|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 0:00:31 GMT -5
Exactly my sentiment. However, as with the Abe teachings, there could be some deeper meaning hidden in plain sight in the Gurdi teachings that you may be unaware of at first glance. It took me a while to realize that Abe are actually just teaching flow and wu-wei and are actually much closer to the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi than let's say Ramana or Niz. So I am not writing off Gurdi just yet. Well right. 'dusty isn't the only Gurdi-peep I've interacted with here, , and I didn't mean to write Gurdi off altogether as completely disinteresting. I might try to make time to read that Russian story he linked to. The 'pilgrims description of "practice" is very resonant with what Niz or zd or Albert Low or RM advise, and which I engaged with at one point. Pilgrim and I have discussed the Low connection in the past. Yes. I've tried to convey that, especially concerning ATA-T. The practices are not in any way about *thinking*. Zen (strict) sitting is a very good example, as one has to watch carefully, to be still, that is, not-to-move, say to scratch an itching nose. Just sitting shows how much we move involuntarily. The Glimpses story is more about the "Cosmology" of the teaching. Not so much about the "psychology" of the teaching, or the practices. He does talk a little about how energy is transformed. The Gurdjieff teaching means absolutely nothing without the interior practices, apart from the practices.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2023 0:00:48 GMT -5
The Gurdi material strikes me as rather heavy-duty, conceptually speaking, so I've never really engaged with it or tried to understand it directly, all that deeply. My interest in reading and writing here is, first and formemost, nonduality. Along those lines, what you wrote here is quite applicable: So, RM uses "Self", ZD uses "THIS", Niz preferred to boldly and baldly mix contexts and tell people flat-out that they were the Absolute, or the Supreme, and usually he'd utter some poetic turn of phrase that was tailored and customized to the dialog he was in. E' used to do something similar. From what I can tell, Zen folks will point to nonduality using various Buddhist scripture or only indirectly, but most profoundly with, for example, certain koans. The Taoists, of course, have the Tao, and nonduality is also hiding in plain sight for the Christians, in the "body of Christ". New-ager's will say "everything is one" or "everything is interconnected", but most of them mean an objectified oneness blob or an objectified web. But what they mean, exactly, has to be taken out of the context of everything else they say, and I find that some of them are quite insightful. Even the ones caught up in this sort of objectification. When it comes to the possibility of multi-faceted existential realization, I'm actually even more open-minded than zd. It's quite clear to me what you mean by this: .. and that's because of our dialogs over the years. This is a blind spot for you. You are objectifying "oneness". There is no box that contains "God". Even if you admit that, intellectually, it's quite clear to me that the blind spot is still there. Zen people seem to me to tell people to look for it in their gut. The Christians insist everyone bow their heads and pray on their knees. Gurdi gave you the practice you describe, and while I've suggested that it could be an obstacle, it doesn't have to be. You could, if you formed the intention, use that practice to gaze directly into that spot. "{}" is just a concept. There are many Zen stories about this. I'd say that the only potential catalyst to realization that has any greater power than a moment of deep suffering is what Descartes suggested : questioning everything you take as true, and I discern that there is a similarity between those two catalysts. Just to let you know, read your post. I had been rereading swiftly Glimpses again. it really is just a kind of outline, bait in a way. It is just a glimpse. I'm too tired to comment. This { } just means All That Is. This ( ) just means the spray of the surf, or a man or woman. I think you understood that. So, maybe this helps, concerning practice. { [attention-awareness (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) ] } I understand you and what you've written here far better than you give me credit for, and, really, that's simply perfect, just as it is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 0:03:11 GMT -5
Just to let you know, read your post. I had been rereading swiftly Glimpses again. it really is just a kind of outline, bait in a way. It is just a glimpse. I'm too tired to comment. This { } just means All That Is. This ( ) just means the spray of the surf, or a man or woman. I think you understood that. So, maybe this helps, concerning practice. { [attention-awareness (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) ] } I understand you and what you've written here far better than you give me credit for, and, really, that's simply perfect, just as it is. I believe you. Goodnight.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 0:28:43 GMT -5
