|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 27, 2023 9:52:31 GMT -5
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. That's why I continually use and define my language. essence is the true-actual individuation, it's what one was born as and born with, it is what is one's own. Personality (ego) is acquired after birth, it is what is not one's own, it's the conditioning, the false self. essence as self is not an illusion. Personality AKA ego, is a false persona, a mask, it's ZD's 'I realized there never was a me', he's correct. essence is: "a man is unable to say what he himself really is". Personality is the machine. essence is-not a machine. Some people manifest as more-essence, some people manifest as more-false self. I'd say Einstein was mostly essence, more closely in tune with nature-the-actual-world. When he wrote about himself personally, this is pretty evident, there almost wasn't a self there. Einstein said he went into science to escape the dreariness of ordinary life. You can see people in your life, some people talk and stuff comes in their ears, and goes right out their mouth, bypassing their brain. These are mostly knee-jerk reactionary personality-ego, automatic response, the machine acting. People living from personality-ego use coercion and are subject to coercion. The mask-facade is concerned about what other people think of them. Those comfortable in essence, not so much, not hardly at all. This is why language is important, less confusion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 27, 2023 9:59:39 GMT -5
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.sdp wrote: Yes, this is the meaning of personality-ego-mask-facade-persona-small s self, what is not one's own. These people don't realize this, that the facade is a facade and not who they are in actuality. Gurdjieff said this is how it is for most people. I would guess for 96% of people.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 27, 2023 11:15:46 GMT -5
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. Thanks for reading all that and thanks for the replies. First, the Gurdjieff teaching isn't for everyone, not for the general public. It's for whoever surmises it's for them, basically, period. It's for people who have recognized something is wrong, but they maybe cannot put their finger on the problem. But what's wrong, is they themselves are the problem. If they stick with it, they realize that they are not their authentic self, they are this facade, a pale imitation of what-can-be. So the practices are about a process of ceasing to live through the false facade-mask what one is not, and to live through who they are in actuality. It's first, yes, seeing through the illusoriness, but it turns into dismantling the actual structure of the neural connections that form the activity of the false-self-acting-in-the-world. This can be a shorter process (maybe two years, my teacher's experience) or longer, even to forever, not completing the process. Gurdjieff called this being between to stools, very uncomfortable. Gurdjieff taught we must work from understanding, only-that is effective, and only-that initiates the intensity of practice necessary. So there is actually a battle between the mechanicalness of the facade-mask-persona, and making conscious efforts. OK, all that gets us to your answer to: Is there any room for spontaneity in the Gurdjieff teachings? There is obviously no spontaneity as long as one lives from the knee-jerk machine, as the conditioning rules everything we do. This is where non-volition applies (in Gurdjieff's sense). The personality-mask-facade IS a machine, so there can be no spontaneity. In the book Views From the Real World (early talks of Gurdjieff) someone asked Gurdjieff what it's like to live from essence. He answered: Everything more vivid. That's just about as close as he ever got to describing experiences. This is deliberately so, to keep imagination at bay, so you won't imagine what it's like. So, yes, what ZD describes is basically what it's like to live from essence, ZD basically lives from essence, it's evident. I can't elaborate much further, as it get's into things that are not written about. The hows and whys and results. I can say this, personality operates from want and desire and compulsion, obsession, I WANT, I NEED, I MUST HAVE!. essence operates from wish, no compulsion, easy, gentle. If there is something you just have to do or just have to have, that's from Personality-ego-facade. if there is something you feel a compulsion to CHASE, that's the machine in operation you can pretty well guarantee. And, from recent history (and past history), without naming names, you can see these characteristics from a certain someone, they actually can't help themselves, it's a real compulsion. And, these people can't see this in themselves, the more you point it out the further it drives the truth away. So it is said, we live of the moment. (And we work of the moment, that means, always and only now, in the present moment. The present