|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2023 9:01:50 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 18Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 10:58:59 GMT -5
Can you tell me the only thing I have ever recommended here? My guess is, not. Reading Gurdi's Beelzebub? No. I'm pretty sure I've never recommended that. (I haven't suggested not to read it either). I mean practically speaking. I've said numerous times it's the ONLY thing we can do.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 11:28:05 GMT -5
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: Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not. All That Is would be for Gurdjieff a sort of 7 story building, his the Absolute would be the Ground (floor). If there is anything such as suchness for Gurdjieff, it would be the Absolute, but probably not in the sense you mean it. In one sense the Ground is very far removed from us. In another sense it's right here, right now, it permeates everything. Gurdjieff said all (outer) teachings degrade over time, including his, it gets spread and mixed into the culture. But the inner teaching doesn't degrade. I belong to 3 Facebook Gurdjieff "groups". It's quite pitiful what goes on there. To *stay pure*, you basically have to stick with Gurdjieff's 3 books collectively titled All and Everything, In Search of the Miraculous (which covers only a 10 year period), The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, and Nicoll's 5 volume Commentaries. Those extra-Gurdjieff books get things pretty right. Otherwise, error gets mixed in at least somewhat. And some books are subjective first hand accounts of working with Gurdjieff. But everything has to be verified for oneself, anyway. I put many things in language other than Gurdjieff's language, to try to find common language, here. Only Max long ago understood the distinction between thoughts, feelings-emotions, bodily actions, events, people, places, things TAKING one's attention and awareness, and being attentive and being aware of those (the only thing, the earlier question). This, is every difference in the world. I was taught almost precisely ATA-T our second meeting in 1976, it was called sensing, or noticing. Sensing is a preliminary practice, not "secret", is talked about openly. Sensing can be anything concerning anything the 5 senses can sense. The other practices are never written about, except in a disguised form, that is, in not-precise-words. And, the Gurdjieff teaching is NOTHING without the inner teaching, the interior practices. Gurdjieff said his books are 'just in theory', that is, just maps.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2023 11:40:47 GMT -5
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: Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not. Ok, yes, now that you mention it I do recall you writing about these in a previous post. What would you say is the distinction? The way that I'd put it is that appearances don't necessarily have to appear as things, but that things are always only ever apparent. The first of the two points there implicates a potential realization, which for me (and many I've read) comes wrapped up with an experience, though of course I can imagine that experience as optional, and as it's completely subjective, varies quite a bit between individuals. As far as the Gurdi teaching goes, I'd have to read quite a bit more to address it on the level you suggest, and it seems to me that the 'pilgrim has indicated in the past that personal interaction with a teacher is part of it. I would guess the tooth he's trying to pull here is what he calls "internal practice", and is similar to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", "ATA-thoughts" and "who is it that questions?". What interests me the most here is this pattern of unconsciously applying intellect where it is powerless in the face of knowing it to be powerless
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 11:57:59 GMT -5
Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not. Ok, yes, now that you mention it I do recall you writing about these in a previous post. What would you say is the distinction? The way that I'd put it is that appearances don't necessarily have to appear as things, but that things are always only ever apparent. The first of the two points there implicates a potential realization, which for me (and many I've read) comes wrapped up with an experience, though of course I can imagine that experience as optional, and as it's completely subjective, varies quite a bit between individuals. As far as the Gurdi teaching goes, I'd have to read quite a bit more to address it on the level you suggest, and it seems to me that the 'pilgrim has indicated in the past that personal interaction with a teacher is part of it. I would guess the tooth he's trying to pull here is what he calls "internal practice", and is similar to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", "ATA-thoughts" and "who is it that questions?". What interests me the most here is this pattern of unconsciously applying intellect where it is powerless in the face of knowing it to be powerless
Yes. Went into a little more post above. But the point is {bare} attention and/or awareness do not involve abstract thought, whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 15:56:06 GMT -5
Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not. Ok, yes, now that you mention it I do recall you writing about these in a previous post. What would you say is the distinction? The way that I'd put it is that appearances don't necessarily have to appear as things, but that things are always only ever apparent. The first of the two points there implicates a potential realization, which for me (and many I've read) comes wrapped up with an experience, though of course I can imagine that experience as optional, and as it's completely subjective, varies quite a bit between individuals. As far as the Gurdi teaching goes, I'd have to read quite a bit more to address it on the level you suggest, and it seems to me that the 'pilgrim has indicated in the past that personal interaction with a teacher is part of it. I would guess the tooth he's trying to pull here is what he calls "internal practice", and is similar to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", "ATA-thoughts" and "who is it that questions?". What interests me the most here is this pattern of unconsciously applying intellect where it is powerless in the face of knowing it to be powerless
