|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2023 10:31:41 GMT -5
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. No problem with any of this. What you're calling personality here is what Gurdjieff called essence. Nobody is born an asshole. So I'd say that's an ego issue, a conditioning issue. (The wording gets complicated here, as Gurdjieff's term for ego, is personality). {[And it get's further complicated, in the case of Gurdjieff himself, as he could be an asshole, there are numerous accounts. But for Gurdjieff, these instances had different reasons, but he called them *acting*, being an actor, playing a part. One reason could be a teaching-moment for students. & He drove people away when he needed to focus on a task. He drove students away when it was time for them to be on their own. & He didn't like reporters in general, so he could be nasty to reporters. Gurdjieff was not in any sense concerned about what people, the public, thought of him. Basically, Gurdjieff was a master at pulling the wool over people's eyes. & He could also do this to ~play~ Bodhidharma putting Huike out to wait in the snow, he tested students in many ways. Gurdjieff was basically always acting in some manner, playing a role. Once, later in life a student caught him sitting looking very weary. He understood he was caught, not-acting, and just looked up and said to her: God helps me. He virtually willed himself to live until there was a contract to publish Beelzebub's Tales with Harcourt Brace & Company, and Routledge. He died October 1949, BT's was published in 1950]}.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 10:39:05 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. But dude, you've started it! It was already over. Sharon gave it a try, but no one took the bait. Then you suddenly had to chime in from nowhere and brought it up again. SDP took the bait and conversation got rolling again. Me thinks you are mostly here for the drama. But then you have second thoughts and want to distance yourself from the drama you've created. So you are throwing out bait and then you chastise others for taking the bait. Not cool! This is called trolling. Also, let's not forget what you said about Enigma just a couple of days ego. Take a look in the mirror! ETA: Now, to be perfectly honest, I kinda already expected this, that either you or SN would chime in and complain about moderating. And as we can see, you didn't disappoint. Let's see if and when we hear from SN. You guys are predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 10:56:41 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. 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! Here's another good one:
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2023 11:07:18 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. I don't think we essentially disagree. Probably where we disagree is to what extent most people live through the crap that has been put-on-them, conditioning, and to what extent they live through their natural beingness. And most people wouldn't mean most people here, ST's, just most people in general. An example, parents who live through their children and what for them what they could do themselves. The parent who grooms the kid to be a doctor or lawyer, the kid goes to college and law school, and then decides they don't like being a lawyer, or the adult who keeps being a lawyer but is never happy doing it. Or the parent who wants their kind to be a lawyer or doctor, just because that's a way to make lots of money, as they think money makes one happy. The point is to live through one's natural beingness, not through haphazard accidental conditioning (false self, I'll try to think of a better label, maybe HACK, haphazard accidental conditioning I'll have to think of a k-word).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 11:18:48 GMT -5
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. No problem with any of this. What you're calling personality here is what Gurdjieff called essence. Nobody is born an asshole. So I'd say that's an ego issue, a conditioning issue. (The wording gets complicated here, as Gurdjieff's term for ego, is personality). {[And it get's further complicated, in the case of Gurdjieff himself, as he could be an asshole, there are numerous accounts. But for Gurdjieff, these instances had different reasons, but he called them *acting*, being an actor, playing a part. One reason could be a teaching-moment for students. & He drove people away when he needed to focus on a task. He drove students away when it was time for them to be on their own. & He didn't like reporters in general, so he could be nasty to reporters. Gurdjieff was not in any sense concerned about what people, the public, thought of him. Basically, Gurdjieff was a master at pulling the wool over people's eyes. & He could also do this to ~play~ Bodhidharma putting Huike out to wait in the snow, he tested students in many ways. Gurdjieff was basically always acting in some manner, playing a role. Once, later in life a student caught him sitting looking very weary. He understood he was caught, not-acting, and just looked up and said to her: God helps me. He virtually willed himself to live until there was a contract to publish Beelzebub's Tales with Harcourt Brace & Company, and Routledge. He died October 1949, BT's was published in 1950]}. In Abe terms, being an asshole is just being out of alignment, and that's a moment to moment thing. So you are right, you are not born one, you are just momentarily acting like one. Which is also one of the points where I see us disagree, and that is how to get back into alignment. If I understood you correctly, you say it takes years of hard work on yourself. From my perspective, alignment is always fully available right here right now.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2023 11:25:46 GMT -5
