Conciousness after physical death

[Free_Man]

I read about the theory of Gurdjieff, that when the astral body cystallizes in you, you'll have something that can escape the death of the physical body. I have given this theory some thought and made an analogy of the survival of consciousness after death as Gurdjieff describes it and the way internet connections work.

For example, when we physically die all our brain signals stop. As Gurdjieff puts it, dust returns to dust. Everything ends including our conciousness.

"If there is anything in a man, it may survive; if there is nothing, then there is nothing to survive."

Imagine now a typical LAN connection that feeds the internet into you computer. The inside of this cable is made out of multiple colored wires. if you cut one, the enitre connection stops. Just like your brain when it loses the connection with some vital organ.

So how does your computer or it's 'conciousness' (the internet), so to speak, survive the 'death' of your cable? It can only survive the death of this cable if a WLAN (wireless) internet connection has previously been configured with that very same cable connection.

And so is it with our life, pretty much the same. If there is any way to preserve our conciousness after our physical death, we have to configure the WLAN settings of our counciousness before the 'LAN cable' is broken. In other words before we're disconnected by corrosion or by accident, we must create a body free connection. Something that is not in need of physical wires in order to exist.

But the analogy with internet continues... Even if we survive our physical death in this way. We would just be 'WIFI' roaming around in the air. If nobody knows the settings of your configured WLAN, you can't be connected to the 'computer', i.e. anything physical.

So you need to entrust a password to someone before the cable is cut. This is what Gurdjieff described as "Buddha's necklace",

"It was not a piece of bone but a particular bone formation which some people get round the neck in the form of a necklace as a result of special exercises.... The 'astral body' is, so to speak, attached to it, or, to be more accurate, this 'necklace' connects the physical body to the astral. Now if the 'astral body' continues to live after the death of the physical body, the person possessing a bone of this 'necklace' can always communicate with the 'astral body' of the dead man"

Can you see how the astral body in this analogy represents us being the WIFI spot and the "Buddha necklace" being the password.

What do you think of this analogy? Why are they so strikingly similar? Is there something we can learn from it that would be of benefit? Peace.

 

[Buddy]

Can you see how the astral body in this analogy represents us being the WIFI spot and the "Buddha necklace" being the password.

What do you think of this analogy? Why are they so strikingly similar? Is there something we can learn from it that would be of benefit? Peace.

Hi Free_Man. Welcome to the forum!

I can't say the analogy is accurate based on my understanding. The striking similarity may be due to simple resemblance.

In Chapter 2 of ISOTM, Gurdjieff is speaking in relation to this very idea. He explains at length that the esoteric ways (the way of the fakir as well as the way of the monk and the way of the yogi) have the power and significance that they have mainly because they are opposed to everyday life (represented by that real-world WIFI example).

Specifically:

[quote author=G]
In everyday life, even in a life filled with scientific, philosophical, religious, or social interests, there is nothing, and there can be nothing, which could give the possibilities which are contained in the ways.[/quote]

Do you see the connection? Have you read In Search of the Miraculous? How about Laura's Wave or Adventure Series?

 

[Free_Man]

Thank you!

I think I understand what you're saying about the ways of the fakir, the yogi and the monk being limited to their specific area of expertise, while lacking the ability to bring the different realities of man's world together. My analogy with the internet has no relation to this concept though. Maybe the term "Buddha's necklace" led you to think this analogy was a reference to the way of the yogi. Although this necklace thing happens to be a concept known to some buddhist yogis at least. According to Gurdjieff it is not an open belief,

"This is magic. But they never speak of it openly. You are right about their having magic and this is an instance of it. It does not follow, of course, that the bone you saw was a real one. You will find these bones in almost every house; but I am telling you of the belief which lies at the bottom of this custom."

This passage is from ISOTM. I can't say I have read the book. Technically yes, but I hold the belief that you have to read a book multiple times from to cover to cover, at least about 10 times, before you can say you really read the book. This is because of our forgetfulness. And before you can say you know a book, you must know it by heart, word for word. I most likely did come across works from Laura also, don't know about any specific series though.

