|
Post by Reefs on Jul 3, 2023 2:29:19 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
You have to be carful about context when I talk about appearances, because I can use it in two different contexts. One is in the real vs false context (i.e. what does not come or go vs. what does come and go), the other is in the suchness vs. thingness context (i.e. direct perception or direct seeing vs. objectified perception or thingifying). So beware! Not paying attention to this difference in context will likely lead you deep into the hay field, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 3, 2023 2:50:50 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. 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? I tend to talk about alignment in two different contexts, one is the relative context (conditional peace), the other is the absolute context (unconditional peace, TPTPAU). When I talk about LOA and deliberate creation, that is the relative context. When I talk about SR and the natural state, that is the absolute context. In the relative context, alignment refers to a dualistic feeling state (upwards #7 on the emotional guidance scale, i.e. contentment). So this would be ordinary flow, which depends on your individual focus and is therefore conditional. In the absolute context, it refers to the natural state (which is essentially an absence, i.e. quiet peacefulness). So this would be deep flow, which does not depend on your individual focus and is therefore unconditional. So one does come and go and is a moment to moment thing. The other does not come and go, only the awareness (or recognition) of it does.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 3, 2023 4:03:45 GMT -5
When the craving/aversion (reactivity) is there you're conscious of how it generates volition and causes unnecessary suffering. You don't embrace it, you don't reject it, you see the futility without any notions whatsoever. It's fine. Because you simply accept it as it happens to be and you know it will soon fade away, you don't invest anything or give it any importance at all, but you understand it. In Buddhism they describe it as 'mere understanding and mere awareness'.
Just see that it's a completely trivial thing and probably better not to honour it as if it's significant.
cool, I mean...I basically support whatever works, and it sounds like it does. Where I come from, I see 'wanting' as a form of energy and fully allowing that energy in a responsible way, seems to dissipate that energy, and over time, the 'wanting' happens less and less. Based on the away you describe the process, which seems centred on understanding and awareness, it makes sense to me that the result would be the same. I don't say 'it works'. I say things work in particular way and natures way is the only way.
Of course everything is very nuanced and wanting isn't just the one sort of thing. I generally allude to the reactivity like craving, aversion, with all the resistance, avoidance, chasing, distraction and clinging rather than the whole scope of want.
It's not that I'm talking in rules of knowledge or something. It's more like the sort of conversation that one has to be self-aware to make sense of it and participate in. Honouring want is probably a good idea, and I don't fully know what you mean by it, but essentially, desire isn't all that important. It'll last a while and then fade away. Hence a meditator can see desire as it arises, and see it fade away, and in so far as that is unsettling and problematic for them, come to understand how it can cease to occur and never arise again.
That's not to say every desire is problematic. I currently want to create a wonderful garden at my deceased mum's place. It's a dedication to her life, and the paving, pathways and built structures are dedicated to her husband, my stepfather, so I'm repairing, re-laying and renewing all that. They died together in a drowning accident last year, so no one is left and it's a dedication to them both. This wanting isn't generating negativity in me, it's not agitating my mind. I feel generous about it, I do it with a giving motive, and it makes me happy.
The other kind of want is self-oriented, me, my, mine and I, and with every such desire there is a hidden aversion. With every aversion a hidden desire arises. With every want there is a don't-want and vice versa. Every aversion elicits a craving elicits, and this dynamic tempts agitates and distracts you. That's the ugly thing which perpetuates the horrors of ego. One cannot honour that. One just sees the dynamic that makes you continually avoid this and pursue that, keeping the one who pretends to be me in the driver's seat. Living as that one is contacted and miserable.
