|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2024 13:06:10 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. The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 14:02:06 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. The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having". The Jews were looking for a King, a political authority to set them free. They only saw King in the OT prophecies of the Messiah. When Jesus was crucified, they said F___, it couldn't have been him. Now Christians say the prophecies of a King refer to the Second Coming. The Jews missed the prophecies of the suffering servant, or did not know they referred to the Messiah. Am I right Gopal? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 17:23:30 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 knew from the beginning, and it's still so, my emotional center (#2) is my weakest center. I recognized very early I was man #1, the body predominates. Intellectual center (#3) is pretty strong. The best way to work on the emotional center is just to mix with people, it naturally pulls up emotions (to observe). Not my natural inclination, so this was also where I was weak. But other ways to work on the emotional center, make art, do art, do music, anything to do with art is working on the emotional center. But these are still mechanical efforts. But you can make conscious efforts while working to balance the centers. But it's not so easy to go against one's natural inclinations. Anything I have ever heard about Self-Realization, is, it's once and done. It does zero good to talk about one's 'status' or experiences or accomplishments. We can only know consciousness, in ourselves. If anyone makes any kind of claim, it could never be proven to another. Everything has to be verified for oneself, anyway. There's a kind of irrevocable process. It does no good to know about the process, ahead of time, and there is more of a chance of disrupting the process. But basically, one has to be completely dissatisfied with life and all the other ways, to begin the Gurdjieff work, and to even find the Gurdjieff work, recognize it. Maybe the most difficult thing, the work has to be done completely without compulsion. If you miss a meeting, nobody calls up to ask where you were. You work just because you wish to work. The teaching does not supply an aim for working. You must have your own aim, and then you must see if the work can help achieve your aim. It's to a very great extent, a do-it-yourself project, you have to come to learn how to work independently, eventually. I was taught many things, but you have to learn to put it all together, by doing the inner work, the practices. Ouspensky's name for In Search of the Miraculous, was Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. But the publisher said no, we're going to call it In Search of the Miraculous. Fragments ...became the subtitle. But the teaching is given like dumping out a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and you have to put the puzzle together, if you wish to. But I understand the process. PD Ouspensky's mistake was he tried to systematize the teaching. He departed from Gurdjieff after ten years because Gurdjieff got too bizarre for him, and then Ouspensky taught the system, on his own, in England, until the war started, WWII (so about 20 years). Then he and Madame Ouspensky moved to NJ. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 18:13:10 GMT -5
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". Aah yess, the power of futility. It's a tough sell to mind when it's searching for 'new and improved', not aware of the cost. The mentations of a madman in the tiger's mouth surely don't sound auspicious. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2024 18:43:00 GMT -5
E' used to say, "there is no outsmarting mind". Aah yess, the power of futility. It's a tough sell to mind when it's searching for 'new and improved', not aware of the cost. The mentations of a madman in the tiger's mouth surely don't sound auspicious.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2024 18:44:58 GMT -5
The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having". The Jews were looking for a King, a political authority to set them free. They only saw King in the OT prophecies of the Messiah. When Jesus was crucified, they said F___, it couldn't have been him. Now Christians say the prophecies of a King refer to the Second Coming. The Jews missed the prophecies of the suffering servant, or did not know they referred to the Messiah. Am I right Gopal? mind-spinning rationale anyone states, it could be as simple as .. tradition and the unwillingness to let go of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 18:50:32 GMT -5
