimn' Big Self? Or, does he make any allusions to the fact that the boat (maybe this is 'self') has to sink and fall beneath the surface of the ocean to die, before some new bettererer 'level can be attained'? And you say it all alludes to the 'treasure'. I was always in awe of how much 'factual knowledge' that my dad could organize and structure within the his mind, and do some pretty cool stuff. At the same time, as a child of such an Aspy, and with the benefit of hindsight, I am also quite aware of the tipping points when the structure gave way and the subsequent shit storm that arose. As a child, those times were emotionally difficult for me. As a teeen, I rebelled. As an adult, I stood my ground, but in more and more loving ways. Only much later did I make the connections with respect to Aspies, and we met eye-to-eye and enjoyed many rich times together before his passing.It would have been interesting to know as a child what I do now about such events, but it is what it is. The reason I ask is I think that, if Gurdjieff's system was actually meant to help others seek/achieve liberation, then I think the 'treasure' you speak of is synonymous with true ND. As a structure, his system is all well and good, but if he truly understood Beelzebub, he'd know that even it could (i.e., would, should) at some point fail, and that it would be truly auspicious. Hail Satan! (in the original sense) The intellect plays a small part in the Gurdjieff teaching. All men (and women) are born as one of 3, either the intellect predominates, or the emotions, or the body. So a beginning thing to work at is to use your two weaker centers, so as to become a balanced man (or woman). There is a book, nothing to do with the teaching, First You Have To Row A Little Boat, I forget the author, I think it starts with a B, but I robbed that from him, as everybody starts from the beginning. But the center of the teaching is saving energy and transforming energy. The body 'synthesizes' enough energy each day, for the next day. Each center operates by a different quality of energy, and should use its own energy, but the centers can steal energy from each other. So, from day one, we were taught and it was emphasized every meeting, this saving of energy. There are accumulators within the organism (and in the more subtle aspects of our being), where excess energy is stored. We waste energy through unnecessary thinking, negative emotions and through unnecessary tension in the muscles. Energy is saved by working with attention and awareness. self-observation saves energy, self-remembering transforms energy to a finer quality. The only purpose of thinking, is as a reminder to work with attention and awareness. So, when yor attention is taken and held by some thought, feeling/emotion, body activity, event, other person, thing, you lose energy, you waste energy. But if you control attention, you save energy, and this energy goes into the accumulators (to be used as necessary). So if I ever write about practicing, this is what it's all about, saving energy. We take energy into the organism by (ordinary) food, air, and (sensory) impressions. Nature provides for the digestion of food and oxygen. But the digestion of impressions does not occur automatically. As well as ordinary food, air is called food, and impressions are called food. Nobody could ever come to, on their own, how to digest impressions. A person has to be taught how to digest impressions, this is called the first conscious shock. Nature provides mechanical shocks to digest food and oxygen. This is why transforming impressions is called the first conscious shock, as it has to be done consciously, deliberately, it doesn't just happen. The first conscious shock is another name for the practice self-remembering. So rowing a little boat is about learning to save energy. Some people do process impressions somewhat. And if one works with attention enough, impressions are transformed somewhat. This energy is perceptible. Some names for this energy, chi, Qi, Ki, prana. In the teaching it's called mi12, as different energy has different names, and this is the point of the process, mi12. (The enneagram shows how the energy is processed). [laughter has written about this, so this shows he actually practices]. Gurdjieff made a distinction between the functions*, thinking, feeling/emotions, muscle-body-learned-actions, sensations (and the 5th, sexual function) and consciousness. So when we ordinarily about being conscious, as here on STs, that means the second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state (it's so-called, as Gurdjieff said it is actually a state of sleep, we aren't really awake in the 2nd state). The first state is ordinary sleep. For 99.99% of people, all they know of are these first to states of consciousness. But, basically, to ordinarily talk about being conscious, that's not using the word the way Gurdjieff used it, ordinarily-being-conscious is just operating through the functions*. But, if through the practices (in the beginning, self-remembering, self-observation, conscious breathing, division of attention, and non-identification), one saves enough energy and transforms enough energy, so as to accumulate a certain