|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 23, 2022 2:23:26 GMT -5
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 out 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. This is informative. Thanks. I look at this not as "remembering ourselves", but as "becoming lucid to ourselves". It is like looking from the other side of the "veil". "Remembering" is like going deeper forward into memories and find out, while "becoming lucid" is like retreating backwards and waking up to who you were before falling asleep. I use a little different terminology. The ego / outer-self is the state of the identity when focused into the physical-reality, while the inner-self is the state of the identity when focused into the non-physical. They share a subconscious (as an element of the gestalt) that serves both states, it is the repository of all the information immediately available to the identity in all the states, including the beliefs for all the states, it non-physically connects (observes and broadcasts) to all the other identities, it affiliates to an appropriate gestalt of consciousness, filters what is perceived through the inner-senses, it creates the physical-reality that is perceived by the ego through the five physical-senses, it optimizes the state of consciousness for the task at hand. All these could synergistically work together, but in the modern man they don't. This started to happen with the erratic development of the intellect ("eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge"). When you fall asleep into a conscious-sleep, you experience a feeling of moving backwards for a while, like zooming out a reality-map, then at some point there is a switch and you start feeling of moving forward into a new reality. That is the moment when your physical-senses were dimmed, while the inner-senses were boosted, and when the effective system of beliefs was switched to that of the new state of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2022 8:35:23 GMT -5
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. He did this, but it is an oral teaching (that's why I said he didn't put the key in Beelzebub's Tales). The teaching is really nothing without the practices. The five beginning practices are: self-remembering, self-observation, division of attention, conscious breathing and non-identification, they are never written down [but discussed somewhat in the First Distinction, and elsewhere here], that is, specifically how-to-do, is not written down. He called being an author an artificial life, but he wanted to get the teaching down, at least in theory. Richard Rose's Jacob's ladder, came from Gurdjieff (Rose added Jacob). The teacher cannot move up unless he helps a student reach the step he is on, that's the principle. There is another principle called the law of otherwise, or lawful inexactitudes. There are things taught, and things even in Beelzebub's Tales, which are intentional errors. BT's is a great allegory anyway, but there are some things written, not as-they-are, but otherwise. The student has to come to understand what's correct, this is possible only from the practices, practicing the practices. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 23, 2022 8:50:52 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. 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 (Originating Whole); 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]. Maybe it's a wording thang, but I sometimes sense that there's a misunderstanding when folks gather around the campfire of ND. If one is attempting to approach ND or express to what is being pointed, then yes, things are going to get burned up. Maybe it's one of the reasons you feel you're in the dog house (you aren't), and/or Tenka gets upset and castes dispersion on ND and such types of peeps. To that I'd say that ND is not a system, nor a set of beliefs. The way I see it, by putting everything out front (and I mean EVERY THING), there's a greater chance of stumbling into THAT/THIS to which is pointed. So, some discussions may get interrupted or skewed by intentions and focuses. No biggie. Once realized, lots of mind stuff will come to fill that void. There's nothing wrong with it; it's just how life manifests. But what is pointed to never changes, is always available, and, in allowing IT to inform mind of its strengths AND limitations, never disappoints. I see no problem with anyone discussing anything about any topic whatsoever and, more importantly, neither does this so called ND. Life is an amazing display, and one can enjoy even more of it with the realization. That would include most any hobby, system of thought, meditative practices, sports, or any activity you can think of. The expansive sense of infinite potential just does what it does, and seemingly has a Creative edge on what's commonly 'known by mind'. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 23, 2022 8:57:28 GMT -5
Awareness, the Absolute, Reality, God, whatever name you use for what we are ultimately is just a name. It can never be an object. It cannot be known the way we know objects in time and space. This is why sages say you can't "know" God, you can only BE God. Now that is a problematic statement and I hate to use it because it can be fill the ego with enough arrogance and bluster to float itself into the stratosphere and go off strutting and claiming to be master of the universe. THIS cannot be known. This is why we say it is beyond mind or beyond the intellect. THIS can be experienced, perhaps a better word for it is "lived," in other words, you can BE God. In fact, you've never not been God, the Absolute, pure Awareness, THIS. You've deluded yourself to think that you are not. This is why enlightenment is not an aggrandizement, but rather profoundly humbling. Why folks say nothing is gained, but ourselves, our separate self, is lost. Why jnani's dedicate themselves to so-called others because there are no other's. There is only Self.Enlightenment is humbling? The jnanis dedicate themselves to others? This last paragraph is way off. I'd even say it contradicts your first two paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 23, 2022 9:33:10 GMT -5
What Gopal says is perfectly reasonable if one understands Gopal's definitions and context. As we've established in the Gopal thread several months ago, Gopal is confusing consciousness with mind. What Gopal calls consciousness is what we would call mind. And so when he talks about 'this one consciousness', if we go by our definitions, he actually means 'this one mind'. Same seems to apply when he talks about awareness. And since mind is essentially the process of objectification, he can't think any differently of awareness either. Also, Gopal's definition of awareness just follows the standard dictionary definition, which refers to the the state of being conscious, of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings or sense data, or one's own existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 23, 2022 9:36:42 GMT -5
