Esoteric Philosophy

truth
Thanks, Fresco. The term "esoteric" threw me off. I read "erotic". Hence my eagerness to know more
Just kidding. The term "esoteric" did lead me to expect almost exactly what your link has shown. It's a lovely concept, something I would love to see incorporated into all public school systems. This would, of course, be resisted violently by the essentially unreligious fundamentalists. I recall the schools in Switzerland, England and California of the great teacher, Krishnamurti. Much of the basic insights are discussed in Aldous Huxley's wonderful book, The Perennial Philosophy. I began my interest in such things because of my father's attraction to Indian Vedanta. I used to attend the services of Swami Pravabananda (sp?) in the Hollywood Hills in the 50s. This was a time when Huxley and his friends, the mystical philosopher, Gerald Heard and the novelist Christopher Isherwood, used to attend. From there I found no great leap in reading about and practicing meditation with zen priests from Kyoto. It has all been a blessing for me. No enlightenment or anything like that, but all that has had the nutritional effect of making my life much less problematical--maybe it's just age. I'm so glad to see the existence of Esoeric/Practical Philosophy schools.

JLN

Glad to hear your experience has been positive.

You need to be aware that "Practical Philosophy" has had something of a bad press especially in England as sociopathic "cult". Reference http://www.inthelight.co.nz/spirit/gurus/macla001.htm . I myself have experienced "part one" which I found enlightening but recognized certain danger signals of being "sucked in" to what seemed to be an elitist worldview.

On the otherhand I have also stayed at Brockwood, the UK Krishnamurti school, and found the students and staff both earnest and innocuous. I would recommend their extensive publications catalogue and would give particular mention to Krishnamurti's dialogues with David Bohm the physicist.

truth
Fresco, could the "elitist worldview" refer to the sense of esotericism in the sense that the perspective is "secret" or simply that it is uncommon? Populists would argue that "common sense" is all that is needed. This makes all knowledge that requires years or preparation somehow "elitist" and, as such, somehow immoral. We must remember that much important knowledge amonnts to uncommon sense, but neither its common-ness nor uncommon-ness is sufficient to determine its (truth) value.

No - Gurdjieff for example said "knowledge was not for all". Some of these groups (Practical Philosophy) have a concept of a ladder or pyramid of progress on which those on the higher rungs require lesser souls beneath them. Also certain exercises in detached observation are premised on "the other" being "asleep" and the observers responses are consequently unusual and lacking in spontaneity.

truth
Yes, I remember reading of the arrogance of Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater, of the levels of spiritual attainment in their Theosophical hierarchy, and how Krishnamurti disappointed them by refusing to be their avatar. This, of course, endeared him to others in the world.

Enlightenment is said to be sudden, a suddenness that can happen to anyone anywhere.

http://www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc107a.htm

truth
Yes, one hears of the suddennes of satori, but I personally prefer the way the Soto zen people talk of a gradual ripening of perspective. But then, perhaps--to stretch this metaphor--when the gradual ripening comes to its completion it falls to the ground SUDDENLY. Soto has a perspective wherein enlightenment does not come to a person. Instead, he comes to realizes that he is enlightened from the beginning (like the grin on one's face). He was enlightened before his parents were born

There certainly can be a ripening as you say refering to Soto Zen that sometimes precedes enlightenment. Although in the link I posted, in the case of Katie Byron there was apparently none of that. It was from total ignorance about any transcendence or even interest to nondual, no-self realization.


But yes, it's a paradox since there is no one to be enlightenment. I keep reminding myself that there's no one in here, but who am I reminding, and who's doing the reminding ?

truth
The need for a subject (I) who is doing something (predicate) seems to
be a requirement of our Master, our grammatical system.
I'll be away until next Wednesday. See you then.

Yes, we never actually talk about what we refer to, i.e. all language is about itself.

Fresco

Nice to hear from you again----leave it to you to come up with a conundrum such as this. To follow with your request for conjecture-----how does one know if esoteric knowledge really exists? I take issue with the following quote in your question:

<<What is esoteric, or hidden, knowledge? It is a term which has been badly mishandled and which has been used to describe everything from the irresponsible utterances of so-called occult societies to genuine esoteric knowledge. The term should mean immediate, or direct, knowledge, as opposed to mediate, or indirect, knowledge, or knowledge which has been reached through the mediation of the special senses.