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 knew from the beginning, and it's still so, my emotional center (#2) is my weakest center. I recognized very early I was man #1, the body predominates. Intellectual center (#3) is pretty strong. The best way to work on the emotional center is just to mix with people, it naturally pulls up emotions (to observe). Not my natural inclination, so this was also where I was weak. But other ways to work on the emotional center, make art, do art, do music, anything to do with art is working on the emotional center. But these are still mechanical efforts. But you can make conscious efforts while working to balance the centers. But it's not so easy to go against one's natural inclinations. Anything I have ever heard about Self-Realization, is, it's once and done. It does zero good to talk about one's 'status' or experiences or accomplishments. We can only know consciousness, in ourselves. If anyone makes any kind of claim, it could never be proven to another. Everything has to be verified for oneself, anyway. There's a kind of irrevocable process. It does no good to know about the process, ahead of time, and there is more of a chance of disrupting the process. But basically, one has to be completely dissatisfied with life and all the other ways, to begin the Gurdjieff work, and to even find the Gurdjieff work, recognize it. Maybe the most difficult thing, the work has to be done completely without compulsion. If you miss a meeting, nobody calls up to ask where you were. You work just because you wish to work. The teaching does not supply an aim for working. You must have your own aim, and then you must see if the work can help achieve your aim. It's to a very great extent, a do-it-yourself project, you have to come to learn how to work independently, eventually. I was taught many things, but you have to learn to put it all together, by doing the inner work, the practices. Ouspensky's name for In Search of the Miraculous, was Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. But the publisher said no, we're going to call it In Search of the Miraculous. Fragments ...became the subtitle. But the teaching is given like dumping out a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and you have to put the puzzle together, if you wish to. But I understand the process. PD Ouspensky's mistake was he tried to systematize the teaching. He departed from Gurdjieff after ten years because Gurdjieff got too bizarre for him, and then Ouspensky taught the system, on his own, in England, until the war started, WWII (so about 20 years). Then he and Madame Ouspensky moved to NJ. I think I misunderstood your previous idea of the once-and-done. I think you are questioning the sense of certainty of being 'actually' done with the search, and then just being cognizant of when the mind thinks it (can) knows something it can't. In the absence of that compulsive thinking, clarity, joy, awe can arise naturally. What you say about only gnossising consciousness in/as ourselves and that the outcome is not a provable 'thing'.... yes, purddy much. As for the puzzle, I'm not sure if I like that analogy, but to each their own. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Gurdjieff. I've read though some of the posts on the link you provided earlier, and yes, it seems he was trying to convey or promote something, maybe trip someone up on occasion, and/or help set something on fire. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 19:02:45 GMT -5
Aah yess, the power of futility. It's a tough sell to mind when it's searching for 'new and improved', not aware of the cost. The mentations of a madman in the tiger's mouth surely don't sound auspicious. Let's hope Luthen got to eventually see that sunrise. (edited sunrise for sunset.... it was sunset here, hehe) |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 21:05:54 GMT -5
The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having". The Jews were looking for a King, a political authority to set them free. They only saw King in the OT prophecies of the Messiah. When Jesus was crucified, they said F___, it couldn't have been him. Now Christians say the prophecies of a King refer to the Second Coming. The Jews missed the prophecies of the suffering servant, or did not know they referred to the Messiah. Am I right Gopal? Indeed, it’s correct, set them free from the Romans! The concept of atoning for the sins of the dying is a new idea for them. They have been practicing the ritual of goat atonement since the time of Abraham, but the act of crucifying a human is a fresh perspective for the Jewish community. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 24, 2024 21:08:50 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. The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having".