moment means no time for copies, as a copy is a copy of the present moment, and so ISN"T the present moment, can't-be the present moment). Alternatively, the persona-facade in NOTHING-BUT a copy. So, to live from essence is new and different every moment, aliveness. To live from persona-mask is dreariness, dry, cardboard, sawdust, deadness. The Gurdjieff teaching, getting past living-through the mask-persona-facade, is nothing but true Zen, true Chuang Tzu, aliveness. My teacher was the funniest man I have ever known, and the most serious. We had a Christmas party once, he asked in a meeting, previous, what do you want to eat for the party? The first 3 things that came up: popcorn, apples and crap, the memory escapes me, thought I'd never forget, it will come to me. So he said, OK, we'll have apples and popcorn and ...I think it was white wine, the other, and white wine, yes, it was white wine, and that's what we had, nothing else, nobody brought anything else. That party was the most fun I've ever had in my life, we laughed and laughed and laughed, no "teaching", none whatsoever, except in passing almost silent references. Another Christmas...well, enough.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 27, 2023 21:01:50 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. I find it interesting that someone who ruthlessly truths for the impersonal on a spiritual forum would at the same time continue to nag someone on that same forum for the personal. Gender. Music taste. etc. As ex-law enforcement I can tell you the gender thing alone is evidence of a suspicious mind, at a minimum. But to what end? To be proven right? What is ego if not a dog with a compulsive need to chew a bone, as Tolle says. Does Figs not compulsively seek to find bones to chew? Such a curious thing to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 1:14:47 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. I find it interesting that someone who ruthlessly truths for the impersonal on a spiritual forum would at the same time continue to nag someone on that same forum for the personal. Gender. Music taste. etc. As ex-law enforcement I can tell you the gender thing alone is evidence of a suspicious mind, at a minimum. But to what end? To be proven right? What is ego if not a dog with a compulsive need to chew a bone, as Tolle says. Does Figs not compulsively seek to find bones to chew? Such a curious thing to watch. It's basically just addiction to thinking. So I'd say it's not by accident that she prefers the dream metaphor over everything else and has been struggling with pointers like suchness and true nature, because apparently there is no reference for anything prior to or beyond thinking. The talk is nice and impressive, sometimes even elegant, but there's never been any walk. And that's just the way it is. Because in a sense, addiction to thinking is the very definition of existential suffering. Tolle explains it quite well here... ...and how to get out of it:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 1:29:27 GMT -5
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. That's why I continually use and define my language. essence is the true-actual individuation, it's what one was born as and born with, it is what is one's own. Personality (ego) is acquired after birth, it is what is not one's own, it's the conditioning, the false self. essence as self is not an illusion. Personality AKA ego, is a false persona, a mask, it's ZD's 'I realized there never was a me', he's correct. essence is: "a man is unable to say what he himself really is". Personality is the machine. essence is-not a machine. Some people manifest as more-essence, some people manifest as more-false self. I'd say Einstein was mostly essence, more closely in tune with nature-the-actual-world. When he wrote about himself personally, this is pretty evident, there almost wasn't a self there. Einstein said he went into science to escape the dreariness of ordinary life. You can see people in your life, some people talk and stuff comes in their ears, and goes right out their mouth, bypassing their brain. These are mostly knee-jerk reactionary personality-ego, automatic response, the machine acting. People living from personality-ego use coercion and are subject to coercion. The mask-facade is concerned about what other people think of them. Those comfortable in essence, not so much, not hardly at all. This is why language is important, less confusion. I define personality as a unique, individual energy pattern that you have from birth, together with your body. The ancients used the term 'temperament', and what they meant was basically a unique body/mind energy signature, a whole package. And that unique energy pattern or signature also remains after SR. You are born with it, you have it all your life and SR will not erase it. Someone born with a predominantly choleric nature will not turn phlegmatic after SR, he will remain choleric. You can see that clearly with Niz, Ramana, Ramakrishna and UG who had very distinct