|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 21:13:48 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. How do you define ego? For me, ego is the conditioning. Ego exists as the connections between neurons. So in what sense is ego imaginary, or illusory? Is the brain imaginary? Is the brain illusory? Let's take an extreme case. It's pretty well established in psychology that hurt people, hurt people. People repeat the patterns wherein they were raised. If you had an alcoholic parent, odds are you are more likely than the average person to be alcoholic. There are children in the Middle East who are taught from a young age that certain other people are the enemy. Some teenagers are convinced they are doing the will of Allah to strap on a bomb and kill the enemy, and themselves. That's extreme conditioning. Everybody is conditioned to some extent. That's what I call ego. So it's nuts to say ego is imaginary, ego is what reeks havoc in society. Sure, there's a flow to All That Is, and nothing occurs outside All That Is, but the havoc created by ego in society, drugs and drug wars, crime, murder, war, terrorism, etc., all come from our screwed up connections in the brain. One man is responsible for the war in Ukraine, Putin. The natural flow of the universe didn't create the war in Ukraine, the unnatural brain of Putin, who wants the glory of the USSR of the past, is responsible for thousands dying in Ukraine. The one-brain of Hitler was responsible for WWII. In the past, here, the food fights arose out of the self-centered activity of multiple egos, loose "wires" badly connected in the brain. Ego is nothing other than multiple recordings of past events, originally mostly records formed unconsciously, just copied from other unconscious people. It's exactly the same as if you made a tape recording and laid it on the table, and put it in a tape playing machine and played it back whenever you wanted to. The only difference is that ego consists of recordings, in a living structure. Concerning people, there is no one-flow-of-All-That-Is, the flow has to pass through the distorting structure that forms ego, and there are over 7 billion on the earth. All this is obviously clear to sdp, has been for over 50 years. I considered a post like this last night, but I was too tired. The subject came up at least twice today. It has continually come up with ZD over the years, I have never been able to penetrate his POV. No, nothing occurs outside of All That Is, but ego is responsible for a lot of s**t in the world, ego, just ego. I don't care to hear about thingness and suchness and what's ultimately true or what's not true in an ultimate sense. If that's all ya got, just save it. The thing is, it's almost impossible to see your own ego. If you look with the eyes of ego, you can't see ego. I found out, a good way to see ego is to keep a journal. If you later go back and read, you can see contradictions you don't-see ordinarily. It's very difficult to be impartial towards your self, ego. We are mostly always right in our own eyes. And, saying all that, I don't understand how you can say that for A-H ego is the leading edge. They must certainly define ego differently than I do. Ego is the wake of the boat, a shadow. But it's not nothing, because it steals all our energy, and wastes it. ZD is cool, as he has "only enough ego to keep from stepping in front of a bus". (Shunryu Suzuki)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 21:14:33 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. There never was such a thread. I believe you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2023 21:14:36 GMT -5
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. As one half of what was 'FigAndrew', I think I am well placed to comment here I actually see vast differences between Fig's old views and Inavalan's (to be clear, I find Inavalan's views interesting). Fig always understood 'oneness/unity', and saw the importance of direct experience of that, but focused mostly upon what it meant to be an individual/'person' as an expression or aspect of oneness. For example....values, purpose, responsibility, focus, capacity to choose, growth. It's not so much that she believed that realizations were endless, it's more that she believed that SR wasn't an end to spiritual growth/insight. And yeah...now, her main focus is on what Self-Realization is, what constitutes it, and from within that context, what might be said to be delusion, or in contradiction to it. Now I'll go to gab and see what she thinks of what I said
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 21:20:48 GMT -5
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. Yea, I thought so. That's why I said eventually they'd find they had a lot in common. Some people and posts I breeze through, like I'm sure some people breeze through me, maybe even most people. So I didn't keep up with current positions. And I don't try to untangle and understand stuff I'm not interested in.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 21:21:54 GMT -5
@ SDP:
I'll get back to the Gurdi stuff some time later. I'm a bit busy right now. I promise to address all your points/questions. If you could put it all in one post, that would be great. That will save me a lot time.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 21:22:47 GMT -5
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. As one half of what was 'FigAndrew', I think I am well placed to comment here I actually see vast differences between Fig's old views and Inavalan's (to be clear, I find Inavalan's views interesting). Fig always understood 'oneness/unity', and saw the importance of direct experience of that, but focused mostly upon what it meant to be an individual/'person' as an expression or aspect of oneness. For example....values, purpose, responsibility, focus, capacity to choose, growth. It's not so much that she believed that realizations were endless, it's more that she believed that SR wasn't an end to spiritual growth/insight. And yeah...now, her main focus is on what Self-Realization is, what constitutes it, and from within that context, what might be said to be delusion, or in contradiction to it. Now I'll go to gab and see what she thinks of what I said Does she still sell those books?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2023 21:25:25 GMT -5
As one half of what was 'FigAndrew', I think I am well placed to comment here I actually see vast differences between Fig's old views and Inavalan's (to be clear, I find Inavalan's views interesting). Fig always understood 'oneness/unity', and saw the importance of direct experience of that, but focused mostly upon what it meant to be an individual/'person' as an expression or aspect of oneness. For example....values, purpose, responsibility, focus, capacity to choose, growth. It's not so much that she believed that realizations were endless, it's more that she believed that SR wasn't an end to spiritual growth/insight. And yeah...now, her main focus is on what Self-Realization is, what constitutes it, and from within that context, what might be said to be delusion, or in contradiction to it. Now I'll go to gab and see what she thinks of what I said Does she still sell those books? I don't know. I guess she'll answer your question on gab though....