quantity of a certain quality of energy, then the 3rd state of consciousness shows up. The 3rd state is called self-remembering, the practice brings the state. But for a long time, even if one knows how, we save energy, we lose energy, save, lose. So, rowing a little boat is this process of learning and working to save energy. The interior practices are not done with the intellect, do not involve thinking whatsoever. But it's all about actual experience, experience you can "sink your teeth into". So I'm not interested in realization "that isn't an experience". But yes, the treasure is...ND shows up, but it isn't just a realization. But I've never seen a hint of that written about, here. But, still, as from day one, I don't write about how-to-do practices, I don't write about experiences. I write from theory and experience, but never draw a line as to what's what. So I was lucky, I found the teaching simultaneously with finding my teacher. So I've never dealt with-theory-only, with only the information in books. From the second meeting, the first being just a lecture, and that not by my to-be teacher, I was given things to practice, nuts and bolts practice. But you see, your last two sentences, you always think in terms of putting everything into your (plural) ND paradigm. To be able to dialogue with sdp, you have to get outside your ND paradigm. I know that's probably not possible, as you already consider it the Whole. Sorry for the length, but a good question deserves a complete answer. But for sdp, the whole point of any realization or experience, is as an enticement, to bring it back, to live in it, not put it like a trophy on the mantle, or a remembrance, or a once-knowing. IOW, the Gurdjieff teaching is all about energy. So, and, to, what's meant by awakening, here, STs and generally ND, is not the same as what Gurdjieff meant by being awake (he meant the 3rd state of consciousness. But, too, there is a continuum, one can be more-awake or less-awake, or completely asleep, or in the 3rd state, completely awake. So, for Gurdjieff, awakening doesn't mean once and done. Done, is way down the road). Thanks for expressing more about what the G-system does. In your interpretation of what the system teaches with respect to "functions*, thinking, feeling/emotions, muscle-body-learned-actions, sensations (and the 5th, sexual function) and consciousness", what are your blind spots? Or is that sharing too much about your experiences? I am not talking about the once and done, remembrance/once-knowing (only), or trophies, or anything of the sort. It is interesting that your mind interprets what is shared here that way. IT is already WHOLE, and the uninformed mind is the only thing that can be ignorant of and accept existence as divided and two. If you don't believe me, try to do it without engaging the mind. ND is not a paradigm or anything of the sort; it's just what's pointed to. That's might be an outcome of your focus on expressing only theory and no experiences, or you thinking Gurdjieff is saying anything different when he points to the treasure (assuming that's what he's pointing to--- it can ONLY be pointed to). As an expression, I would share that what I AM/YOU ARE is not within any paradigm or system; those thingies are the mind working to express it in a format that is accessible, maybe like G was doing, dunno. That's why someNOTHING sometimes finds it interesting to look at and be open to such systems for their value or worth with respect to how this mind expresses it. For example, I'm starting to understand Gurdjieff and am wondering more about why you do not see the similarities with what is shared here? Maybe it's something akin to the Sufi story about the three travelers who were all asking for grapes in different languages. So, once awake (by Gurdjieffian standards), does the system say to lie about it, not share or speak your mind's informed truth, or go back to sleep and not say a word about what was 'experienced/realized'? This post you've offered has me sensing some strange perspectives on what is shared here as information, insights, pointers, banter, or thoughtful feedback. someNOTHING is NOT walking around saying and acting like this is all emptiness or that one is free to do whatever it wants at anytime, and all should allow me to do whatever, and that everyone should bow to such greatness. I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (3 x 0, even, in a tip to the trinity) to sell, and that is a very hard thing to convey while still making it palatable. I live a relativity normal life, man, and it may even surprise you that I do care about and forgive people peep endlessly, some of them as if they were my self. Others, maybe not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 12:11:48 GMT -5
