Caesar, Gurdjieff and abduction
- Thread starter shijing
- Start date
Shijing said:
I dunno, I think that an effort has to be made to infer "abuse of position" here, and that you might be engaging in some black and white thinking of the moralistic sort yourself. I can see how it might look bad to someone who sees G as an idol and that he must be "all good", but for someone who understands the nature and background to true spiritual development of human beings, and that many things are 'pre-chosen' and beyond conscious awareness and far 'bigger' than any single individual, I would think that a much less judgmental attitude should be taken.
A good exercise might be look at our own lives and relationships and see how they measure up. It's rather easy to focus on sexual promiscuity, since that is a "sin" by modern social moral standards, and give ourselves a clean bill of health, but in terms of the Work, 'sinning' involves thoughts, words and deeds that are generally not looked upon in any negative way by modern social moral standards.
So I suppose what I am saying is that holding the lives of these individuals up to a standard of morality today (or at any other time) may be like comparing apples to oranges due to the roles they were destined (or 'pre-chose) to play. Just to clarify where I am coming from, the Cs have also more or less dismissed the idea of killing being categorically 'wrong' from a spiritual development pov. In the case of Caesar, his goal was to eliminate killing, but to do so, he had to kill many. Yet by modern moral values that would make him a "brutal killer", which is the way he is generally characterized by modern historians today.
I think that invoking the Law of Three is going in the right direction. However, doing that means that one must take into account "the specific situation" and things were very, very different back then. I mean, so different, that even though we can read their words and think they were like us, they were not.
This massive difference in environment and thus, what was socially imprinted, is one thing I'm going to try to convey when I start writing about this. It has taken me a few years to wrap my own head around it and I still slip and judge people and events back then by current day standards.
The issues of "sexual purity" were looked at very differently then and one could say that the idea of marital fidelity was simply not part of their reality. You can't even blame it on the Jews because their whole schtick was basically anti-sex/anti-women.
What is "morally wrong" in one time and place may not be morally wrong in another time and place.
This massive difference in environment and thus, what was socially imprinted, is one thing I'm going to try to convey when I start writing about this. It has taken me a few years to wrap my own head around it and I still slip and judge people and events back then by current day standards.
The issues of "sexual purity" were looked at very differently then and one could say that the idea of marital fidelity was simply not part of their reality. You can't even blame it on the Jews because their whole schtick was basically anti-sex/anti-women.
What is "morally wrong" in one time and place may not be morally wrong in another time and place.
luke wilson
The Living Force
Laura in one of the threads in the forum said that different rules should not apply to different people just because they are special. JC did so much that was not inkeeping with his times and social standing which played a huge role in why he got assassinated... If we applaud him for that, then why do we apply a different rule to what he did that by instinct, intuition and what is considered viable and non pathological teachings the world over, teachings and traditions that have come down centuries, including what the Cs and Ra say is considered morally questionable conduct! I'm more inclined to think he didn't get around that much to not personally experience cognitive dissonance.
By the same line of applying the rule of 3... You can argue that a gay person growing up in a profoundly distorted gay culture who partakes in numerous questionable sexual behavior is in fact a-ok in carrying out such deeds when you take context to account...
By the same line of applying the rule of 3... You can argue that a gay person growing up in a profoundly distorted gay culture who partakes in numerous questionable sexual behavior is in fact a-ok in carrying out such deeds when you take context to account...
sitting
Dagobah Resident
Perhaps the issue of "relative morality" can be made more clear by asking C's this question:
"The criteria for graduation -- does it remain fairly constant ... or varies a lot with changing times?"
My strong suspicion is it's the former. As emotions & thoughts are the universal basis we work with. "Karmic and simple understandings" (within that framework) leave not much room for subjective bending, in my opinion. No matter how much we try.
But I could be wrong.
FWIW.
"The criteria for graduation -- does it remain fairly constant ... or varies a lot with changing times?"
My strong suspicion is it's the former. As emotions & thoughts are the universal basis we work with. "Karmic and simple understandings" (within that framework) leave not much room for subjective bending, in my opinion. No matter how much we try.
But I could be wrong.
FWIW.
sitting said:
But "karmic and simple understandings" don't really speak to "morality". The law of three tends to throw hard and fast applications of conventional ideas of morality out the window. Also, morality as defined by Gurdjieff isn't really worth much. Conscience informed by knowledge is what should rule our actions. But it must first be awakened, and it seems many infractions of "moral rules" are likely to be involved in the process of awakening conscience. Is someone who has broken (often arbitrary) moral rules in the process of awakening their conscience to be judged by those infractions, or by the fact that they have an awakened conscience?
obyvatel
The Living Force
Joe said:
The relevance, imo, comes from whether the specific type of action is worth emulating or not.