personalities. Personality is not the issue. So personality shouldn't be mixed up with persona or ego in the self-image sense. And in that sense, personality is also not a machine, it alive, a vital expression of individuality. So this is something very basic and totally natural. The intellect, however, is a machine. After all, computers are just emulating the intellect and also seem to never go beyond that. So someone who fully identifies with, perceives thru and lives thru the perspective of the intellect, is similar to a machine because that kind of experience is lacking immediacy, spontaneity. If, for example, you criticize someone with a choleric temperament, they will fight right back and likely even double the force. But if you criticize someone with a melancholic temperament, they will just take it and there will be no reaction unless you keep going and they reach a tipping point when they had finally enough. So these are two very different, 'automatic' and fully natural reactions to outside stimuli that have nothing to do with ego (the way you define it). They were like that as babies already and they will be like that all their life, SR or no SR. Very often I see people here neglecting personality, temperament in their opinion pieces. Someone like Tolle is someone of a melancholic temperament, they are naturally calm, rather slow and have a deadpan sense of humor. Other folks like Niz and UG are of a choleric temperament, they are very quick, rather forceful and have a no-nonsense take no prisoners approach. Some other folks like Yogananda are of a phlegmatic temperament, they are very sensitive to how others feel, very compassionate and can't stand quarreling, because it almost hurts them physically. I am saying this because someone recently said that if after SR you are still an asshole then you haven't got it yet. And there's some truth to this if that is about a reoccurring pattern of behavior. But, we also have to take personality into account. Someone like UG would come across like a bombastic blowhard to someone like Yogananda, merely by force of personality, not because of an out of control spiritual ego issue. So this is a lot more nuanced than some people would like to have it. You have to take personality into account and shouldn't confuse it with ego/SVP.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 1:50:07 GMT -5
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.sdp wrote: Yes, this is the meaning of personality-ego-mask-facade-persona-small s self, what is not one's own. These people don't realize this, that the facade is a facade and not who they are in actuality. Gurdjieff said this is how it is for most people. I would guess for 96% of people. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 2:23:06 GMT -5
Thanks for reading all that and thanks for the replies. First, the Gurdjieff teaching isn't for everyone, not for the general public. It's for whoever surmises it's for them, basically, period. It's for people who have recognized something is wrong, but they maybe cannot put their finger on the problem. But what's wrong, is they themselves are the problem. If they stick with it, they realize that they are not their authentic self, they are this facade, a pale imitation of what-can-be. So the practices are about a process of ceasing to live through the false facade-mask what one is not, and to live through who they are in actuality. Agreed. It's first, yes, seeing through the illusoriness, but it turns into dismantling the actual structure of the neural connections that form the activity of the false-self-acting-in-the-world. This can be a shorter process (maybe two years, my teacher's experience) or longer, even to forever, not completing the process. Gurdjieff called this being between to stools, very uncomfortable. Gurdjieff taught we must work from understanding, only-that is effective, and only-that initiates the intensity of practice necessary. So there is actually a battle between the mechanicalness of the facade-mask-persona, and making conscious efforts. This is where we disagree. You see, the ego perspective as your predominant perspective is not natural. It takes constant effort to sustain it. In fact, when you wake up in the morning, the ego is not there. You slowly get back into that role when you fire up your thinking melon. The prior to ego perspective, however, is natural. It takes no effort to sustain it. You meditate, and suddenly you are there. You sleep and wake up, and suddenly you are there. You watch a sunset and get fully sucked into that experience, and you are there. It's your natural, default state of being. The ego is an unnatural, contrived state of being. So isn't then the shortest and most effortless way to get back into your natural state to just stop doing what keeps you out it, to just drop the efforting, right here right now? You see, Abe taught something similar to Gurdi, they called it deconstructing thoughts and beliefs. But this activity only postpones and turns into hard work what you could and