Some people repudiate the idea that direct knowledge of this nature exists and maintain that all knowledge must come indirectly through the special senses. Bertrand Russell is one of these, and in his History of Western Philosophy he goes out of his way to point out that there is no method of attaining knowledge other than that used by the scientist. Having had no personal experience of the contemplative method, it is of course natural that he should make this statement.>>

First of all I find Dr. Walkers absolutism in the form of an apparently erroneously reached conclusion about Bertrand Russell's lack of contemplative method in analyzing his own experience, to immediately place him (Dr Walker) in the category of one who has immediately lost most of his credibility. How could he possibly know such a thing about Bertrand Russell?

Second, I am one of those who seriously question the existence of any knowledge that supposedly is formed by any method other than through the mediation of the information received through the senses. I truly would tend to believe that any knowledge suspected of being esoteric knowledge would in actual fact be knowledge that surfaced in the conscious mind after being quantified and categorized by the uncouscious mind.

Would the mind of a baby have esoteric knowledge---who knows?

I notice you use Rudolph Steiner in the same breath with Gurdjieff---do I take that to mean you have acquired some additional respect for Steiner or was it merely convenient?

Perception

Welcome to the land of speculation!

To answer your points as best I can.

Firstly Walker was a renowned published expert in his field and therefore had at least the experience to question armchair philosophers such as Russell on epistemology. We should also note that Wittgensteins "philosophy of language" (his later stance after he departed from Russell his former mentor in the "Tractatus") also undermined Russell's position with respect to empiricism in a formal manner by stressing "meaning as usage" as opposed to a logical positivist view. This formal mode, perhaps mirrors the informal mode adopted by Gurdjieff who used his publications (Tales of Beelzebub etc) to establish a specific linguistic usage arena (or stylistic register) within which to relate his philosophical ideas.

Secondly, wheras I agree that Gurdjieff emerged on the "bandwagon" of Theosophy and Steiner's Anthroposophy was a more mainstream development, their teachings had certain features in common such as the use of dance to experience or express the nature of "cosmic forces". Their views about the development "Man's Spiritual Nature" of course differ in detail, but both postulate the concept of "lost hidden truths" by virtue of the conditioning which is the fate of most children.

My "respect" for such writers is not for the content of their systems but for the breadth and coherence of their systems per se. Such could be said of several other writers within the pseudoscience of "Psychology" such as Freud or Piaget...all of whom "broke ground" by manufacturing sets of spectacles which give a different worldview. (BTW I call Psychology a "pseudoscience" with the authority of one who has published in respectable journals and knows the game !)

The key to "appreciating" any of the above mentioned is essentially experiential. i.e. to temporarily "suspend belief" in such rationalities as conventional logic, or cause and effect. Such suspension often results "new data" which would not have arisen by traditional means...and irrespective of the "weirdness" of the directing structure, the whole process is not very different from that involved in the paradigm shifts familiar to "conventional science".

Fresco

Regarding Dr. Walker-----I suspected you knew something about him that I did not. As always you have good reason for providing a valid background for your assertions.

The key to "appreciating" any of the above mentioned is essentially experiential. i.e. to temporarily "suspend belief" in such rationalities as conventional logic, or cause and effect. Such suspension often results "new data" which would not have arisen by traditional means...and irrespective of the "weirdness" of the directing structure, the whole process is not very different from that involved in the paradigm shifts familiar to "conventional science".

I don't suppose you could provide an example of how one can "suspend belief " in logic or cause and effect.
I just don't have years required to understand Gurdjieff.

Perception,

The "suspension of belief" is more of a non-analysis mode than a critique. The link below, for example, stresses this instruction "not to analyse". Note a central issue - that "cause and effect" have a covert "self" directing "what is relevant" - and it is the nature of this "self" which we trying to expose.

http://www.breath.org/self-observation/

Unless you are prepared to actually attempt this stuff yourself (and its not easy !) it is like somebody trying to learn to swim at the side of the pool rather than in the water. However you do not need "years" to try it and part one of "Practical Philosophy" cited above is a viable introduction.

Once such excercises have been attempted, you may then find yourself receptive to alternative rationalities such as Gurdlieff''s "Law of Three" ( which is similar to Hegelian Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis)

Fresco wrote:

Unless you are prepared to actually attempt this stuff yourself (and its not easy !) it is like somebody trying to learn to swim at the side of the pool rather than in the water.