The intellect plays a small part in the Gurdjieff teaching. All men (and women) are born as one of 3, either the intellect predominates, or the emotions, or the body. So a beginning thing to work at is to use your two weaker centers, so as to become a balanced man (or woman). There is a book, nothing to do with the teaching, First You Have To Row A Little Boat, I forget the author, I think it starts with a B, but I robbed that from him, as everybody starts from the beginning. But the center of the teaching is saving energy and transforming energy. The body 'synthesizes' enough energy each day, for the next day. Each center operates by a different quality of energy, and should use its own energy, but the centers can steal energy from each other. So, from day one, we were taught and it was emphasized every meeting, this saving of energy. There are accumulators within the organism (and in the more subtle aspects of our being), where excess energy is stored. We waste energy through unnecessary thinking, negative emotions and through unnecessary tension in the muscles. Energy is saved by working with attention and awareness. self-observation saves energy, self-remembering transforms energy to a finer quality. The only purpose of thinking, is as a reminder to work with attention and awareness. So, when yor attention is taken and held by some thought, feeling/emotion, body activity, event, other person, thing, you lose energy, you waste energy. But if you control attention, you save energy, and this energy goes into the accumulators (to be used as necessary). So if I ever write about practicing, this is what it's all about, saving energy. We take energy into the organism by (ordinary) food, air, and (sensory) impressions. Nature provides for the digestion of food and oxygen. But the digestion of impressions does not occur automatically. As well as ordinary food, air is called food, and impressions are called food. Nobody could ever come to, on their own, how to digest impressions. A person has to be taught how to digest impressions, this is called the first conscious shock. Nature provides mechanical shocks to digest food and oxygen. This is why transforming impressions is called the first conscious shock, as it has to be done consciously, deliberately, it doesn't just happen. The first conscious shock is another name for the practice self-remembering. So rowing a little boat is about learning to save energy. Some people do process impressions somewhat. And if one works with attention enough, impressions are transformed somewhat. This energy is perceptible. Some names for this energy, chi, Qi, Ki, prana. In the teaching it's called mi12, as different energy has different names, and this is the point of the process, mi12. (The enneagram shows how the energy is processed). [laughter has written about this, so this shows he actually practices]. Gurdjieff made a distinction between the functions*, thinking, feeling/emotions, muscle-body-learned-actions, sensations (and the 5th, sexual function) and consciousness. So when we ordinarily about being conscious, as here on STs, that means the second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state (it's so-called, as Gurdjieff said it is actually a state of sleep, we aren't really awake in the 2nd state). The first state is ordinary sleep. For 99.99% of people, all they know of are these first to states of consciousness. But, basically, to ordinarily talk about being conscious, that's not using the word the way Gurdjieff used it, ordinarily-being-conscious is just operating through the functions*. But, if through the practices (in the beginning, self-remembering, self-observation, conscious breathing, division of attention, and non-identification), one saves enough energy and transforms enough energy, so as to accumulate a certain quantity of a certain quality of energy, then the 3rd state of consciousness shows up. The 3rd state is called self-remembering, the practice brings the state. But for a long time, even if one knows how, we save energy, we lose energy, save, lose. So, rowing a little boat is this process of learning and working to save energy. The interior practices are not done with the intellect, do not involve thinking whatsoever. But it's all about actual experience, experience you can "sink your teeth into". So I'm not interested in realization "that isn't an experience". But yes, the treasure is...ND shows up, but it isn't just a realization. But I've never seen a hint of that written about, here. But, still, as from day one, I don't write about how-to-do practices, I don't write about experiences. I write from theory and experience, but never draw a line as to what's what. So I was lucky, I found the teaching simultaneously with finding my teacher. So I've never dealt with-theory-only, with only the information in books. From the second meeting, the first being just a lecture, and that not by my to-be teacher, I was given things to practice, nuts and bolts practice. But you see, your last two sentences, you always think in terms of putting everything into your (plural) ND paradigm. To be able to dialogue with sdp, you have to get outside your ND paradigm. I know that's probably not possible, as you already consider it the Whole. Sorry for the length, but a good question deserves a complete answer. But for sdp, the whole point of any realization or experience, is as an enticement, to bring it back, to live in it, not put it like a trophy on the mantle, or a remembrance, or a once-knowing. IOW, the Gurdjieff teaching is all about energy. So, and, to, what's meant by awakening, here, STs and generally ND, is not the same as what