Are you voting & why?

[Renaissance]

The only thing thing it says in my eyes is that there have been misconceptions he is not aware of since he has not yet read/understood "The Work" and G's teachings.

Like Pinkerton had said it doesn't take reading a book to be considerate. A degree of sincerity has to come first.

I'm not stepping up for him,

There is no need to 'step up' for him, however, if you have an attachment to MoM being involved in the Work I can see how you could get caught up in that sort of dynamic, and it does seem that way.

I just told him to let the "voting thread" go (before other members started asking questions),

asking questions? Isn't that what this forum is for?

hence I apologized if I indirectly may have contributed to the misunderstanding since because of my "interference" he may have not felt the need to check back to answer the questions.

Again, it seems you're attached to a particular outcome here.

Clarification about this was my only reason for stepping in. What else that may say about him nor not, I do not know. If he truly understood what was being said by me or others I also do not know and is not up to me.

You say it's not up to you, however your actions contradict that understanding.

 

[Bernhard]

Thank you for all the input. I can see the points you guys are making.
I think the main issue is that can't be fully objective here because of my personal relation and conversations to Myth and hence have maybe done more harm than any good in the learning process for MoM on here.
Thank you for showing it to me more clearer and I do see my own contradiction in a better light. :/
However, he actually did ask me about certain things, hence I responded.

 

[Oxajil]

No, their is more here than "misconceptions" Bernhard. You seem to be missing the points that are being made towards Myth. It doesn't take a scholar's understanding of Gurdjieff to know how act cordially and considerately.

hm I never really looked at it that way before. Now that I read this it makes sense to me. MoM was asked (two times in two different threads) to answer the questions, still MoM decided to ignore them and probably got relieved when he started to read my post of ''not having to''. When he was asked again and again to answer the questions, he then decided to, but not sincerely or considerately. Just as something ''that has to be done quickly''. It seems indeed that Self-Importance stands in his way and in no way I'm seeing much signs that he is willing to learn here.

I remember another member that came here for the first time with disinformation and he was asked questions and answered them and was willing to listen and now he is learning and is an active member here. I guess you are right that it does not take Gurdjieff's basic knowledge to know how to act considerately or sincerely.

 

[anart]

Thank you for all the input. I can see the points you guys are making.
I think the main issue is that can't be fully objective here because of my personal relation and conversations to Myth and hence have maybe done more harm than any good in the learning process for MoM on here.
Thank you for showing it to me more clearer and I do see my own contradiction in a better light. :/
However, he actually did ask me about certain things, hence I responded.

Hi Bernhard, I think what you appear to really not be looking at is the fact that you've also done more harm than good in your OWN learning process by taking on this 'teaching' role. Self-importance and feeding take many forms and I have yet to meet one genuine esoteric teacher who thought themselves to be so, or that 'took on that role' without paying literally EVERYTHING in advance and having a solid network behind them to constantly shine a mirror on, and for, them.

The result of this little exercise proves that you overestimate yourself -- and that you are dreaming that you are a teacher.

 

[Jacques]

Thank you for all the input. I can see the points you guys are making.
I think the main issue is that can't be fully objective here because of my personal relation and conversations to Myth and hence have maybe done more harm than any good in the learning process for MoM on here.
Thank you for showing it to me more clearer and I do see my own contradiction in a better light. :/
However, he actually did ask me about certain things, hence I responded.

Reading that, it reminds me of that passage in Ouspensky's book ISOTM.

"The idea of this restriction consists in the fact that they are unable to transmit correctly what is said in the groups. They very soon begin to learn from their own personal experience how much effort, how much time, and how much explaining is necessary in order to grasp what is said in groups. It becomes clear to them that they are unable to give their friends a right idea of what they have learned themselves. At the same time also they begin to understand that by giving their friends wrong ideas they shut them off from any possibility of approaching the work at any time or of understanding anything in connection with the work, to say nothing of the fact that in this way they are creating very many difficulties and even very much unpleasantness for themselves in the future.

If a man in spite of this tries to transmit what he hears in groups to his friends he will very quickly be convinced that attempts in this direction give entirely unexpected and undesirable results. Either people begin to argue with him and without wanting to listen to him expect him to listen to their theories, or they misinterpret everything he tells them, attach an entirely different meaning to everything they hear from him. In seeing this and understanding the uselessness of such attempts a man begins to see one aspect of this restriction.