Even though it's problematic and essentially the root cause of all suffering, one doesn't fight that thing. The one aware just sees it as it is and remains completely unperturbed and unaffected by its antics.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 7:19:06 GMT -5
Correct, I've said numerous times, essence is what you are, literally over ten years. I use it because numerous ND signifiers don't have the connotation of uniqueness, the natural state, the unborn, buddha nature. Now, you all admit uniqueness, but it seems don't have a satisfactory term, individuality is OK. Ego is the false self, the small s self, the mask, the conditioning. Good post. Do you really need me to quote your self-contradiction here back to you in your own words? Yes, sure. If I ever wrote anything other than essence, what one was born with or born as, is one's True Self and personality (work language for ego, the small s self, mask, persona, one's conditioning, what is acquired after birth, Imaginary I) is one's false self, I'd like to know. But once I hit Create Post I'm not responsible for what you read into my posts, ego is also a distorting filter, I've written that several times too. I'm sure I can straighten out any misunderstanding on your part. Essence is what is one's own, personality is what is not one's own. That's work language, and almost precisely what is meant here by the imaginary self.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 7:21:00 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
You have to be carful about context when I talk about appearances, because I can use it in two different contexts. One is in the real vs false context (i.e. what does not come or go vs. what does come and go), the other is in the suchness vs. thingness context (i.e. direct perception or direct seeing vs. objectified perception or thingifying). So beware! Not paying attention to this difference in context will likely lead you deep into the hay field, hehe. I don't do contexts, I do specificity of language, same language in any context.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2023 7:45:02 GMT -5
cool, I mean...I basically support whatever works, and it sounds like it does. Where I come from, I see 'wanting' as a form of energy and fully allowing that energy in a responsible way, seems to dissipate that energy, and over time, the 'wanting' happens less and less. Based on the away you describe the process, which seems centred on understanding and awareness, it makes sense to me that the result would be the same. I don't say 'it works'. I say things work in particular way and natures way is the only way.
Of course everything is very nuanced and wanting isn't just the one sort of thing. I generally allude to the reactivity like craving, aversion, with all the resistance, avoidance, chasing, distraction and clinging rather than the whole scope of want.
It's not that I'm talking in rules of knowledge or something. It's more like the sort of conversation that one has to be self-aware to make sense of it and participate in. Honouring want is probably a good idea, and I don't fully know what you mean by it, but essentially, desire isn't all that important. It'll last a while and then fade away. Hence a meditator can see desire as it arises, and see it fade away, and in so far as that is unsettling and problematic for them, come to understand how it can cease to occur and never arise again. That's not to say every desire is problematic. I currently want to create a wonderful garden at my deceased mum's place. It's a dedication to her life, and the paving, pathways and built structures are dedicated to her husband, my stepfather, so I'm repairing, re-laying and renewing all that. They died together in a drowning accident last year, so no one is left and it's a dedication to them both. This wanting isn't generating negativity in me, it's not agitating my mind. I feel generous about it, I do it with a giving motive, and it makes me happy.
The other kind of want is self-oriented, me, my, mine and I, and with every such desire there is a hidden aversion. With every aversion a hidden desire arises. With every want there is a don't-want and vice versa. Every aversion elicits a craving elicits, and this dynamic tempts agitates and distracts you. That's the ugly thing which perpetuates the horrors of ego. One cannot honour that. One just sees the dynamic that makes you continually avoid this and pursue that, keeping the one who pretends to be me in the driver's seat. Living as that one is contacted and miserable.
Even though it's problematic and essentially the root cause of all suffering, one doesn't fight that thing. The one aware just sees it as it is and remains completely unperturbed and unaffected by its antics.