Agreed. 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. Yes, living thru the intellect/SVP is the opposite of living spontaneously. And the natural state is the unspeakable, the unimaginable. 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. Yes. I don't think we essentially disagree. Probably where we disagree is to what extent most people live through the crap that has been put-on-them, conditioning, and to what extent they live through their natural beingness. And most people wouldn't mean most people here, ST's, just most people in general. An example, parents who live through their children and what for them what they could do themselves. The parent who grooms the kid to be a doctor or lawyer, the kid goes to college and law school, and then decides they don't like being a lawyer, or the adult who keeps being a lawyer but is never happy doing it. Or the parent who wants their kind to be a lawyer or doctor, just because that's a way to make lots of money, as they think money makes one happy. The point is to live through one's natural beingness, not through haphazard accidental conditioning (false self, I'll try to think of a better label, maybe HACK, haphazard accidental conditioning I'll have to think of a k-word). No, on the extent we probably also agree. Where we disagree, from my perspective, is just what natural state and alignment really means and how to return to it. You don't seem to grasp that natural means it's a given, that you don't have to work for it, you don't have to earn it, no one else can bestow it upon you and no one else can take it away from you. It's always yours, has always been yours and will always be yours. And it is always available right here right now. All it takes is a shift in perspective or focus. Which means, it doesn't take hard work and effort to get there. In fact, hard work and effort will make sure that you will never get there. It's either here and now or never. As they say, tomorrow never comes. Now if you or Gurdi would have understood that, you'd just walk off the battlefield and be done. But you don't do that. Why?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2023 11:47:31 GMT -5
I don't think we essentially disagree. Probably where we disagree is to what extent most people live through the crap that has been put-on-them, conditioning, and to what extent they live through their natural beingness. And most people wouldn't mean most people here, ST's, just most people in general. An example, parents who live through their children and what for them what they could do themselves. The parent who grooms the kid to be a doctor or lawyer, the kid goes to college and law school, and then decides they don't like being a lawyer, or the adult who keeps being a lawyer but is never happy doing it. Or the parent who wants their kind to be a lawyer or doctor, just because that's a way to make lots of money, as they think money makes one happy. The point is to live through one's natural beingness, not through haphazard accidental conditioning (false self, I'll try to think of a better label, maybe HACK, haphazard accidental conditioning I'll have to think of a k-word). No, on the extent we probably also agree. Where we disagree, from my perspective, is just what natural state and alignment really means and how to return to it. You don't seem to grasp that natural means it's a given, that you don't have to work for it, you don't have to earn it, no one else can bestow it upon you and no one else can take it away from you. It's always yours, has always been yours and will always be yours. And it is always available right here right now. All it takes is a shift in perspective or focus. Which means, it doesn't take hard work and effort to get there. In fact, hard work and effort will make sure that you will never get there. It's either here and now or never. As they say, tomorrow never comes. Now if you or Gurdi would have understood that, you'd just walk off the battlefield and be done. But you don't do that. Why? There is a very nice little short simple book called The Knight In Rusty Armour the knight inside is the natural beingness, the armour is obstruction. There is another nice little short simple illustrated book called The Wall. It's about self-protection and how building a wall to protect self cuts us off from everyone. Just two different examples. The "HACK" (haphazard, accidental, conditioning) exists as neural pathways. It's like the grooves in a record. The HACK is like a scratch in the record which causes a shift back to the previous groove and the same groove gets played over and over, a skipping record. It's like a rut in a dirt road, the wheels just keep jumping into the rut. You don't think you have scratches that cause groove-skipping? I don't know how to explain it more simply, I've been trying for 14 years. And the HACK is layered, like an onion. I'm glad it's easy for ZGM-R. The problems you are dealing with here, are because of people operating from the HACK. Why do these problems keep popping up? Because the neural-structure-scratches haven't been dealt with, permanently. With Tolle, they got permanently dealt with in one night.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2023 22:16:32 GMT -5
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? Why yes. I do recall that to be the case