Now that is a wonderfully perceptive analogy-----I take it that you have actually( at some time in your illustrious past) immersed yourself in this rather mystical activity( I use the word immersed because I can't imagine you engaging in any activity halfway). It is also evident that you consider it rather dangerous for anyone susceptible to a cult like activity or am I being too suspicious?

It also would appear that one must develope a "self-hynosis" technique to be successful-----am I wrong?

Fresco:

The link you provided was very informative but I was struck by Lewis's summation of Gurdjieffs reasoning for developing the technique for self observation:

Gurdjieff & Identification. Gurdjieff believed that because of our conditioning and education most of us live our lives as unconscious automatons. Oblivious to our own real potential, our essence, we are totally "identified" with our personality, our self-image, and with whatever thoughts, feelings, images, daydreams, or sensations capture our attention at the moment. Because we so quickly and mechanically say "I" to each impulse as it arises, says Gurdjieff, especially those impulses that support our self-image, we believe we are masters of ourselves, seldom noticing our own inner fragmentation and our lack of will and choice as a result of this fragmentation. We lose ourselves at every moment in one or another aspect of our lives, out of touch with the remarkable wholeness that is our birthright.

To me it seems evident that the vast majority of mankind is unaware that we each possess the "free will" to change. I believe this is proven by the constant observation of people in society making the thousands of stupid and dangerous decisions daily during normal interaction. Of course the very first step is to acknowledge that there are elements of our personality that should be changed ( an alcoholic must first admit that he has a problem that he can't control)
before we can proceed on a path of self improvement.

To put it another way I believe most people just "accept" what they are without any thought to having the ability to be "whatever they want to be" (one must also realize that are limitations in reality or serious frustrations can be expected when one confronts the outer edge of one's capabilities).
There are I admit thousands of examples of people extending their limits under extreme circumstances but I'm speaking of a lifetime of seaching for happiness and a sense of accomplishment.

I tend to believe that one should develope and practice introspection on a regular basis as a serious effort to analyse our options and capabilities and to make decisions based on sound reasoning to set attainable goals.

Perhaps after a thousand or so years of just introspection then we could proceed with Gurdjieff's method of self observation.

But first we must adopt the fact that we have the free will to alter our lives. If everyone would adopt the concept of "free will"----who knows, we might even change "human nature"

Perception

Just quickies.

1. The "danger" is for vulnerable individuals who really believe there is "an answer".

2. Your concept of "ability to be" is from the poolside..."what" to be or "whether" to be are resolved in the water!

3. I don't think I indulged in "total immersion". More like feeling the currents and buoyancy whilst keeping one foot on the bottom ! ...but thereafter never really getting totally "dry" again.

Fresco:

If this thread is going to end here----and I hope it won't----you are the master with your last three "quickies"---positively SUCCINCT.

GURDJIEFF's self observation is quite similar to Vipassana Meditation

http://www.dhamma.org/vipassan.htm

Although Vipassana appears more intense at least in its initial application; one goes to a ten day silent retreat meditating 10, 11 hours a day, starting with Anapana (breathing meditation) for 3 days, then spending the remainder on Vipassana; continually moving your awareness throughout your body.

Vipassana, which means to see things as they really are, is one of India's most ancient techniques of meditation. It was rediscovered by Gotama Buddha more than 2500 years ago and was taught by him as a universal remedy for universal ills, i.e., an Art Of Living.

This non-sectarian technique aims for the total eradication of mental impurities and the resultant highest happiness of full liberation. Healing, not merely the curing of diseases, but the essential healing of human suffering, is its purpose.

Vipassana is a way of self-transformation through self-observation. It focuses on the deep interconnection between mind and body, which can be experienced directly by disciplined attention to the physical sensations that form the life of the body, and that continuously interconnect and condition the life of the mind. It is this observation-based, self-exploratory journey to the common root of mind and body that dissolves mental impurity, resulting in a balanced mind full of love and compassion.

The scientific laws that operate one's thoughts, feelings, judgements and sensations become clear. Through direct experience, the nature of how one grows or regresses, how one produces suffering or frees oneself from suffering is understood. Life becomes characterized by increased awareness, non-delusion, self-control and peace.


The ten-day courses are by donation only so almost anyone can afford them. The difficulty is maintaining the meditation practice afterwards.

Many experience, as I did, what is called "free flow" waves of energy moving throughout one's body, unlike any other experienced sensation. The ultimate goal is enlightenment, or liberation, from suffering partly recognized by the eventual realization that there is no individual "self".