|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 19:17:54 GMT -5
There is also the possibility that that state is misinterpreted by some people, under the influence of what they read or heard from others, or in another way. This would mean that some of those " not sure such a state exists" can't ever form the same belief about that state. It can't be said that those who experienced SR are different than those that experienced any other religious enlightenment, including atheists. All are as sure of their Truth. For example, I believe that SR is misinterpreted as the absolute state of consciousness, by people who didn't step further. But, I recognize it as a belief. As you recently mentioned, I think that everybody can and should know only from their inner source of knowledge and guidance. Most people don't do that. You can still read a lot, listen to others, but have to leave all that, and your beliefs and expectations aside during your inner q&a sesions. I've been trying to point this out for 10 years here, good luck, a recent thread even. As I wrote, "I believe that ...", so I don't try to argue or debate it. Actually I didn't comment on your thread, excepting when laughter misinterpreted @robertk 's Franklin Merrell-Wolff "Substantiality is Inversely Proportional to Ponderability" because he assumed an incorrect meaning of " ponderability". Maybe I should read it: link |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 19:46:26 GMT -5
It seems that you meant to offend me, as you know that I never said something to support that opinion. Actually I repeatedly said that I only state my opinions, which reflect my beliefs, and which I don't intend to impose on others, and I don't intend to argue their merits. I think that I already explained clearly enough what you're asking in the rest of your post. You can't understand it because you start from some assumptions that I think to be incorrect, like the existence of an objective physical-reality. I absolutely meant no offense. I'm going by what you have said, this is why I pushed you, to clarify. You clarified. As far as I know, nobody else here has said anything about or claimed such capabilities. This is one reason for the OP. You see, those claiming SR say that's the end of the journey. I find that suspect. Imagination is diabolical. We find this taught throughout Hinduism, Advaita and even Buddhism. We just don't know how powerful imagination is. I try to bend over backwards with honesty, anything else is just time wasted. If I were to use sarcasm, it would be clear. Edit: OK, tenka seems to indicate such possibilities, he seems to indicate he recalls past lives. If that is incorrect, when he shows up again I'll bump this. There was another guy here some years ago, don't recall his name, but he also seemed to indicate awareness of other ~realms~ than the physical. So people are right, this is a nonduality forum. Meaning, people with other orientations sometimes visit here, but usually leave. I think Richard Rose had a broader view, maybe even a kind of ~fishing~ view, that is, everybody invited. The introduction to the forum seems to indicate this, broad and varied views welcome, let's have a discussion. A little further. SR is the end because it supersedes everything else, SR is the umbrella that covers everything. So all planes, all paths, are equally superfluous in the eyes of nonduality. I obviously disagree, so I live in the doghouse, here. And even a little further. So, even if true, all your claims are superfluous, in the eyes of nonduality. Everything is superfluous in light of SR. So, join me in the doghouse. for misreading your intention. There is nobody with whom I have discussed the full extent of my beliefs and experiences, because I met nobody who comes close enough. Probably the closest I found is Jane Roberts' Seth material, but my interpretations differ significantly from some of Jane's interpretations (which I haven't paid attention practically from the beginning), and from the understanding of all Seth's followers that I encountered so far. The great merit of that material is that it is almost verbatim Seth's words as channeled by Jane, with no interpretations. So, each reader can intuitively interpret the material according to his abilities. There is also a specialized "Seth material search engine", that is an invaluable tool, because it extracts from the tens of thousands of pages those paragraphs of interest. I don't recommend anybody to read Jane's books cover to cover, and I don't recommend anybody to use the Seth material as a manual, bible, to directly learn from it, but as a conduit when tapping their own inner guidance. I believe that that should be the way to use any bible, dogma, guru's teachings, too. I believe that Jesus Christ, was like Jane Seth. Seth seems to point to that too, but obviously nobody else is of my opinion, as far as I know. That's okay. My quest for learning indirectly benefited from some of the discussions on this board, and that's why I came back, and continue to participate. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 19:55:51 GMT -5