Exactly my sentiment. However, as with the Abe teachings, there could be some deeper meaning hidden in plain sight in the Gurdi teachings that you may be unaware of at first glance. It took me a while to realize that Abe are actually just teaching flow and wu-wei and are actually much closer to the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi than let's say Ramana or Niz. So I am not writing off Gurdi just yet. Well right. 'dusty isn't the only Gurdi-peep I've interacted with here, , and I didn't mean to write Gurdi off altogether as completely disinteresting. I might try to make time to read that Russian story he linked to. The 'pilgrims description of "practice" is very resonant with what Niz or zd or Albert Low or RM advise, and which I engaged with at one point. Pilgrim and I have discussed the Low connection in the past. Then you are much deeper into this topic than I am.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 25, 2023 2:37:39 GMT -5
Ok. Interesting. Why then did you create a thread specifically designated for "dubstep" (that was the heading/title if I recall correctly) which you regularly (for a period of time) contributed to specifically with dubstep music? I do know that thread was deleted (I think by you?) when I started talking about it. Not sure why. Figgles, I don't know why you feel compelled to keep doing this (and it seems you don't actually know that either), but of all the wrong moves you did and could have done after what happened here recently, this is the most stupid one. You could have just let this topic go and continue as if nothing had happened, after all you weren't banned just yet, and things would have gone back to normal after a while. But no, you had to go back and reopen it again. I don't know if you have noticed, but I was actually trying to meet you halfway, ignoring the points where we disagree and focus on the points where we can agree instead, so that you can slowly integrate yourself back into this community again without running into trouble. And it almost looked like we made some progress and that you've learned your lesson. But now it seems you are never going to learn your lesson. Which means from a mod perspective, your case looks absolutely hopeless and therefore you leave me no choice. There are rules in place. And if they don't get enforced, then they are not rules. You had your chance. You made your decision. Now you have to live with the consequences of your decision. Sayonara! R PS: I suggest you read some of your own recent posts re: non-attachment, living in the moment and not letting past issues linger around anymore. You wrote some good stuff. If you can walk that talk, it will transform your life and your relationships. Unfortunately, we don't have the time, patience or resources here to wait for that to happen and babysit you (or anyone) along that way. What have you done Reefs?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 25, 2023 2:43:53 GMT -5
To suggest that it is up to the audience to adopt a suitable countenance when reading perspectives of 'not-two', is a little shy of recognising how deep one needs to be in this moment, when tapping at their keyboard. I find 'depth' in that sense means that intellectual, dissecting mind IS much more apt to be involved. The open-loose countenance I'm referencing, is beyond measurements of shallow/deep.....content is as 'out front' of looking as possible....'place' of seeing, 'somewhere' beyond/prior to immersion within it.
I would say "not separate from" this moment, if one could aim for that, would be best target.
The moment though we start to talk about this all, to forumulate the gleanings relative to those pointers into words, either spoken or typed, mind of course, complete with judgments and comparisons and such, enters in...it's simply the way it is. Not a problem so long as there is clarity as to the distinction between the 'realization' vs. the 'mind informing.'
Conceptualising the non-conceptual gets less complex and more fluid as real understanding settles in. You have to remember what you're talking to when you write and stop pretending that you're 'informing' other minds.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 8:20:56 GMT -5
Well right. 'dusty isn't the only Gurdi-peep I've interacted with here, , and I didn't mean to write Gurdi off altogether as completely disinteresting. I might try to make time to read that Russian story he linked to. The 'pilgrims description of "practice" is very resonant with what Niz or zd or Albert Low or RM advise, and which I engaged with at one point. Pilgrim and I have discussed the Low connection in the past. Then you are much deeper into this topic than I am. Maybe the Glimpses story gives a sense that what Gurdjieff is writing about, there, talking as conversation, isn't a conceptual paradigm, it's all a living breathing realty for Gurdjieff.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 9:28:19 GMT -5