should have right here right now, and effortlessly. That's why they switched to teaching releasing resistance, allowing. And that doesn't take any intellectual understanding, you only have to taste alignment once and you know that that's it. OK, all that gets us to your answer to: Is there any room for spontaneity in the Gurdjieff teachings? There is obviously no spontaneity as long as one lives from the knee-jerk machine, as the conditioning rules everything we do. This is where non-volition applies (in Gurdjieff's sense). The personality-mask-facade IS a machine, so there can be no spontaneity. In the book Views From the Real World (early talks of Gurdjieff) someone asked Gurdjieff what it's like to live from essence. He answered: Everything more vivid. That's just about as close as he ever got to describing experiences. This is deliberately so, to keep imagination at bay, so you won't imagine what it's like. Yes, living thru the intellect/SVP is the opposite of living spontaneously. And the natural state is the unspeakable, the unimaginable. So, yes, what ZD describes is basically what it's like to live from essence, ZD basically lives from essence, it's evident. I can't elaborate much further, as it get's into things that are not written about. The hows and whys and results. I can say this, personality operates from want and desire and compulsion, obsession, I WANT, I NEED, I MUST HAVE!. essence operates from wish, no compulsion, easy, gentle. If there is something you just have to do or just have to have, that's from Personality-ego-facade. if there is something you feel a compulsion to CHASE, that's the machine in operation you can pretty well guarantee. And, from recent history (and past history), without naming names, you can see these characteristics from a certain someone, they actually can't help themselves, it's a real compulsion. And, these people can't see this in themselves, the more you point it out the further it drives the truth away. So it is said, we live of the moment. (And we work of the moment, that means, always and only now, in the present moment. The present moment means no time for copies, as a copy is a copy of the present moment, and so ISN"T the present moment, can't-be the present moment). Alternatively, the persona-facade in NOTHING-BUT a copy. You make it seem as if desires are the problem. I see it differently. Desires, that you know you can achieve, are actually life-giving, invigorating. Only desires that you believe (for whatever reason) you cannot or should not achieve are draining and cause suffering. So desires are not the problem, our attitude towards desires is the problem. This is why to Abe, ego is not something you have to get rid of. Ego has the function of creating new desires, which draw life force, and when life force is flowing thru you, you feel fully alive. So ego actually has a very important role to play. What you shouldn't do though is limiting your perspective to ego. For ego its about getting 'there'. But as Abe teach, the 'there' is only an excuse to have something focus upon, to flow life force towards. It's not about the manifestation, it's all about the process, the flowing of energy, i.e. enjoying the journey here and now. If you actually get 'there' doesn't even matter in the end. Which is why the school metaphor is incompatible with the Abe teachings. You are not here to get things done, to fix a broken world or to become more godlike. You are an extension of Source and as such you lack nothing and a 'broken world' would equal more contrast which equals more choices which equals more opportunities for expansion which equals more life force flowing which equals more joy in the moment. So this is where I think Buddhism is also wrong. So, to live from essence is new and different every moment, aliveness. To live from persona-mask is dreariness, dry, cardboard, sawdust, deadness. The Gurdjieff teaching, getting past living-through the mask-persona-facade, is nothing but true Zen, true Chuang Tzu, aliveness. My teacher was the funniest man I have ever known, and the most serious. We had a Christmas party once, he asked in a meeting, previous, what do you want to eat for the party? The first 3 things that came up: popcorn, apples and crap, the memory escapes me, thought I'd never forget, it will come to me. So he said, OK, we'll have apples and popcorn and ...I think it was white wine, the other, and white wine, yes, it was white wine, and that's what we had, nothing else, nobody brought anything else. That party was the most fun I've ever had in my life, we laughed and laughed and laughed, no "teaching", none whatsoever, except in passing almost silent references. Another Christmas...well, enough. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2023 3:09:45 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. Yeah, ok Winston.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2023 3:13:47 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? Damn. Is it too late to score a Magic Mojo Bag? Did i miss my chance??