I absolutely meant no offense. I'm going by what you have said, this is why I pushed you, to clarify. You clarified. As far as I know, nobody else here has said anything about or claimed such capabilities. This is one reason for the OP. You see, those claiming SR say that's the end of the journey. I find that suspect. Imagination is diabolical. We find this taught throughout Hinduism, Advaita and even Buddhism. We just don't know how powerful imagination is. I try to bend over backwards with honesty, anything else is just time wasted. If I were to use sarcasm, it would be clear. Edit: OK, tenka seems to indicate such possibilities, he seems to indicate he recalls past lives. If that is incorrect, when he shows up again I'll bump this. There was another guy here some years ago, don't recall his name, but he also seemed to indicate awareness of other ~realms~ than the physical. So people are right, this is a nonduality forum. Meaning, people with other orientations sometimes visit here, but usually leave. I think Richard Rose had a broader view, maybe even a kind of ~fishing~ view, that is, everybody invited. The introduction to the forum seems to indicate this, broad and varied views welcome, let's have a discussion. A little further. SR is the end because it supersedes everything else, SR is the umbrella that covers everything. So all planes, all paths, are equally superfluous in the eyes of nonduality. I obviously disagree, so I live in the doghouse, here. And even a little further. So, even if true, all your claims are superfluous, in the eyes of nonduality. Everything is superfluous in light of SR. So, join me in the doghouse. for misreading your intention. There is nobody with whom I have discussed the full extent of my beliefs and experiences, because I met nobody who comes close enough. Probably the closest I found is Jane Roberts' Seth material, but my interpretations differ significantly from some of Jane's interpretations (which I haven't paid attention practically from the beginning), and from the understanding of all Seth's followers that I encountered so far. The great merit of that material is that it is almost verbatim Seth's words as channeled by Jane, with no interpretations. So, each reader can intuitively interpret the material according to his abilities. There is also a specialized "Seth material search engine", that is an invaluable tool, because it extracts from the tens of thousands of pages those paragraphs of interest. I don't recommend anybody to read Jane's books cover to cover, and I don't recommend anybody to use the Seth material as a manual, bible, to directly learn from it, but as a conduit when tapping their own inner guidance. I believe that that should be the way to use any bible, dogma, guru's teachings, too. I believe that Jesus Christ, was like Jane Seth. Seth seems to point to that too, but obviously nobody else is of my opinion, as far as I know. That's okay. My quest for learning indirectly benefited from some of the discussions on this board, and that's why I came back, and continue to participate. Thanks, I just added to this post, a bare-bones view of the way I see everything-existing-in-the-universe-(in reality). This is something I somewhat promised laughter over a month ago. So it replies to him, and you. It's in response to your assumption of my (limited) view of the structure of the universe, how you thought I see things. The "It seems you meant to offend me" post (of 4 hours ago, my reply 3 hours ago). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 19:58:15 GMT -5
I absolutely meant no offense. I'm going by what you have said, this is why I pushed you, to clarify. You clarified. As far as I know, nobody else here has said anything about or claimed such capabilities. This is one reason for the OP. You see, those claiming SR say that's the end of the journey. I find that suspect. Imagination is diabolical. We find this taught throughout Hinduism, Advaita and even Buddhism. We just don't know how powerful imagination is. I try to bend over backwards with honesty, anything else is just time wasted. If I were to use sarcasm, it would be clear. Edit: OK, tenka seems to indicate such possibilities, he seems to indicate he recalls past lives. If that is incorrect, when he shows up again I'll bump this. There was another guy here some years ago, don't recall his name, but he also seemed to indicate awareness of other ~realms~ than the physical. So people are right, this is a nonduality forum. Meaning, people with other orientations sometimes visit here, but usually leave. I think Richard Rose had a broader view, maybe even a kind of ~fishing~ view, that is, everybody invited. The introduction to the forum seems to indicate this, broad and varied views welcome, let's have a discussion. A little further. SR is the end