Esoteric Philosophy

Twyvel

Thanks for that reference.

Gurdjieff distinguished between various ways of achieving potential...the way of the monk etc. He called the work of his school "The Fourth Way" which he considered suitable in an ordinary life scenario.

It is interesting to contrast systems which advocate methods or meditational excercises with Krishnamurti's warning that "Truth is a Pathless Land". He repudiated any followings of Gurus or prescribed methods saying that "seeking to become" was antithetical to self knowledge.

Listening in and learning maybe something new.

Joanne

Welcome aboard. Try Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" if you can, but ignore the cosmology.

Perception,

Thanks for those kind words. I should also have said that "self hypnosis" could be a good description of the "Self" (capital S)attempting to control the "selves" (small s)...although "control" may be impossible!

Okay will try it out - this subject is very difficult for me. But I find myself attracted to it more and more.

It's JLN and Ts fault.

observe



observe

Twyvel wrote:

"Effortless effort is just observing without expectations, or judgements etc.

Just obseve"

Precisely----if it were only that simple....................

It is that simple I truly believe that and that is why it is so hard, you have to let go of the me a little bit and while it should be simple and easy it is not.

Hi JoanneDorel,

Yes I agree. "Self" observation is paradoxical as we eventually find there's nothing to observe.
But observing isn't difficult we do it all the time, we just need to narrow the field. And as JLNobody might say remain neither attached nor non-attached.

Just observe

Observe.

Observe the nothing?

Joanne. You might try this.

Sit quietly in a chair, let all internal chatter die down, and go round the five senses asking the questions "What does IT see", "What does IT hear" etc without attempting to interpret beyond elementary sensation...e.g. "It sees a black bar" is better than "it sees the hand of a clock". Try to develop this objectivity to the level of being aware of IT using all senses at once...as though YOU were hovering and looking down on IT and its interactions.

The problem will be to keep your concentration (= falling "asleep" for Gurdjieff) but practice should give some interesting results.

truth
Hi folks, Nobody's home. I've got to catch up before trying to contribute anything. A quick scan suggests It'll be interesting reading. Let me say, however, that meditation is both the most difficult thing I've ever tried, and the most natural thing. It's the process of "letting go", but any attempt to let go is itself an expression of the ego's holding on. So you just sit and watch the ego's actions, and eventually learn that nothing works--and, in a way, that's a large step towards letting go. It's too subtle for words. Oh, Twyvel, you mentioned the poststructuralist's principle that language is always (only) about itself; it never refers to the non-linguistic reality. Is this why zen masters only point?

JLN

Would you say this "letting go" starts with spotting " attention captured"...by circling thoughts, negative emotions, rehearsing future conversations that never happen etc...?

Yes, Fresco. It seems to me that "letting go" is a poor way of putting it because, as Tywvel will undoubtedly remind us, there is noone to let go. This is an axiom of mystical disciplines I'm familiar with. This also means that enlightenment as something gained is a false goal. Enlightenment that is realized (as something that is inherent in all experience) is not something to be sought after. If this is so, why meditate? Because of the bliss, I guess, that comes with realizing ('resting with') one's realilty of the moment, WHATEVER that may be--circling thoughts, negative emotions, rehearsing future conversations, etc. Perhaps "resting with" is better than "letting go", or does it imply the same trap? But it is critical, I think, to know that thoughts, emotions, and rehearsals are not HAPPENING TO a self; they're just happening, like clouds passing over.

The " I " (ego/body) is just a concept like all others, except it (usually) accompanies all other concepts, i.e. when I observe an apple (and its environment) I also observe the ego/body, which appears to be doing the observing, but it isn't. Just like the apple it is being observed. (As The Zen master Hung Po said, "The observed cannot observe".)


Which basically means the environment of the "apple" includes the ego-body.

I would say this "letting go" or "resting with" as JLNobody has phrased it, is to observe the apple (or any percept or thought) without observing the ego/body, absent the ego/body-self. Part of the difficulty is that most of us are locked into the impression that the ego-body-self is doing the observing.


I think this is in accord with the Cybernetics link fresco provided in the other thread though it probably goes a lot further, i.e. everything is landscape or environment including the ego.

Any "effort" expended by the ego towards enlightenment or towards "letting go" or "resting with" (sorry JL, ) makes the ego grow in importance; as a percept in the landscape it gets bigger,…..by focusing attention on it, e.g. now the ego is going to rest or let go etc.

The paradoxical nature of our task is to observe without being an observer, without being a "somebody". Too simply(?) observe the ego for what it is; an object not a subject, which is the signal of death (imaginary) on one side of the coin and enlightenment on the other.

truth
Twyvel, very stimulating. I repeat the old Hindu dictum, "tat tvam asi," thou art that. When I see an apple (or whatever) I am that apple or the experience of appleness. Seeing that I AM my experiences and not their subject--something they are happening to--IS enlightenment (I guess). As such, there is no need to "direct" one's observations, to select one's objects of perception in meditation. Everything is you. I interpret the zen dictum, "All things enlighten me" in this light. You've heard all this before, but it's what I can say with most confidence.

truth
There is an interesting irony with the above. If one IS one's experiences then if one should have an experience of a self having experience, one IS that self. Nevertheless, that perceived "self" is not a subjective self; it is an objective self. The trick here is, as you've pointed out, to avoid dualism. The subjective and objective selves in this example, are one phenomenal field; not an aliented subjective self perceiving an objective impression of self.

Good Evening Sensei's T and JLN

truth
Just making observations--for what they're worth.

JLN and Twyvel

Although I've suggested that esoteric cosmology is best avoided when starting out on these explorations, I would be interested in any views you have. In particular, there is a usually some system of "harmonies, vibrations, and energies" ( Kabbalah, Ray of Creation etc) which attempts to link microcosm and macrocosm (as in the Self - so in the World) and this seems to reflect and even predate electromagnetic concepts relating matter and energy (for example "a particle" can be viewed as a "wave packet" i.e. the confluence of of electromagenetic waves in three dimensions).

truth
O.K. folks, I've finally found the time to read the first page of this thread. Very helpful stuff, Fresco. And I thank Perception for asking the questions needed to elicit further info from you. Gurdjeff was to Ouspensky, I guess, what Lao Tsu was to ChuangTsu. I see very little difference between the zen traditions and those described by Fresco and Twyvel. It is important that Perception and most people realize that the kind of knowledge addressed by "mystical" traditions are fundamentally of a different species than the kind pursued by science--at least I think so. Russell and Krishnamurti knew one another but had very little in common philosophicaly. Their perspectives constituted different paradigms. The "lost knowledge" referred to by Fresco can have two meanings: that which we lost through socialization/enculturation and, perhaps, forms of "ancient" knowledge erased by world religions and the enligtenment. It must be realized that knowledge did not begin with Science. Science cannot be defined as the only way to achieve truthful propositions about reality; it is only the most efficient, and perhaps most reliable, method devised. But humankind has survived for hundreds of thousands of years, spiritually as well as physically, because of pre-scientific knowledge. Science has no monopoly on truth.