In TPON Tolle wrote about a very significant ~way~ to the very theme of the book. It should be seared into your memory such that you could type it immediately, it should immediately come to mind. But that would be only to communicate it to me, in actuality, no abstract thought is necessary whatsoever. As such, it's a very handy tool. Buddha actually talked about it also (to say where would be too significant a hint). And it's lolly's most significant practice. (If you read this lolly, give laughter a stab at it first, I'm confident you will know).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2023 18:10:29 GMT -5
Ok, yes, now that you mention it I do recall you writing about these in a previous post. What would you say is the distinction? The way that I'd put it is that appearances don't necessarily have to appear as things, but that things are always only ever apparent. The first of the two points there implicates a potential realization, which for me (and many I've read) comes wrapped up with an experience, though of course I can imagine that experience as optional, and as it's completely subjective, varies quite a bit between individuals. As far as the Gurdi teaching goes, I'd have to read quite a bit more to address it on the level you suggest, and it seems to me that the 'pilgrim has indicated in the past that personal interaction with a teacher is part of it. I would guess the tooth he's trying to pull here is what he calls "internal practice", and is similar to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", "ATA-thoughts" and "who is it that questions?". What interests me the most here is this pattern of unconsciously applying intellect where it is powerless in the face of knowing it to be powerless
In TPON Tolle wrote about a very significant ~way~ to the very theme of the book. It should be seared into your memory such that you could type it immediately, it should immediately come to mind. But that would be only to communicate it to me, in actuality, no abstract thought is necessary whatsoever. As such, it's a very handy tool. Buddha actually talked about it also (to say where would be too significant a hint). And it's lolly's most significant practice. (If you read this lolly, give laughter a stab at it first, I'm confident you will know). The two suggestions that I recall that would fit with your quiz is "watch the thinker" and "pay attention to the space between thoughts". As I recall there were others, but other than "feel the inner body", those were the two I remember following most. Another pair, which aren't exactly "ways", and so aren't right answers (but were just as significant to me) were "90% of most most thinking is negative, repetitive and ineffectual" and "you may find yourself chuckling at the antics" (of the "thinker"). But, the phrase that had the biggest impact was a chapter heading. It was the first heading, as I recall: "You Are not Your Mind".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 19:14:23 GMT -5
In TPON Tolle wrote about a very significant ~way~ to the very theme of the book. It should be seared into your memory such that you could type it immediately, it should immediately come to mind. But that would be only to communicate it to me, in actuality, no abstract thought is necessary whatsoever. As such, it's a very handy tool. Buddha actually talked about it also (to say where would be too significant a hint). And it's lolly's most significant practice. (If you read this lolly, give laughter a stab at it first, I'm confident you will know). The two suggestions that I recall that would fit with your quiz is "watch the thinker" and "pay attention to the space between thoughts". As I recall there were others, but other than "feel the inner body", those were the two I remember following most. Another pair, which aren't exactly "ways", and so aren't right answers (but were just as significant to me) were "90% of most most thinking is negative, repetitive and ineffectual" and "you may find yourself chuckling at the antics" (of the "thinker"). But, the phrase that had the biggest impact was a chapter heading. It was the first heading, as I recall: "You Are not Your Mind". This is it (basically, the body). Go back and read everything in relation to this, in relation to now, the present moment. I'll also bump an old thread. I thought it was going to be a short thread, but I pressed an early answer, it was a guess.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2023 21:26:03 GMT -5
The two suggestions that I recall that would fit with your quiz is "watch the thinker" and "pay attention to the space between thoughts". As I recall there were others, but other than "feel the inner body", those were the two I remember following most. Another pair, which aren't exactly "ways", and so aren't right answers (but were just as significant to me) were "90% of most most thinking is negative, repetitive and ineffectual" and "you may find yourself chuckling at the antics" (of the "thinker"). But, the phrase that had the biggest impact was a chapter heading. It was the first heading, as I recall: "You Are not Your Mind". This is it (basically, the body). Go back and read everything in relation to this, in relation to now, the present moment. I'll also bump an old thread. I thought it was going to be a short thread, but I pressed an early answer, it was a guess. From my casual reading they called this "tantra" on the Indian sub-continent, and many people have a very natural proclivity for this. It was only after consciously attending as per Tolle's suggestions that I ever gave it any thought, or put any name on it other than "pleasure", "passion" or "contentment". Do you perhaps now see how even the purest of interior practice can lead to an obstacle? It's high time you dropped this defensive nonsense about being a "qualified nondualist". The end to that obstacle cannot be practiced, is only by grace, albeit that an intense interest in the question of the "divide", can be auspicious. But not if that interest is indefinitely cultivated and maintained for the sole purpose of that interest, alone. We have to be very subtle here 'pilgrim. Very quiet. We are hunting rabbits, after all.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 1, 2023 3:21:35 GMT -5
I think obstacles pertain to the blocked up channels in the life form which are opened in the purification process, but so called 'self realisation' isn't a byproduct of complete purification because it's just as you are now. The two aspects of 'as you are' and purification are related through equanimity, because on one hand it's true that you don't actually react, and on the other, the cessation of reaction enables purification. It's just that 'as you are' is inclusive of the blockages that currently exist because that's the way you are for now.