because it supersedes everything else, SR is the umbrella that covers everything. So all planes, all paths, are equally superfluous in the eyes of nonduality. I obviously disagree, so I live in the doghouse, here. And even a little further. So, even if true, all your claims are superfluous, in the eyes of nonduality. Everything is superfluous in light of SR. So, join me in the doghouse. I suspect that people use the term "SR" in two different ways. One meaning would be seeing through the illusion of being a SVP and the other meaning could be labeled as "TR" for "THIS realization"--the realization that THIS, alone, is all, and that everything and everyone is one-with THIS. Apparently there are people (Ruthless Truth people come to mind) who see through the illusion of selfhood, but never apprehend the Infinite. Ramana, of course, was clearly referring to the second meaning when he talked about discovering the "Self." I don't like the word "enlightenment" because of its baggage, but IMO it points to people who have had at least five major events occur including (1) seeing through the illusion of separate things and realizing that all boundaries are imaginary, (2) seeing through the illusion of the SVP, (3) directly apprehending the Infinite, (4) realizing that awareness is primordial, and (5) understanding the limits of the intellect and attaining non-abidance in mind (mind becomes a servant rather than a master). You see, when I read your words I agree to much, but in the way I interpret their meaning, which probably differs somewhat from your intention. I also object to the idea of having a criteria that defines what "enlightened" should mean. For example " seeing through the illusion of separate things and realizing that all boundaries are imaginary" means that an enlightened person can't see that differently; period!. Even the use of "illusion" and "imaginary", which often are used with pejorative connotations, puts me off. But, I agree that the boundaries we observe are dependent on our beliefs. The same with each one of those 5 points. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 20:11:11 GMT -5
I've been trying to point this out for 10 years here, good luck, a recent thread even. As I wrote, "I believe that ...", so I don't try to argue or debate it. Actually I didn't comment on your thread, excepting when laughter misinterpreted @robertk 's Franklin Merrell-Wolff "Substantiality is Inversely Proportional to Ponderability" because he assumed an incorrect meaning of " ponderability". Maybe I should read it: linkThe first distinction thread is about higher dimensions, which are imperceptible, unless one has the corresponding *~sensory apparatus~*. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 20:33:55 GMT -5
.... I think that I already explained clearly enough what you're asking in the rest of your post. You can't understand it because you start from some assumptions that I think to be incorrect, like the existence of an objective physical-reality.... I will add a response to this. For the manifest universe, I accept the current view of physics. There are no things. Most physicists accept Quantum Field Theory to be the base of what is. That is, everything, "material" exists as overlapping quantum fields (wavy no-things). Now, saying that, QFT covers only 4.8% of the universe that must necessarily exist. The other 95.2% physicists know (there is a something) because of the unusual rotation of all galaxies (we can't find the source of gravity, responsible). This missing part is called dark matter, it's about 27%. And we know about dark energy, about 68% of the missing universe, missing in the sense of we don't know what it is, because of the increasing acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Now, I take the source, the missing 95.2%, to be the higher dimensions, energy of higher rates of vibration so as to be imperceptible. Gurdjieff said everything is material, that even God is material. By material, I would include energy (as Einstein showed matter and energy are interchangeable). This fits very nicely with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and the Ten Sefirot. The energy of "God" as Ein Sof, is ~lowered~ as a kind of step-down transformer, as #1. #1 is stepped down, to world #2. In turn #2 stepped down to #3, the process continues all the way down to the tenth Sefirot, our manifest universe. So our manifest universe is the 4.8%, the other nine worlds are the source of the other 95.2% of the "missing" universe. This is one model of the ancient Great Chain of Being. Gurdjieff also had a model, he called Ein Sof, the Absolute. In In Search of the Miraculous is a table of numbers showing everything in existence, from the highest energy, the lowest density of "matter" and the highest density of vibrations, #1; to in our world, the greatest density of matter and the lowest density of vibrations #12288. In Gurdjieff's model, there are 7 worlds, an octave. Within