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 21:42:09 GMT -5
Does she still sell those books? I don't know. I guess she'll answer your question on gab though.... She also used to sell LOA paraphernalia on her website.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2023 21:58:32 GMT -5
I don't know. I guess she'll answer your question on gab though.... She also used to sell LOA paraphernalia on her website. Yes. I agree fully that there was a strong interest in 'spirituality' in a broad sense of the word, and as it pertained to 'the individual', and that interest included LOA and mediumship. 'Oneness' was meaningful to her too though. I can't comment on what's going on with the website/books now, coz I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 22:07:36 GMT -5
@ SDP: I'll get back to the Gurdi stuff some time later. I'm a bit busy right now. I promise to address all your points/questions. If you could put it all in one post, that would be great. That will save me a lot time. Will do, tomorrow. I posted my *ego post* just some minutes ago. That's more-important. (For concerns here), whenever.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 22:08:03 GMT -5
She also used to sell LOA paraphernalia on her website. Yes. I agree fully that there was a strong interest in 'spirituality' in a broad sense of the word, and as it pertained to 'the individual', and that interest included LOA and mediumship. 'Oneness' was meaningful to her too though. I can't comment on what's going on with the website/books now, coz I don't know. Yup. And I always found that to be very authentic. She actually used to read my posts about LOA with great eagerness and pleasure. Her current position though, I find to be very inauthentic, contrived and mostly fake. Maybe that's why she's so mad at me.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2023 22:09:00 GMT -5
@ SDP: I'll get back to the Gurdi stuff some time later. I'm a bit busy right now. I promise to address all your points/questions. If you could put it all in one post, that would be great. That will save me a lot time. Will do, tomorrow. I posted my *ego post* just some minutes ago. That's more-important. (For concerns here), whenever. Okay, gotcha. Will do.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 27, 2023 8:48:28 GMT -5
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. My computer skills are limited, this is the only way I know to put all my answers in one post. Above is #1, below the others. ZGM-R wrote: Ego is not the problem. Misidentification is the problem. sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~ ZGM-R wrote: 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. sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reefs wrote: 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? sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reefs wrote: 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. sdp wrote: 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.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 27, 2023 8:59:18 GMT -5
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. How do you define ego? For me, ego is the conditioning. Ego exists as the connections between neurons. So in what sense is ego imaginary, or illusory? Is the brain imaginary? Is the brain illusory? Let's take an extreme case. It's pretty well established in psychology that hurt people, hurt people. People repeat the patterns wherein they were raised. If you had an alcoholic parent, odds are you are more likely than the average person to be alcoholic. There are children in the Middle East who are taught from a young age that certain other people are the enemy. Some teenagers are convinced they are doing the will of Allah to strap on a bomb and kill the enemy, and themselves. That's extreme conditioning. Everybody is conditioned to some extent. That's what I call ego. So it's nuts to say ego is imaginary, ego is what reeks havoc in society. Sure, there's a flow to All That Is, and nothing occurs outside All That Is, but the havoc created by ego in society, drugs and drug wars, crime, murder, war, terrorism, etc., all come from our screwed up connections in the brain. One man is responsible for the war in Ukraine, Putin. The natural flow of the universe didn't create the war in Ukraine, the unnatural brain of Putin, who wants the glory of the USSR of the past, is responsible for thousands dying in Ukraine. The one-brain of Hitler was responsible for WWII. In the past, here, the food fights arose out of the self-centered activity of multiple egos, loose "wires" badly connected in the brain. Ego is nothing other than multiple recordings of past events, originally mostly records formed unconsciously, just copied from other unconscious people. It's exactly the same as if you made a tape recording and laid it on the table, and put it in a tape playing machine and played it back whenever you wanted to. The only difference is