|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 18:26:13 GMT -5
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. Ego is a kind of parasite. The Gurdjieff teaching is all centered around energy. The parasite forms from birth to about age six. The parasite, then, takes all the energy, and essence ceases to grow. Interior spiritual practices are about ceasing to feed the parasite, and once again feeding essence.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 18:33:09 GMT -5
I'll correct and/or fill in the ChatGPT Swiss cheese holes. 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. It's specific knowledge on how to change one's being. It's not about adding knowledge to the self, the whole structure of one's being is changed. Just remember the metaphor, QM can't be understood in terms of Relativity, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 18:46:08 GMT -5
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? There is no point whatsoever in terms of ordinary life. Ordinary life is not an end in itself, life is merely a means for work. The teaching is not used for life in any sense, life is used for the process. The Gurdjieff work is for people who see that ordinary life leads nowhere and is going nowhere. It's not about peace or happiness, it's about becoming conscious, period. That doesn't work in terms of ego, which can't become more conscious. That's like asking if AI can become conscious.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2023 19:18:46 GMT -5
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. It's not meant to, see post above. The connection to nonduality is how one works. I've written about this. Interior practice does not require any time whatsoever, as it takes place simultaneously with whatever one happens to be doing. If it doesn't take place simultaneously, it isn't correct practice. Simultaneously means no copy as memory which is observed or what one is aware-of. That much should be understandable. Correct practice is very strict. The conceptuality of the Gurdjieff work means little in and of itself. Instructions are conceptual, the doing isn't conceptual. It's like you can't learn to swim by reading a book about swimming. One cannot know how to practice the first conscious shock, AKA the practice self-remembering, without instructions, no one could ever just come to it. One can get self-observation, but discerning the preciseness is not so easy as it seems, the thing about simultaneity. And, you don't understand the practice self-remembering until the state of self-remembering comes. Then you realize it's a process of reverse engineering. Those last two sentences will mean nothing to you, I was never taught that, it became self-evident. I was never even taught these two meanings of self-remembering, but it became self-evident. I'm just sharing my POV, don't expect anyone to understand it. Understanding only comes at one's own initiative. Do you know anything about Taoist alchemy? Then, the 4th Way was called Taoism, I'm about 99% sure of that. The birth of the spiritual embryo means exactly a new growth of essence. And Taoist Immortality means surviving the death of the physical body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2023 9:30:25 GMT -5
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? Figgles got banned for asking about dubstep music? That's a new one. It must have a secret meaning between the two of them. How else could the mind take offense at a question about dubstep music? Her other posts seem fine.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 13:42:01 GMT -5
What have you done Reefs? Figgles got banned for asking about dubstep music? That's a new one. It must have a secret meaning between the two of them. How else could the mind take offense at a question about dubstep music? Her other posts seem fine. figs kept making it personal. figs accused Reefs of deleting a thread just because she started posting on it. (I'm going to say that's pretty nuts just in and of itself). I'm sure moderating is hard. Of course, one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch. figs comment was totally unnecessary, why poke the bear when the bear just said, don't poke the bear. Some people just can't not-fight, verbally, it's just in their DNA to battle. I know, I was once upon a time married to one of those. Very tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 26, 2023 14:28:58 GMT -5
Figgles got banned for asking about dubstep music? That's a new one. It must have a secret meaning between the two of them. How else could the mind take offense at a question about dubstep music? Her other posts seem fine. figs kept making it personal. figs accused Reefs of deleting a thread just because she started posting on it. (I'm going to say that's pretty nuts just in and of itself). I'm sure moderating is hard. Of course, one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch. figs comment was totally unnecessary, why poke the bear when the bear just said, don't poke the bear. Some people just can't not-fight, verbally, it's just in their DNA to battle. I know, I was once upon a time married to one of those. Very tiresome. Spiritual realization is not the end of learning and growing. It's really a beginning. Figs is fixated on Reef's past positions and continuously brings them up, trying to challenge/confront him based on his previous views. See her latest posting of his on her forum dug up from 2013. Figs is unable to move past Reef's past and appears to be attempting to catch him in contradictions or inconsistencies. She apparently can't/won't recognize that peeps can and do evolve in understanding. It would probably annoy me to no end, too, if someone constantly harped at me for positions I long grew out of and/or already addressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2023 15:00:53 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. [...] I read Ouspensky a long time ago. I remember feeling like his "self remembering" was pointing in the same direction as Niz's "focus on the I-Am", or Ramana's "I thought", or Douglas Harding's noticing that you have no head. So I think the basic practice got you started in that same direction. But on the other hand, Gurdjieff got into all kinds of theories about cosmology and planets eating energy and whatnot. I had no use for that. As you probably know he also wasn't shy about admitting that he conned people for money.