each world, are seven sub-planes, AKA inner octaves, the Absolute is World 1. Our manifest universe consists of World 48 and World 96 (I won't go into the why of those numbers). But, basically, that's my view of the (totality of) the universe, inavalan. You brought it up. The energy represented from 1 to 12288 are *built up* from a series of triads. For example, World 3 consists of three forces, #1, #2, #3. Add these up and the second energy-number is 6. So, again, each of the following energy-numbers from 6 to 12288, are built up likewise by a series of triads. (The 3 basic forces actually correspond to the 3 gunas, of the Bhagavad Gita). [BTW, ZD is not a fan of numbers]. "Gurdjieff said everything is material, that even God is material. By material, I would include energy (as Einstein showed matter and energy are interchangeable)." I guess this is another way of expressing the unity oh here and there, but calling it "material" instead of "consciousness", obviously with the differences in implications. Although I have a background in exact sciences and engineering, they don't currently play any role in my model of the nature-of-reality. I always paid attention to numbers, often making connections, even unconsciously looking for patterns, but I don't give them much consideration in regard to a structure of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 20:42:55 GMT -5
Hopefully, these get to my question. I'm asking, when awareness is focused elsewhere, is inavalan ~present~? This is the very point I'm getting to, are you aware of the awareness when it is focused elsewhere (just saying it a little differently). If you-are-not that awareness, your post, the rest of it, is just an abstraction, just theory. If inavalan never goes unconscious, I'm pretty sure that's pretty rare. Sorry. I'd like to reply, but I can't understand exactly what you're asking. Please reformulate  What do you mean by "is inavalan ~present~?", or "are you aware of the awareness", or "you-are-not that awareness" ? If you call "inavalan" my ego, then it is tied to my being awake, which means my awareness is mostly focused into the physical. To me, "awake" isn't the same as "awareness". Also when we use "you" we have to differentiate between ego, dream-self, subconscious, inner-self, personality, whole-self, entity, ... "Unconscious" isn't the same thing with "subconscious", or "sleeping", or "dreaming". All represent different things. I am a non-physical identity that controls its focus of awareness as direction, width, concentration, in the wider-reality, which includes the physical-universe. When I am focused mostly in the physical, it is called "being awake". When I fall asleep, that focus moves from the physical into another domain of consciousness. Each state of consciousness has a system of beliefs. This can be observed for example as differences between one's environment and abilities when awake vs. when dreaming. The states of consciousness are on a continuum, they aren't completely distinct; there are an infinite number of shades between them. I, as an identity, never sleep: I am always aware and focused somewhere, feeling (at this level of evolvement on the consciousness scale) as a different self, having or not a vague recollection of other selves. Ego compared to personality is like me-when-I-am-at school, compared to me-in-all-situations. I go to school and I am a student for 6 hours. I go back home and I am a regular kid. I work on my homework and I am a kid-doing-his-homework. "Ego" is in fact a state of consciousness, not a separate identity: like me when I am in class at school. Think about yourself awake, yourself in your dream, yourself in a lucid-dream. When you are in any of those situations, you don't think that the others are different identities: you move from one into the other. Normally you are either / or, but with a little training you can straddle two or more states, while mainly focusing in one: e.g. conscious-sleep. You are always the same identity but function in different frameworks of beliefs. The whole separation and distinction is artificial, and it is a distortion induced by the societal narrative, by mistake, from ignorance and free-will gone wrong. It sprung from the formation of the "intellect", with no intuition to keep it in check. Looking around you can see intelligent people who go terrible wrong, form absurd convictions based on unchecked reasoning. That is almost always caused during the growing up phase, creating a false sense of intellectual superiority by a lower intellectual environment or through unwise rearing. It can be addressed by changing that belief. I will add, something I have never posted here before, as nobody has shown interest before. Gurdjieff accounts for all these possibilities. He doesn't use this language (following), but one can easily surmise, they correspond. Gurdjieff said we have 2 fully functioning higher centers, but we don't normally access them. These would correspond to the 6th and 7th chakras. So, again, I didn't mean anything derogatory. He goes in to pretty extensively man's possibilities (in In Search of the Miraculous). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 21:10:03 GMT -5