The primary reasons for Jewish rejection are as follows:Indeed, Paul did not hold the belief that Jesus was God, nor did he subscribe to the idea of Jesus’s virgin birth. However, these concepts are often introduced by Christians, which can inadvertently distance the Jewish community. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2024 23:14:11 GMT -5
I knew from the beginning, and it's still so, my emotional center (#2) is my weakest center. I recognized very early I was man #1, the body predominates. Intellectual center (#3) is pretty strong. The best way to work on the emotional center is just to mix with people, it naturally pulls up emotions (to observe). Not my natural inclination, so this was also where I was weak. But other ways to work on the emotional center, make art, do art, do music, anything to do with art is working on the emotional center. But these are still mechanical efforts. But you can make conscious efforts while working to balance the centers. But it's not so easy to go against one's natural inclinations. Anything I have ever heard about Self-Realization, is, it's once and done. It does zero good to talk about one's 'status' or experiences or accomplishments. We can only know consciousness, in ourselves. If anyone makes any kind of claim, it could never be proven to another. Everything has to be verified for oneself, anyway. There's a kind of irrevocable process. It does no good to know about the process, ahead of time, and there is more of a chance of disrupting the process. But basically, one has to be completely dissatisfied with life and all the other ways, to begin the Gurdjieff work, and to even find the Gurdjieff work, recognize it. Maybe the most difficult thing, the work has to be done completely without compulsion. If you miss a meeting, nobody calls up to ask where you were. You work just because you wish to work. The teaching does not supply an aim for working. You must have your own aim, and then you must see if the work can help achieve your aim. It's to a very great extent, a do-it-yourself project, you have to come to learn how to work independently, eventually. I was taught many things, but you have to learn to put it all together, by doing the inner work, the practices. Ouspensky's name for In Search of the Miraculous, was Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. But the publisher said no, we're going to call it In Search of the Miraculous. Fragments ...became the subtitle. But the teaching is given like dumping out a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and you have to put the puzzle together, if you wish to. But I understand the process. PD Ouspensky's mistake was he tried to systematize the teaching. He departed from Gurdjieff after ten years because Gurdjieff got too bizarre for him, and then Ouspensky taught the system, on his own, in England, until the war started, WWII (so about 20 years). Then he and Madame Ouspensky moved to NJ. I think I misunderstood your previous idea of the once-and-done. I think you are questioning the sense of certainty of being 'actually' done with the search, and then just being cognizant of when the mind thinks it (can) knows something it can't. In the absence of that compulsive thinking, clarity, joy, awe can arise naturally. What you say about only gnossising consciousness in/as ourselves and that the outcome is not a provable 'thing'.... yes, purddy much. As for the puzzle, I'm not sure if I like that analogy, but to each their own. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Gurdjieff. I've read though some of the posts on the link you provided earlier, and yes, it seems he was trying to convey or promote something, maybe trip someone up on occasion, and/or help set something on fire. I don't usually like unless I like 100%. The puzzle analogy is just the way Gurdjieff taught, period. But it's worse. It's like having to work the puzzle with the pictured part, down. And then another box of pieces are mixed in, backs look the same, but the curves are cut differently. The puzzle is put together by understanding. Yes, Gurdjieff used every occasion, every day, to trip people up. He never made things easy, he made things difficult. Once he gave a lady the task to quit smoking, I think it was Margaret Anderson. It took her a year to quit smoking. When she finally did, he then told her to smoke. He said, you are not free unless you can smoke, or not smoke. I will post some music on the Macro thread. He collected, memorized sacred music from monasteries he visited. He later played on a harmonium the music for the composer Thomas de Hartmann, and de Hartmann wrote it down as sheet music. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2024 1:55:30 GMT -5
The dismissal was unlikely to have been purely ideological. Almost certainly there were various passions involved in the way it went down. There is an old aphorism. Probably older than the English language itself: "wanting, is a better thing, than having".