Hence, they say there's really nothing to do with regards to the 'as you are' side of it, and even the purification side is enabled not by doing something per-se, but by the cessation of what you already tend to do. The meditation addresses this latter aspect with the deliberate intention to stop, so that in contrast you become conscious of your reactive tendencies, and are thereby empowered to stop.
The 'ego', which I'll define as the one that must be let go, is like a ghost of yourself that convinces you it is 'me'. It can only be sustained via reactive processes, which are habitual tendencies that hide in the open within the invisibility of normalcy. When you undertake the practice of stop doing, the ego is interrupted, and one day you notice, Hey, that's not me; 'this' is.
"'This' is" is a presence of which you are aware, but it's entwined with the ego and not distinct from it. When you see that's not me, the ego is recognised and completely distinct from the one aware.
To me, that's a realisation of not-self but not a realisation of I am that. I am that is a more like a direct encounter with the void. I think Tolle described it quite well in The Power of Now. Immediately after he recognised the self he could not live with, he was pulled into a void.
From the void comes the infinite outpouring of love, and this is what the obstacles in the life form impede. Through the purification process the clogs are cleared out and the infinite outpouring is channeled through the life-form. That's called various names like Bliss and Ecstasy I guess. The problem with that as regards purification is the craving, when the art is not to get it and then get even more, but to be aware of what is, as it is, just as you experience it now. This is the attainment of equanimity free of craving and aversion, or as the Bible puts it, shall not want... fear no evil - as the key to your cup runnething over.
So... there's nothing to do, but that truism entails a lot of nuance because you hear of it and can't help but want, but such craving is the artifice of not-me, and as such, merely perpetuates the ego. Hence all this I mention is hard to find because it cannot really be sought, and one must be content and be aware, 'This is the way it is right now'.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 1, 2023 4:27:51 GMT -5
I think obstacles pertain to the blocked up channels in the life form which are opened in the purification process, but so called 'self realisation' isn't a byproduct of complete purification because it's just as you are now. The two aspects of 'as you are' and purification are related through equanimity, because on one hand it's true that you don't actually react, and on the other, the cessation of reaction enables purification. It's just that 'as you are' is inclusive of the blockages that currently exist because that's the way you are for now. Hence, they say there's really nothing to do with regards to the 'as you are' side of it, and even the purification side is enabled not by doing something per-se, but by the cessation of what you already tend to do. The meditation addresses this latter aspect with the deliberate intention to stop, so that in contrast you become conscious of your reactive tendencies, and are thereby empowered to stop. The 'ego', which I'll define as the one that must be let go, is like a ghost of yourself that convinces you it is 'me'. It can only be sustained via reactive processes, which are habitual tendencies that hide in the open within the invisibility of normalcy. When you undertake the practice of stop doing, the ego is interrupted, and one day you notice, Hey, that's not me; 'this' is. "'This' is" is a presence of which you are aware, but it's entwined with the ego and not distinct from it. When you see that's not me, the ego is recognised and completely distinct from the one aware. To me, that's a realisation of not-self but not a realisation of I am that. I am that is a more like a direct encounter with the void. I think Tolle described it quite well in The Power of Now. Immediately after he recognised the self he could not live with, he was pulled into a void. From the void comes the infinite outpouring of love, and this is what the obstacles in the life form impede. Through the purification process the clogs are cleared out and the infinite outpouring is channeled through the life-form. That's called various names like Bliss and Ecstasy I guess. The problem with that as regards purification is the craving, when the art is not to get it and then get even more, but to be aware of what is, as it is, just as you experience it now. This is the attainment of equanimity free of craving and aversion, or as the Bible puts it, shall not want... fear no evil - as the key to your cup runnething over. So... there's nothing to do, but that truism entails a lot of nuance because you hear of it and can't help but want, but such craving is the artifice of not-me, and as such, merely perpetuates the ego. Hence all this I mention is hard to find because it cannot really be sought, and one must be content and be aware, 'This is the way it is right now'. .. And you're not responsible for it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2023 7:36:45 GMT -5