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2023 9:45:19 GMT -5
No, on the extent we probably also agree. Where we disagree, from my perspective, is just what natural state and alignment really means and how to return to it. You don't seem to grasp that natural means it's a given, that you don't have to work for it, you don't have to earn it, no one else can bestow it upon you and no one else can take it away from you. It's always yours, has always been yours and will always be yours. And it is always available right here right now. All it takes is a shift in perspective or focus. Which means, it doesn't take hard work and effort to get there. In fact, hard work and effort will make sure that you will never get there. It's either here and now or never. As they say, tomorrow never comes. Now if you or Gurdi would have understood that, you'd just walk off the battlefield and be done. But you don't do that. Why? There is a very nice little short simple book called The Knight In Rusty Armour the knight inside is the natural beingness, the armour is obstruction. There is another nice little short simple illustrated book called The Wall. It's about self-protection and how building a wall to protect self cuts us off from everyone. Just two different examples. The "HACK" (haphazard, accidental, conditioning) exists as neural pathways. It's like the grooves in a record. The HACK is like a scratch in the record which causes a shift back to the previous groove and the same groove gets played over and over, a skipping record. It's like a rut in a dirt road, the wheels just keep jumping into the rut. You don't think you have scratches that cause groove-skipping? I don't know how to explain it more simply, I've been trying for 14 years. And the HACK is layered, like an onion. I'm glad it's easy for ZGM-R. The problems you are dealing with here, are because of people operating from the HACK. Why do these problems keep popping up? Because the neural-structure-scratches haven't been dealt with, permanently. With Tolle, they got permanently dealt with in one night. Of course there's habit. The question is, how deep does it go. As Abe always say, a belief is just a thought you keep thinking. If you believe that your habits have become some kind of deep groove or armor then of course you want to work on that to become free. However, the physical is an extension or reflection of the non-physical. So you have it somewhat backwards. It's the hard way of going about it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2023 9:56:46 GMT -5
Ah, yes. I remember you making fun of this in the past. But wasn't it actually LOA magic mojo bags? Why yes. I do recall that to be the case Hmmmm, the thot plickens.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2023 10:49:51 GMT -5
There is a very nice little short simple book called The Knight In Rusty Armour the knight inside is the natural beingness, the armour is obstruction. There is another nice little short simple illustrated book called The Wall. It's about self-protection and how building a wall to protect self cuts us off from everyone. Just two different examples. The "HACK" (haphazard, accidental, conditioning) exists as neural pathways. It's like the grooves in a record. The HACK is like a scratch in the record which causes a shift back to the previous groove and the same groove gets played over and over, a skipping record. It's like a rut in a dirt road, the wheels just keep jumping into the rut. You don't think you have scratches that cause groove-skipping? I don't know how to explain it more simply, I've been trying for 14 years. And the HACK is layered, like an onion. I'm glad it's easy for ZGM-R. The problems you are dealing with here, are because of people operating from the HACK. Why do these problems keep popping up? Because the neural-structure-scratches haven't been dealt with, permanently. With Tolle, they got permanently dealt with in one night. Of course there's habit. The question is, how deep does it go. As Abe always say, a belief is just a thought you keep thinking. If you believe that your habits have become some kind of deep groove or armor then of course you want to work on that to become free. However, the physical is an extension or reflection of the non-physical. So you have it somewhat backwards. It's the hard way of going about it. Can you tell me the only thing I have ever recommended here? My guess is, not.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 29, 2023 15:05:11 GMT -5
Well right. 'dusty isn't the only Gurdi-peep I've interacted with here, , and I didn't mean to write Gurdi off altogether as completely disinteresting. I might try to make time to read that Russian story he linked to. The 'pilgrims description of "practice" is very resonant with what Niz or zd or Albert Low or RM advise, and which I engaged with at one point. Pilgrim and I have discussed the Low connection in the past. Then you are much deeper into this topic than I am. But only in a sort of fragmented, one-on-one sense of dialogs with people interested in Gurdi. I take my time reading things like this, I don't like to speed read them. I'm less than half done but now I see how and why the dialogs with folks interested in Gurdi formed up. The cloak-and-dagger terms of the meeting are interesting in and of themselves. But I suppose just about everyone can think back to a time when they were curious and trusting, and discern why they listened to who the eventually listened to. So that's my comment on the messenger, as far as the message goes, here is where I find the money shot: As you pointed