Joe] I'm reminded of JFK and the similar allegations made against him. In the context of the life and work and likely nature and influence on so many others of these people said:
This goes back to an issue similar to slavery in ancient times and what can be considered systematic injustice in the society. Promiscuity was tacitly or overtly approved for men. It was a sign of virility rather than weakness. And men living in such a society would be influenced by the prevailing attitude. It is understandable.
But that does not imo, imply that promiscuous actions necessarily had to be performed. Slavery was institutional and it was almost impossible for any person in ancient times to directly oppose it and live, other than running away from society altogether. The issue of slavery was not under personal control. Promiscuity is more of a personal choice though - in ancient times and today's times.
Joe said:
It seems to me seem that the problem comes from thinking that there is an absolute standard by which such judgements can be made. What is the problem with acknowledging that certain actions - like having sexual relations with students in the case of Gurdjieff - is not skillful or virtuous? And many other actions that Gurdjieff performed to benefit others were skillful and virtuous and worth emulating? Why fall for the kind of thinking that implies that one blight spoils everything? It does not.
Awakened conscience may not be an all-or-nothing affair that it is made out to be. At the end of the day, human beings, however evolved they may be, suffer from human weaknesses. People who have done highly beneficial things for humanity should be respected and celebrated and not be judged negatively as a whole on the basis of some unskillful acts.
obyvatel said:
Sure, but whether or not to emulate the actions of another would depend on the context in which that person carried out those actions. I mean, in a war, killing someone for a specific purpose may be justified, but not in another situation. The same applies here, IMO.
obyvatel said:
Right, and I think that's the general idea being expressed. But, the question is more along the lines of whether or not certain actions by these non-average individuals can be defined as "not virtuous" by using the standard morality that is taught today and, most importantly, directed at the average person and designed, in theory, to help them stay or become virtuous.
Many, or most, people need a system of rules and regulations (morality) according to which they live their lives, because they lack that awakened conscience and knowledge, and therefore the ability to make their own sovereign, conscience-based choices that at times might conflict with the moral laws.
In addition, individuals of a 'higher level' may be unconsciously guided to do things that also conflict with moral laws that even they can't explain or rationalize, and over which they may experience some inner conflict. Here I'm speculating about how G. or Caesar may have had problems with their promiscuity, assuming it was even perceived as something 'immoral' in their times, which is doubtful in the case of Caesar at least.
Regarding marital or sexual "morality", as noted, what is moral in one place and time may not be moral in another place and time. The fact that so many religions concern themselves with sexual behavior is certainly curious, but in the end, does anyone really think that "god" or the information field really cares about such matters? So in the end, it is only a practical concern: does the activity in some way cause detriment to self or others? What kind? In what context? Etc.
From our point of view, sexual issues are connected to energetic issues: if one has an AIM to increase their awareness and FRV, then paying attention to such is important. Especially in the particular time we live when such energies have been coopted to negative usages. Additionally, we are aware that channeling such energies, such as within a monogamous/soul relationship can also enhance one's FRV and awareness. But that is really it. It's simply pragmatic.
It might be worth re-reading Gurdjieff's discussion of morality vs. conscience.
From our point of view, sexual issues are connected to energetic issues: if one has an AIM to increase their awareness and FRV, then paying attention to such is important. Especially in the particular time we live when such energies have been coopted to negative usages. Additionally, we are aware that channeling such energies, such as within a monogamous/soul relationship can also enhance one's FRV and awareness. But that is really it. It's simply pragmatic.
It might be worth re-reading Gurdjieff's discussion of morality vs. conscience.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Generations are usually calculated at 25 years, in other words the time from birth until the age of having children. Otherwise, using 75 years,, I would be of the same generation as someone born in the 1800s. What you were referring to is lifetimes.Shijing said:
Laura said:
I have read Ancient City and the women really had, pretty much, no rights. So I thought maybe you had found something else. But after reading your new post, it seems that what I had read was the way it was.
So it is pretty much okay for men to sleep around, but women who do are bad.
I'm a bit biased about men, and women, who think that sleeping around once they are married is okay. So it will take me a while to see men in the past as sleeping around after they are married and, no problem, it's okay.
But, as Joe said, the Cs have mentioned nothing about this type of thing being "bad" per se. So I guess it's just me.