... I will add a response to this. For the manifest universe, I accept the current view of physics. There are no things. Most physicists accept Quantum Field Theory to be the base of what is. That is, everything, "material" exists as overlapping quantum fields (wavy no-things). Now, saying that, QFT covers only 4.8% of the universe that must necessarily exist. The other 95.2% physicists know (there is a something) because of the unusual rotation of all galaxies (we can't find the source of gravity, responsible). This missing part is called dark matter, it's about 27%. And we know about dark energy, about 68% of the missing universe, missing in the sense of we don't know what it is, because of the increasing acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Now, I take the source, the missing 95.2%, to be the higher dimensions, energy of higher rates of vibration so as to be imperceptible. Gurdjieff said everything is material, that even God is material. By material, I would include energy (as Einstein showed matter and energy are interchangeable). This fits very nicely with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and the Ten Sefirot. The energy of "God" as Ein Sof, is ~lowered~ as a kind of step-down transformer, as #1. #1 is stepped down, to world #2. In turn #2 stepped down to #3, the process continues all the way down to the tenth Sefirot, our manifest universe. So our manifest universe is the 4.8%, the other nine worlds are the source of the other 95.2% of the "missing" universe. This is one model of the ancient Great Chain of Being. Gurdjieff also had a model, he called Ein Sof, the Absolute. In In Search of the Miraculous is a table of numbers showing everything in existence, from the highest energy, the lowest density of "matter" and the highest density of vibrations, #1; to in our world, the greatest density of matter and the lowest density of vibrations #12288. In Gurdjieff's model, there are 7 worlds, an octave. Within each world, are seven sub-planes, AKA inner octaves, the Absolute is World 1. Our manifest universe consists of World 48 and World 96 (I won't go into the why of those numbers). But, basically, that's my view of the (totality of) the universe, inavalan. You brought it up. The energy represented from 1 to 12288 are *built up* from a series of triads. For example, World 3 consists of three forces, #1, #2, #3. Add these up and the second energy-number is 6. So, again, each of the following energy-numbers from 6 to 12288, are built up likewise by a series of triads. (The 3 basic forces actually correspond to the 3 gunas, of the Bhagavad Gita). [BTW, ZD is not a fan of numbers]. "Gurdjieff said everything is material, that even God is material. By material, I would include energy (as Einstein showed matter and energy are interchangeable)." I guess this is another way of expressing the unity oh here and there, but calling it "material" instead of "consciousness", obviously with the differences in implications. Although I have a background in exact sciences and engineering, they don't currently play any role in my model of the nature-of-reality. I always paid attention to numbers, often making connections, even unconsciously looking for patterns, but I don't give them much consideration in regard to a structure of reality. Gurdjieff gathered his knowledge in the 19th century. He started teaching about 1912. His own major work is Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (started 1924, published in 1950). In it one need not be concerned "with the differences in implications". He devised unique language, thusly, one reason so that one could not *make erroneous associations*. Three examples: The universe operates on the principle of the Trogoautoegocrat; the two fundamental laws of the universe are Heptaparaparshinokh and Triamazikamno (the laws of world maintenance and world creation). Beelzebub's Tales is sprinkled with numerous such created words, created from his knowledge of numerous languages. It's almost impenetrable. You basically have to have traversed the territory to understand, it. He wrote it so, quite deliberately, it's basically a tome absent a key. In Search of the Miraculous is Beelzebub's Tales on training wheels. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 22:11:55 GMT -5