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 15:33:02 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. [...] I read Ouspensky a long time ago. I remember feeling like his "self remembering" was pointing in the same direction as Niz's "focus on the I-Am", or Ramana's "I thought", or Douglas Harding's noticing that you have no head. So I think the basic practice got you started in that same direction. But on the other hand, Gurdjieff got into all kinds of theories about cosmology and planets eating energy and whatnot. I had no use for that. As you probably know he also wasn't shy about admitting that he conned people for money. Yes. Note, Gurdjieff's 3rd book is called Life Is Real Only Then, When "I Am". It took me forever to get Harding, I still take him as metaphor, because his no head is diametrically opposing self-remembering, IOW, sdp can't-be absent a head. IOW, for sdp head doesn't equal our psychology, which, of course, can be absent. I read Ramana before I read Niz. Who am I? is pretty potent. I had the luck of my teacher introducing me to the Gurdjieff teaching, so I got my many questions 'ironed out' immediately, and I was given some of the practices immediately. The Gurdjieff teaching is designed where you basically have to come to understand, or you give up. A middle ground is not tolerated. The Cosmology does have a purpose. As far as eating, the whole universe is based on energy-processes. There in no-where changing energies is-not. That's basically what flow is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2023 15:56:02 GMT -5
I read Ouspensky a long time ago. I remember feeling like his "self remembering" was pointing in the same direction as Niz's "focus on the I-Am", or Ramana's "I thought", or Douglas Harding's noticing that you have no head. So I think the basic practice got you started in that same direction. [...] Yes. Note, Gurdjieff's 3rd book is called Life Is Real Only Then, When "I Am". It took me forever to get Harding, I still take him as metaphor, because his no head is diametrically opposing self-remembering, IOW, sdp can't-be absent a head. IOW, for sdp head doesn't equal our psychology, which, of course, can be absent. [...] I've never seen my "head" in my entire life. Look now. What do you see? It's a pointer to direct experience instead of thoughts about reality. Your statement about photons to Satch in another thread brings up the same thing. Science may be a level above wishful thinking and quackery, but the theories are still thought-objects in consciousness. One of my unimportant pet theories is that Jesus said something like "no one comes to the Father but through the I-Am", and someone who had no clue "fixed" the grammar.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 26, 2023 16:06:56 GMT -5
Yes. Note, Gurdjieff's 3rd book is called Life Is Real Only Then, When "I Am". It took me forever to get Harding, I still take him as metaphor, because his no head is diametrically opposing self-remembering, IOW, sdp can't-be absent a head. IOW, for sdp head doesn't equal our psychology, which, of course, can be absent. [...] I've never seen my "head" in my entire life. Look now. What do you see? It's a pointer to direct experience instead of thoughts about reality. Your statement about photons to Satch in another thread brings up the same thing. Science may be a level above wishful thinking and quackery, but the theories are still thought-objects in consciousness. One of my unimportant pet theories is that Jesus said something like "no one comes to the Father but through the I-Am", and someone who had no clue "fixed" the grammar. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 26, 2023 18:14:32 GMT -5
Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” In other words: the present is the point of power ... where both the past and the future originate.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 26, 2023 19:59:14 GMT -5
Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” In other words: the present is the point of power ... where both the past and the future originate.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 20:35:39 GMT -5
Figgles got banned for asking about dubstep music? That's a new one. It must have a secret meaning between the two of them. How else could the mind take offense at a question about dubstep music? Her other posts seem fine. figs kept making it personal. figs accused Reefs of deleting a thread just because she started posting on it. (I'm going to say that's pretty nuts just in and of itself). I'm sure moderating is hard. Of course, one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch. figs comment was totally unnecessary, why poke the bear when the bear just said, don't poke the bear. Some people just can't not-fight, verbally, it's just in their DNA to battle. I know, I was once upon a time married to one of those. Very tiresome. There never was such a thread.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 20:58:11 GMT -5
figs kept making it personal. figs accused Reefs of deleting a thread just because she started posting on it. (I'm going to say that's pretty nuts just in and of itself). I'm sure moderating is hard. Of course, one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch. figs comment was totally unnecessary, why poke the bear when the bear just said, don't poke the bear. Some people just can't not-fight, verbally, it's just in their DNA to battle. I know, I was once upon a time married to one of those. Very tiresome. Spiritual realization is not the end of learning and growing. It's really a beginning. Figs is fixated on Reef's past positions and continuously brings them up, trying to challenge/confront him based on his previous views. See her latest posting of his on her forum dug up from 2013. Figs is unable to move past Reef's past and appears to be attempting to catch him in contradictions or inconsistencies. She apparently can't/won't recognize that peeps can and do evolve in understanding. It would probably annoy me to no end, too, if someone constantly harped at me for positions I long grew out of and/or already addressed. Actually, her perspective used to be similar to Inavalan's perspective. Figgles even published a book about talking to the dead and one about LOA. The exact same positions she now propagates, she actually used to reject whole-heartedly as self-delusion. She especially rejected the idea of there being one final, ultimate realization, because to her, there was no end to seeing thru delusions and therefore no end to realizations. At some point though, she slowly did a 180 and started copying Enigma whom she used to fight tooth and nail for years. And as of now, she actually has gone way beyond Enigma in terms of extremity of position. So this is all just a projection. Enigma always used to say that she was teaching others what she was still trying to learn and understand herself. And that always made perfect sense to me. So, to all those who have become a target of Figgles, keep that in mind. It has nothing to do with you, but everything with herself.
|
|