I think obstacles pertain to the blocked up channels in the life form which are opened in the purification process, but so called 'self realisation' isn't a byproduct of complete purification because it's just as you are now. The two aspects of 'as you are' and purification are related through equanimity, because on one hand it's true that you don't actually react, and on the other, the cessation of reaction enables purification. It's just that 'as you are' is inclusive of the blockages that currently exist because that's the way you are for now. Hence, they say there's really nothing to do with regards to the 'as you are' side of it, and even the purification side is enabled not by doing something per-se, but by the cessation of what you already tend to do. The meditation addresses this latter aspect with the deliberate intention to stop, so that in contrast you become conscious of your reactive tendencies, and are thereby empowered to stop. The 'ego', which I'll define as the one that must be let go, is like a ghost of yourself that convinces you it is 'me'. It can only be sustained via reactive processes, which are habitual tendencies that hide in the open within the invisibility of normalcy. When you undertake the practice of stop doing, the ego is interrupted, and one day you notice, Hey, that's not me; 'this' is. "'This' is" is a presence of which you are aware, but it's entwined with the ego and not distinct from it. When you see that's not me, the ego is recognised and completely distinct from the one aware. To me, that's a realisation of not-self but not a realisation of I am that. I am that is a more like a direct encounter with the void. I think Tolle described it quite well in The Power of Now. Immediately after he recognised the self he could not live with, he was pulled into a void. From the void comes the infinite outpouring of love, and this is what the obstacles in the life form impede. Through the purification process the clogs are cleared out and the infinite outpouring is channeled through the life-form. That's called various names like Bliss and Ecstasy I guess. The problem with that as regards purification is the craving, when the art is not to get it and then get even more, but to be aware of what is, as it is, just as you experience it now. This is the attainment of equanimity free of craving and aversion, or as the Bible puts it, shall not want... fear no evil - as the key to your cup runnething over. So... there's nothing to do, but that truism entails a lot of nuance because you hear of it and can't help but want, but such craving is the artifice of not-me, and as such, merely perpetuates the ego. Hence all this I mention is hard to find because it cannot really be sought, and one must be content and be aware, 'This is the way it is right now'. It's a great description, but sometimes I wonder with your approach if the 'want' itself is healed? I've used the Sedona Method a fair bit over the years, which is a series of questions to consider and answer....and they include....''could you allow the want to be here? Could you welcome the want? Could you let it go? Would you let it go? When?'' Basically the 'want' is fully honoured and in that honouring, it can then move and release. It's been useful for me at times. Not saying your approach doesn't work, I'm just curious whether the 'want' is transmuted in your process?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2023 8:46:46 GMT -5
I think obstacles pertain to the blocked up channels in the life form which are opened in the purification process, but so called 'self realisation' isn't a byproduct of complete purification because it's just as you are now. The two aspects of 'as you are' and purification are related through equanimity, because on one hand it's true that you don't actually react, and on the other, the cessation of reaction enables purification. It's just that 'as you are' is inclusive of the blockages that currently exist because that's the way you are for now. Hence, they say there's really nothing to do with regards to the 'as you are' side of it, and even the purification side is enabled not by doing something per-se, but by the cessation of what you already tend to do. The meditation addresses this latter aspect with the deliberate intention to stop, so that in contrast you become conscious of your reactive tendencies, and are thereby empowered to stop. The 'ego', which I'll define as the one that must be let go, is like a ghost of yourself that convinces you it is 'me'. It can only be sustained via reactive processes, which are habitual tendencies that hide in the open within the invisibility of normalcy. When you undertake the practice of stop doing, the ego is interrupted, and one day you notice, Hey, that's not me; 'this' is. "'This' is" is a presence of which you are aware, but it's entwined with the ego and not distinct from it. When you see that's not me, the ego is recognised and completely distinct from the one aware. To me, that's a realisation of not-self but not a realisation of I am that. I am