 

[Buddy]

Thank you!

I think I understand what you're saying about the ways of the fakir, the yogi and the monk being limited to their specific area of expertise, while lacking the ability to bring the different realities of man's world together.

Yes, those ways are limited, but I think Gurdjieff was developing the point about how the Will that was able to crystallize something permanent in these practitioners and related to immortality was actually inadequate to meet the goal of fusing an independent, unified "I" that can experience its own freedom upon the individual's bodily death. That's why man needed a Fourth Way.

My analogy with the internet has no relation to this concept though. Maybe the term "Buddha's necklace" led you to think this analogy was a reference to the way of the yogi.

Actually, I was thinking how your analogy more resembled an individual's contribution to the "noosphere" of Teilhard de Chardin and how Vernor Vinge was basically on the same page regarding this subject. I think the "Buddha necklace" is better compared to the "ring of fire" of Gurdjieff and Orage (Teachings of Gurdjieff: The Journal of a Pupil). The idea of a "ring of fire" built around an entire campsite is for keeping "wild animals" at bay, which is a form of "insulation." I'm sure you see the esoteric aspect. On an individual level, it's been said that the "Buddha necklace" provides protection from different sorts of "beasts" (Teachings, pg.153).

I'm thinking the boundary is what is important. Within it lives a unified "I". To accomplish a unified "I", we need heat byproduct from struggle and friction related to a more comprehensive type of mentation (thinking with a hammer) and feedback (from a network). OSIT.

We also have optional reading in our esoteric category: Casteneda's "Fire From Within" that may be related. I feel like the concepts introduced also correlate well to the necklace analogy.

A lot of this stuff is explained, integrated and grounded to reality in Laura's Wave Series. I recommend it. :)

 

[Free_Man]

Yes, those ways are limited, but I think Gurdjieff was developing the point about how the Will that was able to crystallize something permanent in these practitioners and related to immortality was actually inadequate to meet the goal of fusing an independent, unified "I" that can experience its own freedom upon the individual's bodily death. That's why man needed a Fourth Way.

This relates to the different levels of man right? Man number 1, man number 2, man number 3 etc. up to man number 7. If you crystallize in the wrong way, you can't get higher in conciousness past number 5. The ways of the fakir, the monk and the yogi generally lead to this kind of crystallization in a wrong way, at best, but in most cases no crystallization at all. But the crystallization that came about in a wrong way results in a permanent ''I'' too, only with a much lower level of conciousness. So even if the fusing happened in a wrong way it is still a crystallized being and therefore able to escape physical death, according to Gurdjieff. He says on page 39 of ISOTM,

"Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still. Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved. In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it?''

Actually, I was thinking how your analogy more resembled an individual's contribution to the "noosphere" of Teilhard de Chardin and how Vernor Vinge was basically on the same page regarding this subject. I think the "Buddha necklace" is better compared to the "ring of fire" of Gurdjieff and Orage (Teachings of Gurdjieff: The Journal of a Pupil). The idea of a "ring of fire" built around an entire campsite is for keeping "wild animals" at bay, which is a form of "insulation." I'm sure you see the esoteric aspect. On an individual level, it's been said that the "Buddha necklace" provides protection from different sorts of "beasts" (Teachings, pg.153).

I'm reading about it now, the noosphere that is. Not yet sure what to make of it. What do Chardin and Vinge say about individual conciousness after death?

The esoteric aspect of "Buddha's necklace" is the custom to use that bone as a tool to communicate with a particular dead person. The "ring of fire" is an analogy for it's practical use by buddhist yogis I think.

I'm thinking the boundary is what is important. Within it lives a unified "I". To accomplish a unified "I", we need heat byproduct from struggle and friction related to a more comprehensive type of mentation (thinking with a hammer) and feedback (from a network). OSIT.