out, there is good stuff here, and many different sources and angles of approach to this sort of material. Now, obviously the "unity of laws" is still about what comes and goes. To use fignegma's terminology, this is about "appearances", so as you say, about "thingness". But notice how Gurdi brings the seeker up to the edge of reason, albeit ending with an ambiguous "Everything in the Universe is one", which might be the blob, might be the web, but at least he is suggesting appealing to a faculty other than reasoning and about "feeling truth", so, at least indirectly, he's hinting at "suchness". And because of the messenger/message thingy, it ultimately doesn't even matter whether or not Gurdi ever realized what you point to by suchness and so intended to refer to it. I'm sure you've noticed how seeker-mind can understand the limits of intellect and reason, and yet, still, resort to expressions of the existential question that result from trying to apply reasonable faculties to things and the dynamics of things. This is done unconsciously. I get the hint from what I've read of this story as a sort of preview that Gurdi was either in that state himself, or had come to understand the nature of this state in a sort of Cassandra complex. I don't even know if I can discern which is the case by reading more of what he said, perhaps I might have had to have met him. Dunno'. The clearest description of this dynamic I've ever encountered was by Adyashanti in Emptiness Dancing: Most people find the rational thought process takes them to an edge, and instead of stopping, they take a 90-degree right turn or left turn and start moving along the edge, thinking horizontally, pulling in more facts and experiences and memories. This is called a waste of time. The only use of thought that has power is a rational process that goes right to the edge of thought, and then stops. It lets something else deliver whatever needs to be delivered chap 3 para 18
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 29, 2023 18:27:49 GMT -5
This discussion about the edge of the rational thought reminds of "the dialectical leap from quantity to quality". At some point, it is futile, even detrimental to try to add (quantity) to rational thinking. The solution that escapes to some is a qualitative change: intuitive thinking.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2023 20:21:42 GMT -5
Then you are much deeper into this topic than I am. But only in a sort of fragmented, one-on-one sense of dialogs with people interested in Gurdi. I take my time reading things like this, I don't like to speed read them. I'm less than half done but now I see how and why the dialogs with folks interested in Gurdi formed up. The cloak-and-dagger terms of the meeting are interesting in and of themselves. But I suppose just about everyone can think back to a time when they were curious and trusting, and discern why they listened to who the eventually listened to. So that's my comment on the messenger, as far as the message goes, here is where I find the money shot:
As you pointed out, there is good stuff here, and many different sources and angles of approach to this sort of material. Now, obviously the "unity of laws" is still about what comes and goes. To use fignegma's terminology, this is about "appearances", so as you say, about "thingness". But notice how Gurdi brings the seeker up to the edge of reason, albeit ending with an ambiguous "Everything in the Universe is one", which might be the blob, might be the web, but at least he is suggesting appealing to a faculty other than reasoning and about "feeling truth", so, at least indirectly, he's hinting at "suchness". And because of the messenger/message thingy, it ultimately doesn't even matter whether or not Gurdi ever realized what you point to by suchness and so intended to refer to it. I'm sure you've noticed how seeker-mind can understand the limits of intellect and reason, and yet, still, resort to expressions of the existential question that result from trying to apply reasonable faculties to things and the dynamics of things. This is done unconsciously. I get the hint from what I've read of this story as a sort of preview that Gurdi was either in that state himself, or had come to understand the nature of this state in a sort of Cassandra complex. I don't even know if I can discern which is the case by reading more of what he said, perhaps I might have had to have met him. Dunno'. The clearest description of this dynamic I've ever encountered was by Adyashanti in Emptiness Dancing: Most people find the rational thought process takes them to an edge, and instead of stopping, they take a 90-degree right turn or left turn and start moving along the edge, thinking horizontally, pulling in more facts and experiences and memories. This is called a waste of time. The only use of thought that has power is a rational process that goes right to the edge of thought, and then stops. It lets something else deliver whatever needs to be delivered chap 3 para 18[/quote] Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2023 8:51:57 GMT -5
Of course there's habit. The question is, how deep does it go. As Abe always say, a belief is just a thought you keep thinking. If you believe that your habits have become some kind of deep groove or armor then of course you want to work on that to become free. However, the physical is an extension or reflection of the non-physical. So you have it somewhat backwards. It's the hard way of going about it. Can you tell me the only thing I have ever recommended here? My guess is, not. Reading Gurdi's Beelzebub?
|
|