Gurdjieff meant by being awake (he meant the 3rd state of consciousness. But, too, there is a continuum, one can be more-awake or less-awake, or completely asleep, or in the 3rd state, completely awake. So, for Gurdjieff, awakening doesn't mean once and done. Done, is way down the road). Thanks for expressing more about what the G-system does. In your interpretation of what the system teaches with respect to "functions*, thinking, feeling/emotions, muscle-body-learned-actions, sensations (and the 5th, sexual function) and consciousness", what are your blind spots? Or is that sharing too much about your experiences? I am not talking about the once and done, remembrance/once-knowing (only), or trophies, or anything of the sort. It is interesting that your mind interprets what is shared here that way. IT is already WHOLE, and the uninformed mind is the only thing that can be ignorant of and accept existence as divided and two. If you don't believe me, try to do it without engaging the mind. ND is not a paradigm or anything of the sort; it's just what's pointed to. That's might be an outcome of your focus on expressing only theory and no experiences, or you thinking Gurdjieff is saying anything different when he points to the treasure (assuming that's what he's pointing to--- it can ONLY be pointed to). As an expression, I would share that what I AM/YOU ARE is not within any paradigm or system; those thingies are the mind working to express it in a format that is accessible, maybe like G was doing, dunno. That's why someNOTHING sometimes finds it interesting to look at and be open to such systems for their value or worth with respect to how this mind expresses it. For example, I'm starting to understand Gurdjieff and am wondering more about why you do not see the similarities with what is shared here? Maybe it's something akin to the Sufi story about the three travelers who were all asking for grapes in different languages. So, once awake (by Gurdjieffian standards), does the system say to lie about it, not share or speak your mind's informed truth, or go back to sleep and not say a word about what was 'experienced/realized'? This post you've offered has me sensing some strange perspectives on what is shared here as information, insights, pointers, banter, or thoughtful feedback. someNOTHING is NOT walking around saying and acting like this is all emptiness or that one is free to do whatever it wants at anytime, and all should allow me to do whatever, and that everyone should bow to such greatness. I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (3 x 0, even, in a tip to the trinity) to sell, and that is a very hard thing to convey while still making it palatable. I live a relativity normal life, man, and it may even surprise you that I do care about and forgive people peep endlessly, some of them as if they were my self. Others, maybe not so much. I will come back to this. Only to say now, I started the Macrocosm-Microcosm thread to give Gurdjieff's view of the unity of All That Is. It's in the first post, first 3 paragraphs, stopping at Speed Vogul. But when I write you (plural), that means generally the ND view, not just sN. But I shoot for specificity. I've said 1,000 times, I agree up to here, then I give the specificity. But you (plural) emphasize the specificity, not where we agree. Why do I emphasize the specificity? Because you can't cross a 100 ft. chasm with a 95 ft. rope. "Everything in the universe is one. ...Again I repeat, all the world is one". Gurdjieff, from the link. In the Macro-Micro post, then Gurdjieff gives the specificity, the but. Gurdjieff includes the necessity of scale (in dealing with the Microcosm, us). ~~~~~~~~~~~ And just to be clear, as I've written here before, I understand that all is one, I've known this for over 50 years, before even finding the Gurdjieff teaching. I don't "speak" realization. I speak knowledge, experience and understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2024 12:47:40 GMT -5
So, from somewhere, at some time, I heard this expression "ignorance of true nature". Can't remember if it was from an Advaita-type source, or "Neo-Advaita" or perhaps even Zen. Can't remember at this point exactly when I heard it either. But I do recall when it first dawned on me that what is pointed to by "ignorance of true nature" is the same as "knowledge of good and evil". To any thinkers reading along and thinking about this. Stop! This brings to mind a translation of a Tao stanza that goes "true words seem paradoxical". It is only to the divided, thinking mind, that there is any paradox to this. Right, I think I get your meaning. The thought arose that the Bhagavad Gita somehow addresses this issue in the general discussion between Arjuna and Krishna. Though I am not equipped with any specifics at the moment, going into it with the questioning of the mind in any conditioned state is likely to bring one to the precipice of the paradox. Whether one falls to one's knees is highly dependent on the willingness to go further into it, I suppose. The 'getting back up' only comes after, but the mind is a slippery lil' fish and it hates the hooks of its own creation. E' used to say, "there is no outsmarting mind". |
|