As usual, I appreciate the detail and nuance of your expression. I imagine the generous energy of your dedication and creation is sending out joyful ripples far and wide, it sounds like a lovely way to honour your Mum and Stepfather.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 7:58:30 GMT -5
Gurdjieff said his books are 'just in theory', that is, just maps. I like that. ‘Since I had not, when in full strength and health, succeeded in introducing in practice into the life of people the beneficial truths elucidated for them by me, then I must at least, at any cost, succeed in doing this in theory, before my death.” But he did succeed, with a few...he wrote this in 1924, he lived to 1949. So, emphasis on the "at least". He made the decision to become an author after an automobile accident in 1924 when he almost died. He couldn't yet even write, so he began to dictate Beelzebub's Tales.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2023 10:55:51 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
You have to be carful about context when I talk about appearances, because I can use it in two different contexts. One is in the real vs false context (i.e. what does not come or go vs. what does come and go), the other is in the suchness vs. thingness context (i.e. direct perception or direct seeing vs. objectified perception or thingifying). So beware! Not paying attention to this difference in context will likely lead you deep into the hay field, hehe. Sure, I did bring it up, so that's on me. But I think I expressed the distinction between your "thingness' and E's "appearances" well enough. E' was actually open-minded enough about the possibility of the thingness realization that he asked me about it once (and only once) .. how he might open himself up to it. I replied that chasing experiences is what it is, and I'd never recommend that, but on the other hand, where there is interest there is potential.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2023 11:16:27 GMT -5
Do you really need me to quote your self-contradiction here back to you in your own words? Yes, sure. If I ever wrote anything other than essence, what one was born with or born as, is one's True Self and personality (work language for ego, the small s self, mask, persona, one's conditioning, what is acquired after birth, Imaginary I) is one's false self, I'd like to know. But once I hit Create Post I'm not responsible for what you read into my posts, ego is also a distorting filter, I've written that several times too. I'm sure I can straighten out any misunderstanding on your part. Essence is what is one's own, personality is what is not one's own. That's work language, and almost precisely what is meant here by the imaginary self. it happening is what made you, that is, ego. 'splainin', 'splainin' and 'splainin' .. always 'splainin' ...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2023 11:23:57 GMT -5
Do you really need me to quote your self-contradiction here back to you in your own words? Yes, sure. If I ever wrote anything other than essence, what one was born with or born as, is one's True Self and personality (work language for ego, the small s self, mask, persona, one's conditioning, what is acquired after birth, Imaginary I) is one's false self, I'd like to know. But once I hit Create Post I'm not responsible for what you read into my posts, ego is also a distorting filter, I've written that several times too. I'm sure I can straighten out any misunderstanding on your part. Essence is what is one's own, personality is what is not one's own. That's work language, and almost precisely what is meant here by the imaginary self. From the perspective (or looking through the eyes) of essence/True Self....how is 'small/cultural self' understood/experienced? I'm wondering to what extent your views are similar to the way that Abraham talks about 'Inner Being'?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 12:01:04 GMT -5
Yes, sure. If I ever wrote anything other than essence, what one was born with or born as, is one's True Self and personality (work language for ego, the small s self, mask, persona, one's conditioning, what is acquired after birth, Imaginary I) is one's false self, I'd like to know. But once I hit Create Post I'm not responsible for what you read into my posts, ego is also a distorting filter, I've written that several times too. I'm sure I can straighten out any misunderstanding on your part. Essence is what is one's own, personality is what is not one's own. That's work language, and almost precisely what is meant here by the imaginary self. From the perspective (or looking through the eyes) of essence/True Self.... how is 'small/cultural self' understood/experienced?I'm wondering to what extent your views are similar to the way that Abraham talks about 'Inner Being'? It's like a f****** burden. Well, no, that's not true. That's how self-alone is. Looking at self, I'm glad you brought up cultural self, it fits the best, through essence, it's just annoying. I've been browsing videos this morning, I found one pretty good, it explains a lot. I just started a thread, If Sree returns, this is for you, The Desire Not To Exist. It's about 16 minutes. Sree and I had a lot in common. I think maybe he understood