Indeed, we need all of that to crystallize our astral body but it still leaves us with the question of how your permanent "I" would escape a full loss of conciousness when the lights go out in your physical body. How can your astral body stay alive to begin with, and how can it remain 'connected' (i.e. concious) when 'the LAN cable' (i.e. the vital organs) stop pumping the 'internet' (i.e. conciousness) into our 'computer' (i.e. brains). That's why I thought up this wireless internet analogy to try to better understand how it could be done.

We also have optional reading in our esoteric category: Casteneda's "Fire From Within" that may be related. I feel like the concepts introduced also correlate well to the necklace analogy.

A lot of this stuff is explained, integrated and grounded to reality in Laura's Wave Series. I recommend it :)

Thanks a lot, I will look them up for sure! :D

 

[Buddy]

Yes, those ways are limited, but I think Gurdjieff was developing the point about how the Will that was able to crystallize something permanent in these practitioners and related to immortality was actually inadequate to meet the goal of fusing an independent, unified "I" that can experience its own freedom upon the individual's bodily death. That's why man needed a Fourth Way.

This relates to the different levels of man right? Man number 1, man number 2, man number 3 etc. up to man number 7. If you crystallize in the wrong way, you can't get higher in conciousness past number 5. The ways of the fakir, the monk and the yogi generally lead to this kind of crystallization in a wrong way, at best, but in most cases no crystallization at all. But the crystallization that came about in a wrong way results in a permanent ''I'' too, only with a much lower level of conciousness. So even if the fusing happened in a wrong way it is still a crystallized being and therefore able to escape physical death, according to Gurdjieff. He says on page 39 of ISOTM,

"Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still. Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved. In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it?''

That's (a brigand) my favorite analogy for making the point!

Actually, I was thinking how your analogy more resembled an individual's contribution to the "noosphere" of Teilhard de Chardin and how Vernor Vinge was basically on the same page regarding this subject. I think the "Buddha necklace" is better compared to the "ring of fire" of Gurdjieff and Orage (Teachings of Gurdjieff: The Journal of a Pupil). The idea of a "ring of fire" built around an entire campsite is for keeping "wild animals" at bay, which is a form of "insulation." I'm sure you see the esoteric aspect. On an individual level, it's been said that the "Buddha necklace" provides protection from different sorts of "beasts" (Teachings, pg.153).

I'm reading about it now, the noosphere that is. Not yet sure what to make of it. What do Chardin and Vinge say about individual conciousness after death?

To answer that question so that the answer will be properly understood, you will need to understand what 'noosphere' represents. Only then will you likely understand how the Fourth Way goal of a unified "I" differs and whether or not and how the difference matters. I don't intend to be evasive for the fun of it, it's just that a full contextual understanding of both subjects seems indispensible for your purposes.

Transposing to another context, as I recall, years ago I read a discussion where some computer programmers were making a comparison between Chardin's noosphere and the internet and were joking about 'uploading themselves'. In the technological terms in which the idea was developed and explored, a visceral understanding is algorithmically inaccessible. You can't get there from here. But from what I inferred, once 'uploaded', essentially the only difference between an individual being aware of itself as internet and internet being aware of itself, is only in the scope of data. Basically, you're interlocked somehow. That's about all I recall, but it may be close enough.

I'm thinking the boundary is what is important. Within it lives a unified "I". To accomplish a unified "I", we need heat byproduct from struggle and friction related to a more comprehensive type of mentation (thinking with a hammer) and feedback (from a network). OSIT.

Indeed, we need all of that to crystallize our astral body but it still leaves us with the question of how your permanent "I" would escape a full loss of conciousness when the lights go out in your physical body. How can your astral body stay alive to begin with, and how can it remain 'connected' (i.e. concious) when 'the LAN cable' (i.e. the vital organs) stop pumping the 'internet' (i.e. conciousness) into our 'computer' (i.e. brains).

Well, that's the 64,000 dollar question. Maybe worth even more.

That's why I thought up this wireless internet analogy to try to better understand how it could be done.