Sorry. I'd like to reply, but I can't understand exactly what you're asking. Please reformulate What do you mean by "is inavalan ~present~?", or "are you aware of the awareness", or "you-are-not that awareness" ? If you call "inavalan" my ego, then it is tied to my being awake, which means my awareness is mostly focused into the physical. To me, "awake" isn't the same as "awareness". Also when we use "you" we have to differentiate between ego, dream-self, subconscious, inner-self, personality, whole-self, entity, ... "Unconscious" isn't the same thing with "subconscious", or "sleeping", or "dreaming". All represent different things. I am a non-physical identity that controls its focus of awareness as direction, width, concentration, in the wider-reality, which includes the physical-universe. When I am focused mostly in the physical, it is called "being awake". When I fall asleep, that focus moves from the physical into another domain of consciousness. Each state of consciousness has a system of beliefs. This can be observed for example as differences between one's environment and abilities when awake vs. when dreaming. The states of consciousness are on a continuum, they aren't completely distinct; there are an infinite number of shades between them. I, as an identity, never sleep: I am always aware and focused somewhere, feeling (at this level of evolvement on the consciousness scale) as a different self, having or not a vague recollection of other selves. Ego compared to personality is like me-when-I-am-at school, compared to me-in-all-situations. I go to school and I am a student for 6 hours. I go back home and I am a regular kid. I work on my homework and I am a kid-doing-his-homework. "Ego" is in fact a state of consciousness, not a separate identity: like me when I am in class at school. Think about yourself awake, yourself in your dream, yourself in a lucid-dream. When you are in any of those situations, you don't think that the others are different identities: you move from one into the other. Normally you are either / or, but with a little training you can straddle two or more states, while mainly focusing in one: e.g. conscious-sleep. You are always the same identity but function in different frameworks of beliefs. The whole separation and distinction is artificial, and it is a distortion induced by the societal narrative, by mistake, from ignorance and free-will gone wrong. It sprung from the formation of the "intellect", with no intuition to keep it in check. Looking around you can see intelligent people who go terrible wrong, form absurd convictions based on unchecked reasoning. That is almost always caused during the growing up phase, creating a false sense of intellectual superiority by a lower intellectual environment or through unwise rearing. It can be addressed by changing that belief. I will add, something I have never posted here before, as nobody has shown interest before. Gurdjieff accounts for all these possibilities. He doesn't use this language (following), but one can easily surmise, they correspond. Gurdjieff said we have 2 fully functioning higher centers, but we don't normally access them. These would correspond to the 6th and 7th chakras. So, again, I didn't mean anything derogatory. He goes in to pretty extensively man's possibilities (in In Search of the Miraculous). I just finished your "The First Distinction" opening post. I'm not sure if I should comment on it or not. There's a lot of information both regarding Gurdjieff and your beliefs. As expected, I interpret some of those differently. The way we interpret things affects how we can use them further (I think I read something like this in your post). I don't know enough about Gurdjieff to interpret his ideas ... Reading this post, my first thought about the " 2 fully functioning higher centers", that "we don't normally access them", was that he referred to one's inner-self, and maybe one's subconscious. But there might be other groupings that would include one's inner-guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 22:22:30 GMT -5
I guess this is another way of expressing the unity oh here and there, but calling it "material" instead of "consciousness", obviously with the differences in implications. Although I have a background in exact sciences and engineering, they don't currently play any role in my model of the nature-of-reality. I always paid attention to numbers, often making connections, even unconsciously looking for patterns, but I don't give them much consideration in regard to a structure of reality. Gurdjieff gathered his knowledge in the 19th century. He started teaching about 1912. His own major work is Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (started 1924, published in 1950). In it one need not be concerned "with the differences in implications". He devised unique language, thusly, one reason so that one could not *make erroneous associations*. Three examples: The universe operates on the principle of the Trogoautoegocrat; the two fundamental laws of the universe are Heptaparaparshinokh and Triamazikamno (the laws of world maintenance and world creation). Beelzebub's Tales is sprinkled with numerous such created words, created from his knowledge of numerous languages. It's almost impenetrable. You basically have to have traversed the territory to understand, it. He wrote it so, quite deliberately, it's basically a tome absent a key. In Search of the Miraculous is Beelzebub's Tales on training wheels. Gurdjieff was focused on passing his ideas, so I can see how he was frustrated with using regular words to which people give different interpretations. Still, using made-up words makes it more difficult to follow, and even distracts the reader's attention. It is like listening to a non-native English speaker, when you direct some of your attention to deciphering the words (due to the accent, unusual semantics, unusual almost synonymous words, ...) which distracts from the attention paid to the message. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 22, 2022 23:11:59 GMT -5