The Gurdi material strikes me as rather heavy-duty, conceptually speaking, so I've never really engaged with it or tried to understand it directly, all that deeply. Exactly my sentiment. However, as with the Abe teachings, there could be some deeper meaning hidden in plain sight in the Gurdi teachings that you may be unaware of at first glance. It took me a while to realize that Abe are actually just teaching flow and wu-wei and are actually much closer to the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi than let's say Ramana or Niz. So I am not writing off Gurdi just yet. I guess it was some years ago Tano found the Macrocosm & Microcosm thread. I didn't expect much dialogue there, figured I'd just quote stuff. But she challenged. So I looked for a quote as a response. I found the perfect quote. Someone inquired what he taught. Gurdjieff said, I teach that when it rains, the sidewalks get wet.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 10:12:07 GMT -5
Task: Compare the beliefs of George Gurdjieff and non-duality. Specifically the view of the person. ChatGPT: [...] In summary, George Gurdjieff's perspective on the person emphasizes self-observation and self-remembering to awaken and integrate various aspects of the self, leading to a higher level of consciousness. Non-duality, on the other hand, challenges the notion of individuality altogether and aims for a direct realization of the underlying unity of existence, transcending personal identity. IOW, Gurdjieff and non-duality are incompatible. My first real handle on ND was Ken Wilber's book No Boundary. I wore that book out and it began to fall apart, and it eventually fell apart (I've never worn any other book out like that). I had found his early books and they resonated. So when a new one came out I'd get it and read it. No Boundary was maybe his 5th or 6th book. Wilber is a both-and guy, ND and hierarchy. Wilber says that if you stick with ND-only, you make what he calls the pre-trans fallacy, you take the beginning as the end. For Wilber, the beginning-ND is fine to acknowledge, but there's a hierarchy of possibilities. So last night I had a beginning of how to approach both together, then this morning waking up had a more full but simple example. Let's take the picture of ND as a seed, an acorn. ND = acorn. Laying under the oak tree are hundreds of acorns. An acorn is (tenka's) it is what it is, probably good for squirrels to eat, or pigs. But is food for pigs its primary purpose and function? No. For a good long purposeful life, an acorn should die to what-it-is, kernel and shell, and grow into an oak tree. The DNA in the kernel gets activated, it ceases to be what it is, and with the proper nutrients and water and sunlight and carbon dioxide, an acorn grows into a mighty oak tree which could live over a hundred years. To make Wilber's pre-trans fallacy, we'd say ND indicates an acorn is merely an acorn and it remains an acorn. Gurdjieff asked, do all acorns become oak trees? Obviously, no. What else are acorns 'good for'? Some just lay on the ground and disappear back into the soil and get recycled, Gurdjieff called this fertilizer. But he liked more colorful words, in French, merde. In English he liked the word shit. So he did not shy away from calling people shit. But only students, or potential students. He loved and respected people in general, honest hardworking people. In one of the books he showed a student a room full of rather bad art. In Paris, instead of just giving money away, he did this also, but he would buy paintings from artists, really just as a donation of money, but he gave the artists some dignity. And he did some of these things privately, we would never know except some of these accounts written by students. So, for Gurdjieff, the small s self was manure, quite literally. Essence is the gold. Working with students Gurdjieff arranged circumstances so that they could differentiate the manure from the "gold", for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 11:30:13 GMT -5
Gurdjieff was definitely in the brick-polishing business. It actually sounds like some kind of advanced psychotherapy. Brick polishing has a connotation of impossibility, futility. Of course you know sdp wouldn't accept that. Gurdjieff can't be understood in terms of nonduality, this point seems to continually escape laughter. Advanced psychotherapy sounds like trying to repair the self. Nonduality seems content to continue to live with the self-as-it-is, even though it recognizes the self is imaginary. For me that's THE huge disconnect. The ChatGPT synopsis is pretty accurate, as far as it goes, but it's very Swiss cheese. I'll go back to it and add some essentials. But Gurdjieff was not in any sense interested in fixing the ego, the ego is basically the problem and is beyond repair. Ego has a temporary function, it's supposed to be temporary. For Gurdjieff, the individual can see at some point that something is wrong. The something that's wrong is that ego is not one's actual self, but it was acquired at a very young age and is not what one actually is. One's True Self, essence, was covered over and squashed from direct experience by the acquisition of the false self, information (which was) copied and stored in the neural structure of the brain. So most people live-through this imaginary "I", and do so for the whole of their lives. So, Gurdjieff was about ceasing to live through this Imaginary self, and eventually, dismantling the entire structure that forms the Imaginary self. So Gurdjieff wasn't into fixing what can't be fixed, but actually dying to the false self, and eventually to it actually dying. This is mostly what I've written about here for 14 years. You see the