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 28, 2023 7:42:10 GMT -5
I find it interesting that someone who ruthlessly truths for the impersonal on a spiritual forum would at the same time continue to nag someone on that same forum for the personal. Gender. Music taste. etc. As ex-law enforcement I can tell you the gender thing alone is evidence of a suspicious mind, at a minimum. But to what end? To be proven right? What is ego if not a dog with a compulsive need to chew a bone, as Tolle says. Does Figs not compulsively seek to find bones to chew? Such a curious thing to watch. It's basically just addiction to thinking. So I'd say it's not by accident that she prefers the dream metaphor over everything else and has been struggling with pointers like suchness and true nature, because apparently there is no reference for anything prior to or beyond thinking. The talk is nice and impressive, sometimes even elegant, but there's never been any walk. And that's just the way it is. Because in a sense, addiction to thinking is the very definition of existential suffering. I don't know what her deal with dubstep is (whatever that is) or any of the other issues she clings to, but whatever it is, its personal with her against you. It carries on from one day to the next, one week to the next, one month to the next, one year to the next. There is a clear inability to let the go and move on, to live unencumbered by the past, an inability to come empty and with fresh eyes to the present moment. Is that what her version of SR is all about? If so, who in their right mind would want that?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 28, 2023 8:02:33 GMT -5
I find it interesting that someone who ruthlessly truths for the impersonal on a spiritual forum would at the same time continue to nag someone on that same forum for the personal. Gender. Music taste. etc. As ex-law enforcement I can tell you the gender thing alone is evidence of a suspicious mind, at a minimum. But to what end? To be proven right? What is ego if not a dog with a compulsive need to chew a bone, as Tolle says. Does Figs not compulsively seek to find bones to chew? Such a curious thing to watch. It's basically just addiction to thinking. So I'd say it's not by accident that she prefers the dream metaphor over everything else and has been struggling with pointers like suchness and true nature, because apparently there is no reference for anything prior to or beyond thinking. The talk is nice and impressive, sometimes even elegant, but there's never been any walk. And that's just the way it is. Because in a sense, addiction to thinking is the very definition of existential suffering. Tolle explains it quite well here... ...and how to get out of it: Both of these videos are good, but the second video is one of my favorites that I recommend to people. Dilullo has a similar video where he talks about the "sense gates" as a doorway to presence and mental silence (from which realizations seem to spontaneously occur). There are many meditative activities that will lead to stillness of mind, but direct sensory perception, or ATA-T, is one of the simplest and most efficacious. It does initially require persistence, but gradually the internal dialogue slows down and one can eventually be aware of mental silence without thoughts interrupting the silence. Good stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 9:30:21 GMT -5
Does she still sell those books? Damn. Is it too late to score a Magic Mojo Bag? Did i miss my chance?? Ah, yes. I remember you making fun of this in the past. But wasn't it actually LOA magic mojo bags?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2023 9:45:46 GMT -5
It's basically just addiction to thinking. So I'd say it's not by accident that she prefers the dream metaphor over everything else and has been struggling with pointers like suchness and true nature, because apparently there is no reference for anything prior to or beyond thinking. The talk is nice and impressive, sometimes even elegant, but there's never been any walk. And that's just the way it is. Because in a sense, addiction to thinking is the very definition of existential suffering. I don't know what her deal with dubstep is (whatever that is) or any of the other issues she clings to, but whatever it is, its personal with her against you. It carries on from one day to the next, one week to the next, one month to the next, one year to the next. There is a clear inability to let the go and move on, to live unencumbered by the past, an inability to come empty and with fresh eyes to the present moment. Is that what her version of SR is all about? If so, who in their right mind would want that? You two are publicly shit-talking and psychoanalyzing someone after you banned them from responding. It takes two to tango. She's not the only person that could benefit from letting go of past grudges. If you can't stop shit-talking her, I suggest you take it to a private thread.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 28, 2023 9:55:51 GMT -5
I don't know what her deal with dubstep is (whatever that is) or any of the other issues she clings to, but whatever it is, its personal with her against you. It carries on from one day to the next, one week to the next, one month to the next, one year to the next. There is a clear inability to let the go and move on, to live unencumbered by the past, an inability to come empty and with fresh eyes to the present moment. Is that what her version of SR is all about? If so, who in their right mind would want that? You two are publicly shit-talking and psychoanalyzing someone after you banned them from responding. It takes two to tango. She's not the only person that could benefit from letting go of past grudges. If you can't stop shit-talking her, I suggest you take it to a private thread. . Last I looked she was online here 14 hours ago. She doesn’t look banned to me.
|
|