I've been trying to point this out for 10 years here, good luck, a recent thread even. As I wrote, "I believe that ...", so I don't try to argue or debate it. Actually I didn't comment on your thread, excepting when laughter misinterpreted @robertk 's Franklin Merrell-Wolff "Substantiality is Inversely Proportional to Ponderability" because he assumed an incorrect meaning of " ponderability". Maybe I should read it: linkYour interpretation is quite distorted.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 23:52:51 GMT -5
I will add, something I have never posted here before, as nobody has shown interest before. Gurdjieff accounts for all these possibilities. He doesn't use this language (following), but one can easily surmise, they correspond. Gurdjieff said we have 2 fully functioning higher centers, but we don't normally access them. These would correspond to the 6th and 7th chakras. So, again, I didn't mean anything derogatory. He goes in to pretty extensively man's possibilities (in In Search of the Miraculous). I just finished your "The First Distinction" opening post. I'm not sure if I should comment on it or not. There's a lot of information both regarding Gurdjieff and your beliefs. As expected, I interpret some of those differently. The way we interpret things affects how we can use them further (I think I read something like this in your post). I don't know enough about Gurdjieff to interpret his ideas ... Reading this post, my first thought about the " 2 fully functioning higher centers", that "we don't normally access them", was that he referred to one's inner-self, and maybe one's subconscious. But there might be other groupings that would include one's inner-guidance. I will quote from the Introduction/Preface, a chapter of warning called The Arousing of Thought, almost 50 pages. I wish to bring to the knowledge what is called your "pure waking consciousness"...that the essence of certain real notions...go from this "waking consciousness"-which most people in their ignorance mistake for the real consciousness, but which I affirm and experimentally prove is the fictitious one-into what you call the subconscious, which ought to be in my opinion the real human consciousness...In the entirety of every man, irrespective of his heredity and education, there are formed two independent consciousnesses which in their functioning as well as in their manifestations have almost nothing in common. One consciousness is formed from the perception of all kinds of accidental, or on the part of others intentionally produced, mechanical impressions, among which must also be counted the "consonances" of various words which are indeed as is said empty; and the other consciousness is formed from the so to say, "already previously formed material results" transmitted to him by heredity, which have become blended with the corresponding parts of the entirety of man, as well as from the data arising from his intentional evoking of the associative confrontations of these "materialized data" already in him. ...this second human consciousness...the "subconscious"...should in my opinion...predominate in the common presence of a man. pages 24-26 Beelzebub's Tales IOW, Gurdjieff knows what he writes has to ~pass through~ first the fictitious consciousness, but he is writing in such a manner so it will also pass into your true consciousness, the "subconscious". So Gurdjieff says our subconscious is our actual consciousness, that is, should be (or I have called here our true self), and our (so-called) waking consciousness, is the fictitious consciousness (I have called here the false self). Gurdjieff said the two higher centers are always ~broadcasting~, but we cannot hear them. What they broadcast is accurate. Basically, as long as we function through the fictitious consciousness, we can't hear the higher centers. I have variously used a long string of names for the fictitious consciousness, ego, persona, mask, false sense of self, false self, small s self, cultural self, boatman, Imaginary I (which is a Gurdjieff term). This post should inform the OP of The First Distinction. The room is dark when ~we do not remember ourselves~. When we do not remember ourselves we are living through the fictitious consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2022 0:09:22 GMT -5