this, that's why he kept asking me personal questions. If you don't remember him, he's the guy who got rich in trading, then left everything and everybody, lives alone, much of it on a boat, although when here, he wasn't on his boat. But this Clark guy, something-like Elison (not spelled like that), discussed a, I guess Japanese anime series I'll have to check out, forget the name, Eon-something (with a little exploring it seems to be Neon Genesis Evangelion). In 11th grade my English class had a visiting teacher one day, I never had him as a teacher, but knew who he was. Just in class conversation he replied to me: That sounds like something an existentialist would say. He suggested The Stranger (I like the translation The Outsider better) by Albert Camus. So, existentialism was my first exploration in philosophy, my English teacher suggested I do a paper on it (which she said I could do orally, to her alone, that is, not have to write it up, as I had made an A on my last paper). But the video explores existentialism from the desire not to exist. Edit: About 20 years ago I discovered this dude EM Cioran, writer. He wrote 10-12 books, basically his philosophical despair. I like him, the first book I read was his first book, On the Heights of Despair. Not recommended (you either have immediate recognition, or possibly an acquired taste, but probably not). I've read some of A-H and watched some short videos, the questions. I'd say yes on that, pretty close. I can't say to what extent.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 12:07:04 GMT -5
Yes, sure. If I ever wrote anything other than essence, what one was born with or born as, is one's True Self and personality (work language for ego, the small s self, mask, persona, one's conditioning, what is acquired after birth, Imaginary I) is one's false self, I'd like to know. But once I hit Create Post I'm not responsible for what you read into my posts, ego is also a distorting filter, I've written that several times too. I'm sure I can straighten out any misunderstanding on your part. Essence is what is one's own, personality is what is not one's own. That's work language, and almost precisely what is meant here by the imaginary self. it happening is what made you, that is, ego. 'splainin', 'splainin' and 'splainin' .. always 'splainin' ... By the bold you I was referring to what lolly had written, I had bolded what lolly wrote which I was referring to. No contradiction here. That was a shortcut from having to state what lolly wrote.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2023 12:59:14 GMT -5
'splainin', 'splainin' and 'splainin' .. always 'splainin' ... By the bold you I was referring to what lolly had written, I had bolded what lolly wrote which I was referring to. No contradiction here. That was a shortcut from having to state what lolly wrote. He called it a "ghost of yourself that convinces you that it is 'me'", and you wrote, "it happening is what made you" ( emphasis yours). I understand your explanations, but it wasn't until this that you did the 'splainin'. Whatevers.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2023 14:15:26 GMT -5
By the bold you I was referring to what lolly had written, I had bolded what lolly wrote which I was referring to. No contradiction here. That was a shortcut from having to state what lolly wrote. He called it a "ghost of yourself that convinces you that it is 'me'", and you wrote, "it happening is what made you" ( emphasis yours). I understand your explanations, but it wasn't until this that you did the 'splainin'. Whatevers. It was pretty clear, didn't need any explaining. Referred to what lolly said, I bolded both, meaning, they meant the same, you referred to what lolly wrote. I was agreeing with lolly, what he said.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 4, 2023 7:34:23 GMT -5
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? I tend to talk about alignment in two different contexts, one is the relative context (conditional peace), the other is the absolute context (unconditional peace, TPTPAU). When I talk about LOA and deliberate creation, that is the relative context. When I talk about SR and the natural state, that is the absolute context. In the relative context, alignment refers to a dualistic feeling state (upwards #7 on the emotional guidance scale, i.e. contentment). So this would be ordinary flow, which depends on your individual focus and is therefore conditional. In the absolute context, it refers to the natural state (which is essentially an absence, i.e. quiet peacefulness). So this would be deep flow, which does not depend on your individual focus and is therefore unconditional. So one does come and go and is a moment to moment thing. The other does not come and go, only the awareness (or recognition) of it does. This is a different perspective. The prevailing notion in Advaita and Zen is that those impermanent flow states are glimpses of your true self. The mind wants to keep reproducing these states which is a fool's errand. You can't dig yourself into reality, you have to let yourself fall in. How do you discover this? Trial and error? Practice? There seems to be no definite answer. All this talk about a "me" or not a "me" just adds to the mental rigamarole, IMO.
|
|