difference? ND accepts ego, and actually *believes* that nothing can be done to escape the necessity of what seems to be a kind of unavoidable avatar, warts and all. Gurdjieff taught we can actually get rid of the baggage that ego is, and live through essence, the actual individuality. It all involves energy. Ego remains alive because it continually takes our energy, it's a kind of vampire, an energy vampire. In interior practice, ego ceases to be fed, and essence is instead given the energy it needs to grow. It is an actual kind-of organic process. But that's the gist. We're not rubbing two bricks together to make a mirror. In the practices energy is transformed to a finer vibration, and this eventuates in a higher state of consciousness, something that not-now-is. That kind-of fills in the holes in the ChatGPT Swiss cheese synopsis. It wasn't wrong, but it can't discern what's important which it left out. You see, if you have to first deconstruct something in order to have your peace of mind, then your peace of mind will be conditional. Not even Abe teach that. And they are somewhere in the twilight zone between conditional and unconditional peace of mind, depending on how you look at it. But I can't see how Gurdjieff is even reaching that twilight zone, let alone cross over into unconditional territory by means of what you are describing here. Remember, SR is only about correcting an error in perception. Ego is not the problem. Misidentification is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 11:37:41 GMT -5
I'll correct and/or fill in the ChatGPT Swiss cheese holes. Gurdjieff didn't develop his teaching. He was clear he himself had teachers, and the teaching preexisted himself, even to thousands of years. I will bump the microcosmos macrocosmos thread. In the beginning of it are quotes from Gurdjieff about the unity of everything existing. So, yes, there is one unified whole, but there is ATST (ouroboros') compartmentalization in the unity. Basically, E Pluribus Unum.Yes, he's just passing on knowledge that has been handed down thru the ages but got lost in the enlightenment era, but that knowledge can still be found in occult and yoga circles or books even. The unity these occult teachings are talking about though belongs to the thingness level of perception, not the suchness level of perception. Which is the difference between interconnectedness and oneness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 11:54:01 GMT -5
Brick polishing is synonymous with working on the self in order to facilitate SR. That is, of course, an impossibility as the realization called SR will reveal. That's why Gurdjieff and non-duality are incompatible. As I keep saying, the self has no role to play in SR. The self will be seen clearly for what it is. And that's the end of that. Non-duality has nothing to do with working on the self, or reaching higher levels of consciousness. What Gurdjieff's approach does remind me of though is Enigma's 'becoming conscious' approach which also had some connotations of psychotherapy. Again, SR is acausal. It is like a switch suddenly getting flipped and suddenly the world is not seen thru the eyes of self but thru the eyes of Self. So what possibly could working on the self achieve? The Gurdjieff teaching and ND are kind of like the incompatibility of quantum physics and Relativity. Relativity can't be understood in terms of QM and QM can't be understood in terms of Relativity. Yet each are irrefutable within their own domain. The problem enters when you get to black holes, which necessarily deals with both QM and Relativity. So, we have a conundrum. I will copy a quote I posted 7+ years ago (the Macrocosm & Microcosm thread. I posted certain things ~for the record~). Gurdjieff taught the Oneness of All That Is. He did not teach dualism in Cartesian sense, he taught that EVERYTHING is material, he said even God is material. ouroboros tapped into almost exact Gurdjieff language. All of Reality is a continuum. On "one end" is the highest rate of vibration, the lowest density of matter. On the other end is the lowest rate of vibration and the highest density of matter. For Gurdjieff all of reality was One Whole, with those stipulations. In In Search of the Miraculous is a table of all existing matter, numbers, which ZD doesn't like. And he gives the dividing line beyond which science-physics knows nothing about, higher vibratory stuff. ouroboros also picked up on compartmentalization. As early as 1912 Gurdjieff taught the discontinuity of matter and vibrations, this is essentially the view of quantum physics, compartmentalization, which is what the word quantum means. Energy comes in *chunks*, not a smooth continuous flow. The *chunks* are "compartmentalized". So Gurdjieff certainly learned about discontinuity (compartmentalization) before 1901 when Max Planck *invented* it, he just didn't teach it until he began teaching in Russia in 1012. So, Oneness = ND, it seems to me. But Gurdjieff introduced scale, it's absolutely central to his teaching, to the Cosmology. Scale means: As above so below. The Macrocosm is large scale (Relativity), the Microcosm is the small scale (QM). The very same laws operates on the large scale and the small scale. The two fundamental laws of the universe are the Law of 7 (octaves) and the Law of 3 (triads). OK, now the quote, the first post of that thread. A little intro first: It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. edit: The bold concerns the Whole, and that in relation to man, emphasis sdp. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ... I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. ....We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... ...No ordinary reason is enough to enable a man to take the Great Knowledge to himself, and make it his inalienable possession. Nevertheless it is possible for him. But first he must shake the dust from his feet. .. .You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on, that he who possess a full and complete understanding of the system of octaves, as it might be called, possesses the key to the understanding of Unity, since he understands all that is seen--all happenings, all things in their essence--for he knows there place, cause and effect. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Glimpses of Truth is one of Gurdjieff's first crafted writings. It's written in the form of a story introducing a certain man to Gurdjieff's ideas. It's about 15 pages long and covers one night of this guy being introduced to the ideas. I'm sure it's available free on the internet. I don't know what else to do at this point except give the quote (above). Gurdjieff absolutely considered reality One Whole. However, no, SR does not compute in the Gurdjieff teaching. So I'd say ND does relate to what Gurdjieff taught, with the stipulations concerning scale and discontinuity. I will in a separate post try to describe how all this works, reality being One ND Whole. [It's late, that will have to wait until Sunday. So your final question will have to wait until then]. But, it's basically what I've told ZD at least a dozen times, I agree with all you say, up to a point, but you don't go far enough, there's more. ND stops at the point where it should just be beginning. So, why all this now? Because you have asked. I've always been ready to share, nobody much asks. But I made a record (to refer back to). But I've said countless times, I'm not interested in SR. Interior practice is not about achieving SR. Interior practices are about saving energy and transforming energy, all the Gurdjieff teaching is based on saving and transforming energy. I've read it. And from a purely intellectual perspective, it's interesting, although not entirely new to me. It reminds me of the astrological model of the world. Walter Russell also comes to mind. But in terms of practical, everyday life matters or in terms of peace of mind, what's the point of that kind of knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 12:30:09 GMT -5
Then you are much deeper into this topic than I am. Maybe the Glimpses story gives a sense that what Gurdjieff is writing about, there, talking as conversation, isn't a conceptual paradigm, it's all a living breathing realty for Gurdjieff. Yeah, I get the drift and it is somewhat familiar. I never went that deep into occult theories. But he seems to have studied the occult thoroughly and was able to express it rather fluently. However, the fact remains, the knowledge conveyed or even pointed to never leaves the thingness realm (what Laughter meant by 'objectifying oneness'), quite similar to QM... so while I find what Gurdi or QM have to offer intellectually stimulating and having the potential of adding some more puzzle pieces to my own theory of everything, it has no relevance to my everyday life. And I also don't see the connection to non-duality. It's bit like the Seth material, maybe. Some good stuff, but at the end of the day, too complex, too concept-heavy, too much details to clutter up the mind and therefore counterproductive to an intuitive, spontaneous way living in the NOW. You're a Zhuangzi guy, Zhuangzi would have laughed at Gurdjieff and what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 12:42:12 GMT -5
IOW, Gurdjieff and non-duality are incompatible. My first real handle on ND was Ken Wilber's book No Boundary. I wore that book out and it began to fall apart, and it eventually fell apart (I've never worn any other book out like that). I had found his early books and they resonated. So when a new one came out I'd get it and read it. No Boundary was maybe his 5th or 6th book. Wilber is a both-and guy, ND and hierarchy. Wilber says that if you stick with ND-only, you make what he calls the pre-trans fallacy, you take the beginning as the end. For Wilber, the beginning-ND is fine to acknowledge, but there's a hierarchy of possibilities. So last night I had a beginning of how to approach both together, then this morning waking up had a more full but simple example. Let's take the picture of ND as a seed, an acorn. ND = acorn. Laying under the oak tree are hundreds of acorns. An acorn is (tenka's) it is what it is, probably good for squirrels to eat, or pigs. But is food for pigs its primary purpose and function? No. For a good long purposeful life, an acorn should die to what-it-is, kernel and shell, and grow into an oak tree. The DNA in the kernel gets activated, it ceases to be what it is, and with the proper nutrients and water and sunlight and carbon dioxide, an acorn grows into a mighty oak