Gurdjieff gathered his knowledge in the 19th century. He started teaching about 1912. His own major work is Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (started 1924, published in 1950). In it one need not be concerned "with the differences in implications". He devised unique language, thusly, one reason so that one could not *make erroneous associations*. Three examples: The universe operates on the principle of the Trogoautoegocrat; the two fundamental laws of the universe are Heptaparaparshinokh and Triamazikamno (the laws of world maintenance and world creation). Beelzebub's Tales is sprinkled with numerous such created words, created from his knowledge of numerous languages. It's almost impenetrable. You basically have to have traversed the territory to understand, it. He wrote it so, quite deliberately, it's basically a tome absent a key. In Search of the Miraculous is Beelzebub's Tales on training wheels. Gurdjieff was focused on passing his ideas, so I can see how he was frustrated with using regular words to which people give different interpretations. Still, using made-up words makes it more difficult to follow, and even distracts the reader's attention. It is like listening to a non-native English speaker, when you direct some of your attention to deciphering the words (due to the accent, unusual semantics, unusual almost synonymous words, ...) which distracts from the attention paid to the message. Gurdjieff gave instructions for reading his works (there are 2 other major works). Read them (at least) 3 times. First time, just simply read as you might read a newspaper. Second time, read as if aloud to someone else. Only the 3rd time try to fathom the gist, trying to understand. As Gurdjieff wrote, he had chapters read to his groups, and he watched as people listened. If people understood too easily, he rewrote to make understanding more difficult. He called this burying the dog deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 23, 2022 0:55:23 GMT -5
Gurdjieff was focused on passing his ideas, so I can see how he was frustrated with using regular words to which people give different interpretations. Still, using made-up words makes it more difficult to follow, and even distracts the reader's attention. It is like listening to a non-native English speaker, when you direct some of your attention to deciphering the words (due to the accent, unusual semantics, unusual almost synonymous words, ...) which distracts from the attention paid to the message. Gurdjieff gave instructions for reading his works (there are 2 other major works). Read them (at least) 3 times. First time, just simply read as you might read a newspaper. Second time, read as if aloud to someone else. Only the 3rd time try to fathom the gist, trying to understand. As Gurdjieff wrote, he had chapters read to his groups, and he watched as people listened. If people understood too easily, he rewrote to make understanding more difficult. He called this burying the dog deeper. Interesting. Gurdjieff seems to have been focused on teaching truths. In my opinion, it is better for the pupil to be taught how to find truths for himself. This way the pupil isn't limited by his teacher's knowledge, and can asymptotically grow toward his own potential, that may be higher than his teacher's. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2022 1:06:03 GMT -5
That's right, perception is happening in you, so this perception is inseparable from you? Yes? So the knower is not separate from the knowing? If awareness is that knower and it can be left with nothing when there is no perception, then are you not believing that that Awareness is the perceiver instead you think perceiver is arising in your awareness which means perceiver starts to appear when you come out of NS? Awareness itself is the perceiver or perceiver is arising in the awareness? Your sentences there are extremely hard to parse, but I think I get the gist of it. Why is it so hard for you to understand that this goes beyond words and logic? Everything in our everyday experience is like that. A bat can perceive flying insects with echolocation. If I give you words about it, are you going to know (gnosis) what that experience is like, for a bat? If you were born blind and had never seen a color, a description of "red" as "hot" or "not blue" or "like a sunset" is not going show you what red is truly like. I know the nature of the perceiver because I am the perceiver so I know what it does and what it doesn't.
I am not talking about 'my awareness'. That's not my point of contention. My question is, whether awareness perceives or perceiver arises in awareness when you wake up from the sleep or when you come out of NS. If you say awareness itself is the perceiver, then awareness can never left with no perception. If you say perceiver arises in awareness, then what zd says is possible but you must know the fact that perceiver arises in awareness is nonsense.
|
|