"The other and no less important side consists in the fact that it is very difficult for a man to keep silent about things that interest him. He would like to speak about them to everyone with whom he is accustomed to share his thoughts, as he calls it. This is the most mechanical of all desires and in this case silence is the most difficult abstinence of all. But if a man understands this or, at least, if he follows this rule, it will constitute for him the best exercise possible for self-remembering and for the development of will. Only a man who can be silent when it is necessary can be master of himself.

"But for many people it is very difficult to reconcile themselves to the thought that one of their chief characteristics consists in undue talkativeness, especially for people who are accustomed to regard themselves as serious or sound persons, or for those who regard themselves as silent persons who are fond of solitude and reflection. And for this reason this demand is especially important. In remembering about this and in carrying it out, a man begins to see sides of himself which he never noticed before.

 

[Bernhard]

Thank you for all the input. I can see the points you guys are making.
I think the main issue is that can't be fully objective here because of my personal relation and conversations to Myth and hence have maybe done more harm than any good in the learning process for MoM on here.
Thank you for showing it to me more clearer and I do see my own contradiction in a better light. :/
However, he actually did ask me about certain things, hence I responded.

Hi Bernhard, I think what you appear to really not be looking at is the fact that you've also done more harm than good in your OWN learning process by taking on this 'teaching' role. Self-importance and feeding take many forms and I have yet to meet one genuine esoteric teacher who thought themselves to be so, or that 'took on that role' without paying literally EVERYTHING in advance and having a solid network behind them to constantly shine a mirror on, and for, them.

The result of this little exercise proves that you overestimate yourself -- and that you are dreaming that you are a teacher.

Hi anart. I wasn't teaching him anything, nor did I ever once felt like being a "teacher". We had a simple conversation and he asked some questions. Just like many others on this board I simply suggested for him to read ISOTM. I didn't determine his "need", not more than anyone else on here giving the same suggestions.
I even told him that this is a learning process for myself and the best way to do this is within this network, however it would be good to be aware of some of the basics of G's teachings at least. That's all I conveyed to him.
My main issue, as I can see now and admit to, was my lacking objectivity in regards to his actions on here, hence my over-hasty reactions. I can see that now.


Namaste, thank you for that quote. I'm aware of this passage. The only thing is, how do you react when someone asks you in "real" life (meaning not on the board) about certain things he doesn't understand how they are being run on this board and it happens to be a person that you have call you friend in everyday life. Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry." Is that what I should have done?
I was under the impression, besides "The Work", that STO gives when asked. So I had been asked. I "gave" by simply pointing out that he may understand better what "The Work" is if he reads ISOTM. There was no intent of mine to appear as a teacher, nor do I think I overestimated myself by doing so.
As a matter of fact, I was only more "detailed" in my response to him in light of the network, trying to make him more more aware of certain things:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=10606.45

 

[anart]

Hi anart. I wasn't teaching him anything, nor did I ever once felt like being a "teacher". We had a simple conversation and he asked some questions. Just like many others on this board I simply suggested for him to read ISOTM. I didn't determine his "need", not more than anyone else on here giving the same suggestions.
I even told him that this is a learning process for myself and the best way to do this is within this network, however it would be good to be aware of some of the basics of G's teachings at least. That's all I conveyed to him.
My main issue, as I can see now and admit to, was my lacking objectivity in regards to his actions on here, hence my over-hasty reactions. I can see that now.

And this is why G discusses at such length that the Work is not to be discussed outside the group. You say you are familiar with the quote Namaste put up, yet you did exactly what that quote describes. Fulcanelli even goes so far as to say one must be silent. However, this forum, while educational is not really 'a group' or 'a school' per se, so I can understand how it might be confusing to know where one should or might draw the line on such things.

Namaste, thank you for that quote. I'm aware of this passage. The only thing is, how do you react when someone asks you in "real" life (meaning not on the board) about certain things he doesn't understand how they are being run on this board and it happens to be a person that you have call you friend in everyday life. Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry." Is that what I should have done?
I was under the impression, besides "The Work", that STO gives when asked.

Before one can 'give when asked' - one must understanding what asking IS. In this particular case, Myth was not asking sincerely, he simply went to you instead of putting in the necessary effort himself. Can you understand the inherent difference?

So I had been asked. I "gave" by simply pointing out that he may understand better what "The Work" is if he reads ISOTM.