that is a more like a direct encounter with the void. I think Tolle described it quite well in The Power of Now. Immediately after he recognised the self he could not live with, he was pulled into a void. From the void comes the infinite outpouring of love, and this is what the obstacles in the life form impede. Through the purification process the clogs are cleared out and the infinite outpouring is channeled through the life-form. That's called various names like Bliss and Ecstasy I guess. The problem with that as regards purification is the craving, when the art is not to get it and then get even more, but to be aware of what is, as it is, just as you experience it now. This is the attainment of equanimity free of craving and aversion, or as the Bible puts it, shall not want... fear no evil - as the key to your cup runnething over. So... there's nothing to do, but that truism entails a lot of nuance because you hear of it and can't help but want, but such craving is the artifice of not-me, and as such, merely perpetuates the ego. Hence all this I mention is hard to find because it cannot really be sought, and one must be content and be aware, 'This is the way it is right now'. .. And you're not responsible for it. I would qualify that statement as, "Who you think you are is not responsible for it."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2023 8:51:02 GMT -5
I think obstacles pertain to the blocked up channels in the life form which are opened in the purification process, but so called 'self realisation' isn't a byproduct of complete purification because it's just as you are now. The two aspects of 'as you are' and purification are related through equanimity, because on one hand it's true that you don't actually react, and on the other, the cessation of reaction enables purification. It's just that 'as you are' is inclusive of the blockages that currently exist because that's the way you are for now. Hence, they say there's really nothing to do with regards to the 'as you are' side of it, and even the purification side is enabled not by doing something per-se, but by the cessation of what you already tend to do. The meditation addresses this latter aspect with the deliberate intention to stop, so that in contrast you become conscious of your reactive tendencies, and are thereby empowered to stop. The 'ego', which I'll define as the one that must be let go, is like a ghost of yourself that convinces you it is 'me'. It can only be sustained via reactive processes, which are habitual tendencies that hide in the open within the invisibility of normalcy. When you undertake the practice of stop doing, the ego is interrupted, and one day you notice, Hey, that's not me; 'this' is. "'This' is" is a presence of which you are aware, but it's entwined with the ego and not distinct from it. When you see that's not me, the ego is recognised and completely distinct from the one aware. To me, that's a realisation of not-self but not a realisation of I am that. I am that is a more like a direct encounter with the void. I think Tolle described it quite well in The Power of Now. Immediately after he recognised the self he could not live with, he was pulled into a void. From the void comes the infinite outpouring of love, and this is what the obstacles in the life form impede. Through the purification process the clogs are cleared out and the infinite outpouring is channeled through the life-form. That's called various names like Bliss and Ecstasy I guess. The problem with that as regards purification is the craving, when the art is not to get it and then get even more, but to be aware of what is, as it is, just as you experience it now. This is the attainment of equanimity free of craving and aversion, or as the Bible puts it, shall not want... fear no evil - as the key to your cup runnething over. So... there's nothing to do, but that truism entails a lot of nuance because you hear of it and can't help but want, but such craving is the artifice of not-me, and as such, merely perpetuates the ego. Hence all this I mention is hard to find because it cannot really be sought, and one must be content and be aware, 'This is the way it is right now'. That's a very significant point! The Ruthless Truth people were sometimes able to badger people into realizing "not-self," but I don't remember any of them going further and realizing/recognizing "I am THAT."
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 1, 2023 9:03:11 GMT -5
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: Appearances and thingness are not synonymous, especially the way I use those terms. I look at what he teaches, the process SDP described; not the words, the ontology, this text delivered. Because how it is applied will show the actual understanding of these matters. See my brick polishing comments. So in that sense, the Adya quote seems to fit, IMO. And I might add that this is mostly based on SDP's input. I don't know if SDP presented Gurdi's teaching truthfully or not. You've often discussed SR and alignment and how they are different. I'm curious, you've mentioned deep flow as well. Is it related to alignment or SR?
|
|