Awareness, the Absolute, Reality, God, whatever name you use for what we are ultimately is just a name. It can never be an object. It cannot be known the way we know objects in time and space. This is why sages say you can't "know" God, you can only BE God. Now that is a problematic statement and I hate to use it because it can be fill the ego with enough arrogance and bluster to float itself into the stratosphere and go off strutting and claiming to be master of the universe. THIS cannot be known. This is why we say it is beyond mind or beyond the intellect. THIS can be experienced, perhaps a better word for it is "lived," in other words, you can BE God. In fact, you've never not been God, the Absolute, pure Awareness, THIS. You've deluded yourself to think that you are not. This is why enlightenment is not an aggrandizement, but rather profoundly humbling. Why folks say nothing is gained, but ourselves, our separate self, is lost. Why jnani's dedicate themselves to so-called others because there are no other's. There is only Self.Enlightenment is humbling? The jnanis dedicate themselves to others? This last paragraph is way off. I'd even say it contradicts your first two paragraphs. I figured that would bother you. The ultimate in humility is the annihilation of the ego, then there's nothing to defend or improve. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 23, 2022 10:04:45 GMT -5
Enlightenment is humbling? The jnanis dedicate themselves to others? This last paragraph is way off. I'd even say it contradicts your first two paragraphs. I figured that would bother you. The ultimate in humility is the annihilation of the ego, then there's nothing to defend or improve. Humility means having a low view or opinion of oneself. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 23, 2022 11:04:23 GMT -5
I figured that would bother you. The ultimate in humility is the annihilation of the ego, then there's nothing to defend or improve. Humility means having a low view or opinion of oneself. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. Humbled akin to awed. Humility is rarely used in a pejorative manner. I'll accept that we have different views of the word. One of my favorite quotes from the Bible is when Jesus tells his disciples " the least among is the greatest." How does that sit with you? The ego is a fiction. Annihilation is some sage's word I borrowed. I've grown tired of "seeing through." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2022 11:09:37 GMT -5
I figured that would bother you. The ultimate in humility is the annihilation of the ego, then there's nothing to defend or improve. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. Humility absolutely does not mean this. TBC |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 23, 2022 12:15:59 GMT -5
Humility means having a low view or opinion of oneself. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. Humbled akin to awed. Humility is rarely used in a pejorative manner. I'll accept that we have different views of the word. One of my favorite quotes from the Bible is when Jesus tells his disciples " the least among is the greatest." How does that sit with you? The ego is a fiction. Annihilation is some sage's word I borrowed. I've grown tired of "seeing through." You may have gotten that from ZD, when he talks about CC. But you talked about enlightenment and that's different. In spiritual circles humility is often seen as a sign of true greatness, some kind of gold standard for sainthood. I see it a bit differently. And I'm not really sure what that Jesus quote actually means. Taken literally, it's the opposite of how I see it. What I usually say is that you are always an equal among equals. The term annihilation is very misleading. We went over this with Satch a while ago, maybe you remember. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 23, 2022 12:24:02 GMT -5
Humility means having a low view or opinion of oneself. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. Humility absolutely does not mean this. TBC I browsed thru several dictionaries and it seems like humility absolutely does mean that... Oxford Dictionary: Etymology Dictionary: In most dictionaries though you'll see humility defined as the state of quality of being humble. Oxford Dictionary: Etymology Dictionary: |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2022 12:26:11 GMT -5
Humility means having a low view or opinion of oneself. If annihilation of ego is what you are talking about, then neither pride nor humility could apply. I don't understand why people get so hung up on ego and are yearning for its annihilation. The ego doesn't have to be annihilated. It just has to be seen for what it is. The real has to be seen as real and the false as false. Then get on with your life. Who wants to see ego annihilated as the final solution anyway? I'd say it's the spiritual ego. Humility absolutely does not mean this. TBC Agreed. When I use the word, I'm usually referring either (1) to Z's synonym of "awe" regarding one's felt sense of insignificance in relation to the vastness of the Infinite, or (2) to a lack of concern for oneself (an absence of self importance). With true humility no thought of self or selfhood in relation to others even arises. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2022 12:41:07 GMT -5
Humility absolutely does not mean this. TBC I browsed thru several dictionaries and it seems like humility absolutely does mean that... Oxford Dictionary: Etymology Dictionary: In most dictionaries though you'll see humility defined as the state of quality of being humble. Oxford Dictionary: Etymology Dictionary: I don't think the dictionary definition captures what some of us are pointing to with the word "humility." It might apply if one is thinking about oneself in an evaluative sense in relation to others, but what if there is absolutely no thought about oneself while interacting with others? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 23, 2022 13:39:23 GMT -5
I don't think the dictionary definition captures what some of us are pointing to with the word "humility." It might apply if one is thinking about oneself in an evaluative sense in relation to others, but what if there is absolutely no thought about oneself while interacting with others? Yeah, I can see some of the hang up to the word that Reefs is referring to (per the spiritual circles), as I have seen folks display inauthentic humility and/or feel that it is something of a book cover goal. But I do sense that most here refer to it as something of an opposite polarity to arrogance, which might be an even stronger form of ego projection, perhaps more fear/anger-based. It doesn't help that the word shares the root with ' to humiliate', which does rank up there as a form of power-driven form of arrogance. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 23, 2022 13:43:41 GMT -5
Humility absolutely does not mean this. TBC Agreed. When I use the word, I'm usually referring either (1) to Z's synonym of "awe" regarding one's felt sense of insignificance in relation to the vastness of the Infinite, or (2) to a lack of concern for oneself (an absence of self importance). With true humility no thought of self or selfhood in relation to others even arises. Yeah, the more authentic version, to be sure. |
|