I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting ISOTM - however, that is suggested on this forum time and time and time again. If Myth were sincere, he could have read it in these pages. If it helps clarify at all, I will give you a personal example. I never answer direct questions from people about the Work in 'real life' - I always - always - refer them to these pages or the network - that way, I take myself and my own subjectivity out of the equation. This is not a game, and at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with 'me' - it is about the Work, so what in the world would I have to say, one on one, anyway?

There was no intent of mine to appear as a teacher, nor do I think I overestimated myself by doing so.

I do not think that you are being completely honest with yourself, or with us, in the above statement.

The First Initiation
You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! ...

You live exclusively according to "I like" or "I don't like," you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further.

This test divides men into two kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life.

The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self- knowledge.

... If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures-talent, education, culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see-I see myself-by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don't like." Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely" to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others-lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions-lies. Your teaching-lies. Your theories, your art-lies. Your social life, your family life-lies. And what you think of yourself-lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.
You will see that you are different from what you think you are.

You will see that you are two.

One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.

 

[Jacques]

I was under the impression, besides "The Work", that STO gives when asked. So I had been asked. I "gave" by simply pointing out that he may understand better what "The Work" is if he reads ISOTM.

STO gives when asked! First of all, are-you sure that you gave in a STO manner? Everyone on that planet is STS, and we have been STS for quite a long time, therefore, how cay you possibly know that you gave in a STO manner?

Second, i might be way out because i am a STS person and because my knowledge is very limited in this 3 density, but are-you sure that STO always gives when asked? Let's say that all 4d STS ask to the 4d STO to give them their liberty, their energy, their free will and so on. What will happen to the 4d STO?

Could it be that STO gives when asked but only in a STO manner non in a STS manner?

The only thing is, how do you react when someone asks you in "real" life (meaning not on the board) about certain things he doesn't understand how they are being run on this board and it happens to be a person that you have call you friend in everyday life. Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry." Is that what I should have done?

Are-you sure that you fully understand how things are run on this forum? Do you know very well the teaching of G?

Maybe, instead of saying what you are asking me "Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry" but something like, if it does apply, " I just do not know my friend, i am learning as you do"

 

[combsbt]

"You seem to be going out of your way to be rude and inconsiderate towards other forum members. What do you hope to achieve by that? Have you read the Forum Rules?"
Yes I have read the rules and after reflecting upon my initial actions and comments I came to the understanding that I was not being objective and stated:

"I have been reflecting upon my actions and tone in this thread, I decided that my attitude and outlook needed some adjusting.
I'm rather ashamed at my lapse of "subjectivity" but it has been a good lesson."

"How can you take your knowledge about yourself for granted, as the truth?"
I feel to "know thyself" is to seek to understand oneself objectively, but these understandings are not necessarily transferable to others as absolute truths.

Myth of Myself,
It seems that you are rather invested in the idea of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I am confused in what you mean by objectivity if it is not "transferable to others as absolute truths." It is my understanding that if something is objective, then it follows that if it was observed objectively it would be the same no matter the observer. Also I am confused by when you said "... my lapse of "subjectivity"...". Do you mean that you are normally in a state of objectivity and you temporarily "lapsed" into a state of subjectivity. If this is the case, I think a different approach or a different understanding of the terms would be beneficial. Could you please explain to me what you mean by understanding oneself objectively?

MoM was asked (two times in two different threads) to answer the questions, still MoM decided to ignore them and probably got relieved when he started to read my post of ''not having to''. When he was asked again and again to answer the questions, he then decided to, but not sincerely or considerately. Just as something ''that has to be done quickly''. It seems indeed that Self-Importance stands in his way and in no way I'm seeing much signs that he is willing to learn here.

Oxajil,
I do think MoM attempted to answer the questions sincerely, however I think he is making an error in his understanding of a few concepts. In light of this, I wouldn't say there are no signs that he is willing to learn - He has shown an effort in my opinion.

 

[Bernhard]

Before one can 'give when asked' - one must understanding what asking IS. In this particular case, Myth was not asking sincerely, he simply went to you instead of putting in the necessary effort himself. Can you understand the inherent difference?

That I can see.