that ego consists of recordings, in a living structure. Concerning people, there is no one-flow-of-All-That-Is, the flow has to pass through the distorting structure that forms ego, and there are over 7 billion on the earth. All this is obviously clear to sdp, has been for over 50 years. I considered a post like this last night, but I was too tired. The subject came up at least twice today. It has continually come up with ZD over the years, I have never been able to penetrate his POV. No, nothing occurs outside of All That Is, but ego is responsible for a lot of s**t in the world, ego, just ego. I don't care to hear about thingness and suchness and what's ultimately true or what's not true in an ultimate sense. If that's all ya got, just save it. The thing is, it's almost impossible to see your own ego. If you look with the eyes of ego, you can't see ego. I found out, a good way to see ego is to keep a journal. If you later go back and read, you can see contradictions you don't-see ordinarily. It's very difficult to be impartial towards your self, ego. We are mostly always right in our own eyes. And, saying all that, I don't understand how you can say that for A-H ego is the leading edge. They must certainly define ego differently than I do. Ego is the wake of the boat, a shadow. But it's not nothing, because it steals all our energy, and wastes it. ZD is cool, as he has "only enough ego to keep from stepping in front of a bus". (Shunryu Suzuki) Ego is not a well-defined term, usually. It means different things to different people. That's why I rarely use it. Usually it refers to either self or self-image. I can use it in both ways, depending on context. Ego as self, the individual, is not an illusion. Ego as self-image, the SVP, however, is an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 27, 2023 9:38:47 GMT -5
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. My computer skills are limited, this is the only way I know to put all my answers in one post. Above is #1, below the others. ZGM-R wrote: Ego is not the problem. Misidentification is the problem. sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~ ZGM-R wrote: 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. sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reefs wrote: 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? sdp wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reefs wrote: 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. sdp wrote: 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. ZGM-R... I don't know what that is supposed to mean. In my framework, at around age two the child develops some kind of self-image and begins using it as a reference point, but only occasionally. We call that abstract reference point the person. Mostly the child lives as an individual, a self though. Adults, however, especially those who live in their heads, use this abstract reference point almost exclusively and stop being an individual at some point. Both QM and relativity belong to the same fundamental way of perceiving reality. Both are the perspective of the intellect. But interconnectedness and oneness refer to two fundamentally different ways of perceiving reality. One is the perspective of the intellect, the other is the perspective from prior to the intellect. SO your metaphor doesn't work here. From the TPTPAU perspective, there is no ordinary and no extraordinary life. Life is life. Life is about living fully in the here and now, not about checking off to-do lists. I tried to explain this to Sree once. He just couldn't understand how to me there is no difference between watching a beautiful sunset from a slum and watching it from a palace. Is there any room for spontaneity in the Gurdi teachings? Because that's what Zhuangzi teaches (the way of nature), Abe also (alignment and allowing). Zhuangzi does not teach alchemy. I remember Zhuangzi actually making fun of people who do Taiji and Qigong (aka energy work). Abe have a similar perspective, what they teach is letting go, the art of allowing, which is basically wu-wei, not forcing things, not trying to make things happen. This is also what UG taught, when he talked about being a true individual. UG even went so far to say that the body can perfectly take care of itself and will actually function much better when left to itself. Gurdi seems to try to make things happen and tweak the human being for some imaginary higher purpose. And that's the (spiritual) ego perspective. It takes no instructions and no practice to just be who you are. Abe always used the up-stream/down-stream analogy. The energy work approach is to put your boat into the stream of life, clutch the oars and start paddling upstream, following some imaginary goal. The wu-wei/allowing approach is to put your boat into the stream, put away the oars and let the stream of life carry you downstream, naturally and effortlessly. These are two very different, totally incompatible approaches to life.
|
|