Understood. I don't have a sensible answer. I was just saying that I didn't see your analogy as having it either. :)

We also have optional reading in our esoteric category: Casteneda's "Fire From Within" that may be related. I feel like the concepts introduced also correlate well to the necklace analogy.

A lot of this stuff is explained, integrated and grounded to reality in Laura's Wave Series. I recommend it :)

Thanks a lot, I will look them up for sure! :D

Great! Here's a link to the online version if it's needed. Having interaction with people who look with new eyes and share fresh perspectives might lead us all towards resolution of these kinds of questions.

 

[Free_Man]

To answer that question so that the answer will be properly understood, you will need to understand what 'noosphere' represents. Only then will you likely understand how the Fourth Way goal of a unified "I" differs and whether or not and how the difference matters. I don't intend to be evasive for the fun of it, it's just that a full contextual understanding of both subjects seems indispensible for your purposes.

Transposing to another context, as I recall, years ago I read a discussion where some computer programmers were making a comparison between Chardin's noosphere and the internet and were joking about 'uploading themselves'. In the technological terms in which the idea was developed and explored, a visceral understanding is algorithmically inaccessible. You can't get there from here. But from what I inferred, once 'uploaded', essentially the only difference between an individual being aware of itself as internet and internet being aware of itself, is only in the scope of data. Basically, you're interlocked somehow. That's about all I recall, but it may be close enough.

That's definitely interesting stuff. I wouldn't have a problem with uploading my conciousness to a computer. I don't believe we're anywhere near such technology but you never know maybe in the distant future scientists may develop such possibilities. Not in our lifetime though.

Great! Here's a link to the online version if it's needed. Having interaction with people who look with new eyes and share fresh perspectives might lead us all towards resolution of these kinds of questions.

Thank you very much, I'll check it out. You a right, these kind of interactions certainly do help me get a more comprehensive perspective on the reality of these issues. It's amazing how many 'hidden' truths are waiting out there to be uncovered. Sometimes the knowledge is in a book, other times in a small conversation with an unknown individual. And sometimes the truth has always been with us but we've just never noticed. :)

 

[Buddy]

I wouldn't have a problem with uploading my conciousness to a computer.

I confess the idea had a strong appeal to me at one time. I'd have paid good money to be 'conscious' and physically free from coercion and threats of all kinds and just invest my energy in learning. But where is the end? Just integrating knowledge to the highest possible level of abstraction is like climbing a mountain to a peak where the air is thin and no one's ever been. The sight may even be breathtaking and that might be good, but what do I do once I get used to the view?

I don't believe we're anywhere near such technology but you never know maybe in the distant future scientists may develop such possibilities. Not in our lifetime though.

Don't know that I could say that. Who knows where the limitation boundary is? From the point of view of hardware, Formal Systems Flaws are indeed relevant. You simply have to build in limitations to create a closed system if you expect to ever 'finish' a project and get on with work. You 'patch' as bugs are discovered. But you're also adding to the knowledge base from where you draw inspiration for the next round which is hopefully an improvement in the system. And as learning has an exponential aspect, nonlinear dynamics apply and you may have noticed from the forum guidelines that for us objectivity is nonlinear.

From the point of view of the human organism, however, a case can be made that it's already happened for those whose 'consciousness' is thoroughly integrated with, and limited to, the language of any reality model described by any monism. IOW, the language as object-oriented software thinking it's ability to solve problems means it's representations are the accurate, complete and only reality that exists or matters. Not that that's a bad thing as a starting point for an esoteric Work context. And I'm not pointing to you any more than I'm pointing to myself or doing both.

Summary of the point: reality in its quantum nature and subjective and objective manifestations is logically inclusive. As I see it, logical exclusivity is for establishing limitations in which human potential is also captured and tucked out of sight, so to speak. Happy reading!

It's amazing how many 'hidden' truths are waiting out there to be uncovered. Sometimes the knowledge is in a book, other times in a small conversation with an unknown individual. And sometimes the truth has always been with us but we've just never noticed. :)

Yup!