The primary reasons for Jewish rejection are as follows:Indeed, Paul did not hold the belief that Jesus was God, nor did he subscribe to the idea of Jesus’s virgin birth. However, these concepts are often introduced by Christians, which can inadvertently distance the Jewish community. That's the dogma, sure.  I'm not saying that's incorrect. I'm just saying that it's .. well ... you know .... dogma .....  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 25, 2024 12:47:10 GMT -5
I think I misunderstood your previous idea of the once-and-done. I think you are questioning the sense of certainty of being 'actually' done with the search, and then just being cognizant of when the mind thinks it (can) knows something it can't. In the absence of that compulsive thinking, clarity, joy, awe can arise naturally. What you say about only gnossising consciousness in/as ourselves and that the outcome is not a provable 'thing'.... yes, purddy much. As for the puzzle, I'm not sure if I like that analogy, but to each their own. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Gurdjieff. I've read though some of the posts on the link you provided earlier, and yes, it seems he was trying to convey or promote something, maybe trip someone up on occasion, and/or help set something on fire. I don't usually like unless I like 100%. The puzzle analogy is just the way Gurdjieff taught, period. But it's worse. It's like having to work the puzzle with the pictured part, down. And then another box of pieces are mixed in, backs look the same, but the curves are cut differently. The puzzle is put together by understanding. Yes, Gurdjieff used every occasion, every day, to trip people up. He never made things easy, he made things difficult. Once he gave a lady the task to quit smoking, I think it was Margaret Anderson. It took her a year to quit smoking. When she finally did, he then told her to smoke. He said, you are not free unless you can smoke, or not smoke. I will post some music on the Macro thread. He collected, memorized sacred music from monasteries he visited. He later played on a harmonium the music for the composer Thomas de Hartmann, and de Hartmann wrote it down as sheet music. What is the puzzle a metaphor for? For example, using/exercising the mind to put together a pictureless puzzle of the mind so that the mind can then understand the mind's appearance to/within the Whole has this mind questioning the puzzle metaphor. It's like there's a piece of the puzzle missing, and the puzzle may never get DONE, as it hasn't found the origin of what's puzzling the mind. Yeah, that helps me to understand the trickster/crazy wisdom aspect the Gurdjieff character. Good to know. Let's put a pin in that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2024 12:57:45 GMT -5
I don't usually like unless I like 100%. The puzzle analogy is just the way Gurdjieff taught, period. But it's worse. It's like having to work the puzzle with the pictured part, down. And then another box of pieces are mixed in, backs look the same, but the curves are cut differently. The puzzle is put together by understanding. Yes, Gurdjieff used every occasion, every day, to trip people up. He never made things easy, he made things difficult. Once he gave a lady the task to quit smoking, I think it was Margaret Anderson. It took her a year to quit smoking. When she finally did, he then told her to smoke. He said, you are not free unless you can smoke, or not smoke. I will post some music on the Macro thread. He collected, memorized sacred music from monasteries he visited. He later played on a harmonium the music for the composer Thomas de Hartmann, and de Hartmann wrote it down as sheet music. What is the puzzle a metaphor for? For example, using/exercising the mind to put together a pictureless puzzle of the mind so that the mind can then understand the mind's appearance to/within the Whole has this mind questioning the puzzle metaphor. It's like there's a piece of the puzzle missing, and the puzzle may never get DONE, as it hasn't found the origin of what's puzzling the mind. Yeah, that helps me to understand the trickster/crazy wisdom aspect the Gurdjieff character. Good to know. Let's put a pin in that. Just briefly, as I'm not home. Puzzle, metaphor for the way Gurdjieff taught. But the ordinary mind can't -put it together', that's the whole point. Something else has to put it together, a higher mind that operates with a finer quality of energy. Accept the pin. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 25, 2024 14:42:26 GMT -5
What is the puzzle a metaphor for? For example, using/exercising the mind to put together a pictureless puzzle of the mind so that the mind can then understand the mind's appearance to/within the Whole has this mind questioning the puzzle metaphor. It's like there's a piece of the puzzle missing, and the puzzle may never get DONE, as it hasn't found the origin of what's puzzling the mind. Yeah, that helps me to understand the trickster/crazy wisdom aspect the Gurdjieff character. Good to know. Let's put a pin in that. Just briefly, as I'm not home. Puzzle, metaphor for the way Gurdjieff taught. But the ordinary mind can't -put it together', that's the whole point. Something else has to put it together, a higher mind that operates with a finer quality of energy. Accept the pin. I get'cher point about the mind not being able to do it, but typically that is what people engage in trying to carry out such a process. But, let's not let the mind idealize the metaphor and put someNOTHING closer than one's breath out of reach, make it seem more unlikely than it already appears to be (to the mind), and/or withdraw energy from the invitation given to the illusory self. To this last point, knowing your mind as well as you do, do you think it would prefer the active pursuit/seeking more than the actual finding? |
|
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'm not saying that's incorrect. I'm just saying that it's .. well ... you know .... dogma .....