tree which could live over a hundred years. To make Wilber's pre-trans fallacy, we'd say ND indicates an acorn is merely an acorn and it remains an acorn. Gurdjieff asked, do all acorns become oak trees? Obviously, no. What else are acorns 'good for'? Some just lay on the ground and disappear back into the soil and get recycled, Gurdjieff called this fertilizer. But he liked more colorful words, in French, merde. In English he liked the word shit. So he did not shy away from calling people shit. But only students, or potential students. He loved and respected people in general, honest hardworking people. In one of the books he showed a student a room full of rather bad art. In Paris, instead of just giving money away, he did this also, but he would buy paintings from artists, really just as a donation of money, but he gave the artists some dignity. And he did some of these things privately, we would never know except some of these accounts written by students. So, for Gurdjieff, the small s self was manure, quite literally. Essence is the gold. Working with students Gurdjieff arranged circumstances so that they could differentiate the manure from the "gold", for themselves. It's always both-and, depending how you look at it. If you look at the world thru the intellect, you get the hierarchical view. If you look at the world from prior to the intellect, you get the ND view. However, what the intellect can perceive is extremely narrow, limited. So the hierarchical world you perceive that way is ever only a caricature of What-Is. And if you then start making assumptions and draw conclusions based on that perspective about ALL-THAT-IS, what's the kind of accuracy level you can expect? This is such nonsense what Gurdjieff is teaching, ego as manure. Compare that to what Abe are teaching, ego is literally the leading edge of creation!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 18:14:13 GMT -5
My first real handle on ND was Ken Wilber's book No Boundary. I wore that book out and it began to fall apart, and it eventually fell apart (I've never worn any other book out like that). I had found his early books and they resonated. So when a new one came out I'd get it and read it. No Boundary was maybe his 5th or 6th book. Wilber is a both-and guy, ND and hierarchy. Wilber says that if you stick with ND-only, you make what he calls the pre-trans fallacy, you take the beginning as the end. For Wilber, the beginning-ND is fine to acknowledge, but there's a hierarchy of possibilities. So last night I had a beginning of how to approach both together, then this morning waking up had a more full but simple example. Let's take the picture of ND as a seed, an acorn. ND = acorn. Laying under the oak tree are hundreds of acorns. An acorn is (tenka's) it is what it is, probably good for squirrels to eat, or pigs. But is food for pigs its primary purpose and function? No. For a good long purposeful life, an acorn should die to what-it-is, kernel and shell, and grow into an oak tree. The DNA in the kernel gets activated, it ceases to be what it is, and with the proper nutrients and water and sunlight and carbon dioxide, an acorn grows into a mighty oak tree which could live over a hundred years. To make Wilber's pre-trans fallacy, we'd say ND indicates an acorn is merely an acorn and it remains an acorn. Gurdjieff asked, do all acorns become oak trees? Obviously, no. What else are acorns 'good for'? Some just lay on the ground and disappear back into the soil and get recycled, Gurdjieff called this fertilizer. But he liked more colorful words, in French, merde. In English he liked the word shit. So he did not shy away from calling people shit. But only students, or potential students. He loved and respected people in general, honest hardworking people. In one of the books he showed a student a room full of rather bad art. In Paris, instead of just giving money away, he did this also, but he would buy paintings from artists, really just as a donation of money, but he gave the artists some dignity. And he did some of these things privately, we would never know except some of these accounts written by students. So, for Gurdjieff, the small s self was manure, quite literally. Essence is the gold. Working with students Gurdjieff arranged circumstances so that they could differentiate the manure from the "gold", for themselves. It's always both-and, depending how you look at it. If you look at the world thru the intellect, you get the hierarchical view. If you look at the world from prior to the intellect, you get the ND view. However, what the intellect can perceive is extremely narrow, limited. So the hierarchical world you perceive that way is ever only a caricature of What-Is. And if you then start making assumptions and draw conclusions based on that perspective about ALL-THAT-IS, what's the kind of accuracy level you can expect? This is such nonsense what Gurdjieff is teaching, ego as manure. Compare that to what Abe are teaching, ego is literally the leading edge of creation! For me, ego is the conditioning, a collection of memories. It's a kind of a Pod Cast, basically all replay, complicated, but replays. Ask it a question, it pulls up a response, automatically. So it's kind of a dead thing, not-living. The living edge is essence.
|
|