I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting ISOTM - however, that is suggested on this forum time and time and time again. If Myth were sincere, he could have read it in these pages. If it helps clarify at all, I will give you a personal example. I never answer direct questions from people about the Work in 'real life' - I always - always - refer them to these pages or the network - that way, I take myself and my own subjectivity out of the equation. This is not a game, and at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with 'me' - it is about the Work, so what in the world would I have to say, one on one, anyway?

That makes sense and that is how "I" act as well in regards to relation with people outside the network. However, as I said, all I did was refer to ISOTM. But as you said correctly above, if he had sincerely understood what had been conveyed to him in the first place, it wouldn't have been necessary. It seems since I'm his friend he wanted some "re-assurance". I did feel a bit "stuck in the middle" here and it obviously reflected in my confusing and subjective posts.

There was no intent of mine to appear as a teacher, nor do I think I overestimated myself by doing so.

I do not think that you are being completely honest with yourself, or with us, in this statement.

Most likely with myself and hence to you. However, as I said above, I felt stuck in the middle and hence lost objectivity.

Thanks for putting up Salzman's quote. It helps as a mirror. "Funny" thing is that I asked you some time ago where the quote on you signature is from and you posted the same passage as well. Seems like I need to re-read it, for it is quite profound and helps me to snap out of "myself".

 

[Bernhard]

Maybe, instead of saying what you are asking me "Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry" but something like, if it does apply, " I just do not know my friend, i am learning as you do"

That seems appropriate. However that is also what I said. I told him that I'm a work in progress and the board helps me to learn. The only other thing I did "more" was referring (suggesting) for him to read ISOTM. But in light of what anart said, it didn't seem necessary.

 

[Bernhard]

I was under the impression, besides "The Work", that STO gives when asked. So I had been asked. I "gave" by simply pointing out that he may understand better what "The Work" is if he reads ISOTM.

STO gives when asked! First of all, are-you sure that you gave in a STO manner? Everyone on that planet is STS, and we have been STS for quite a long time, therefore, how cay you possibly know that you gave in a STO manner?

Good point. I can see how in this case the idea of STO/STS in regards to "answering when asked" can be easily twisted around.

 

[Beau]

The only thing is, how do you react when someone asks you in "real" life (meaning not on the board) about certain things he doesn't understand how they are being run on this board and it happens to be a person that you have call you friend in everyday life. Do you say, "I can't talk about this to you in person, sorry." Is that what I should have done? I was under the impression, besides "The Work", that STO gives when asked.

This is where you have been acting mechanically and without external consideration. What you don't seem to understand is that when Myth came to you for counsel, it was with his image of you as a teacher in mind. The fact that you either unaware of this or unwilling to admit that people view you in this way just points to your machine being in complete control. If you understood this then when Myth came to you, you should have had no problem telling him to bring his questions up here. You also would have needed to be aware of Myth's personal state, which apparently you weren't. Perhaps you just fed off the attention (unknowingly or not). But you taking it upon yourself to decide that what was occurring between you two involved anything close to "giving when asked" was a clear example of inner considering.

So I had been asked. I "gave" by simply pointing out that he may understand better what "The Work" is if he reads ISOTM. There was no intent of mine to appear as a teacher, nor do I think I overestimated myself by doing so.

The only thing that was given was energy. Again, you seem to unaware as to how others perceive you, either that or you are being insincere. It is clear that some people consider you knowledgeable and wise in the 4th Way(amongst other things), and that this view feeds your ego. I understand that one part of you thinks that you are not like this, but once you truly understand that man is not singular, you will see that what one part of you thinks or does is not the complete view of your machine. This is what you seem to be struggling to see. OSIT

 

[Pierre]

It seems since I'm his friend he wanted some "re-assurance"

Hi Bernhard,

I'm not sure to understand how this "re assurance" episode fits in the whole story.

Is this need for reassurance that led you to recommend ISOTM ? Did it lead to other outcomes ?

Do you remember how this need for "re assurance" was expressed ?

 

[Bernhard]

It seems since I'm his friend he wanted some "re-assurance"

Do you remember how this need for "re assurance" was expressed ?

Hi Belibaste,

I think I used the wrong word here. It was mere like a "what is going on here?" from him, no specific questions about what "the work" is about, so I recommended to get more familiar with G's teachings and thought that ISOTM would be a good introduction, basically the same suggestion that had been given him here on the board as well. It really was just a small talk between friends and I didn't try to teach him anything about "The Work" itself (how could I anyway, I'm still learning it) or try to tell him what to do.