Finding Faith?

[Mixtli]

Thanks Andi. I am beginning to understand the idea of anticipation and non-anticipation. However how should one use it in a practical sense. For example looking for a job. You should just look in the paper for the jobs advertised. Then go to check them out without anticipation just a somewhat careless attitude about the outcome. And .. see what happens? And if there are no job offers. Just try to make some calls and see what happens? Sorry for being so specific and stubborn and maybe demanding. Just trying to grasp the whole idea of non-anticipation. I remember some Buddhist tales about people who just in one moment in their life decided to just start the way with all their faith and deep understanding. But in the contemporary world what should one do. Thanks in advance for any reply.

 

[Leo40]

There is only this one word: knowledge. How do we indicate which knowledge we are talking about?
Knowledge can mean just knowing a lot of facts, but the important thing is understanding.
Whatever you think you know needs to be tested which in turn leads to experience and then
to understanding. Intellect alone can not do this. Knowledge can also be likened to a map:
it shows you the road but you have to walk it to experience the country and then you understand
what it's like. Maybe that's where faith comes in?
Why do some people repeat the same patterns although the result is always negative?
Is it wrong knowledge, action without thought or reflection?
What of you have an obsolete or wrong map?
Does faith require an object as in: "I have faith in this or that?
Here is a personal example: When I emigrated to Canada I had one intent in mind: I will never go back!
Is this selfconfidence or faith?Or is it unconditional commitment to the experience?
Perhaps some kind soul can make sense of my confusion?

 

[anart]

Interesting. If that is your perception.

It's actually more my understanding than my perception.

I would like to ask you something: Do you see a difference between emotions and feelings?

Yes.

And is there a difference between knowledge and information.

Yes.

Is there something like an objective Truth, and if yes is it possible for a human being to experience it?

Yes, to my understanding there is Objective Truth. The purpose of this forum is to attempt to approach an understanding of Objective Truth. It is only possible for a human being to 'experience it' (to perceive, recognize and understand it) if that human being is awake in the Esoteric sense. To be awake in the Esoteric sense is a very complex matter, but, at its base, it is defined by no longer choosing comfortable lies to the self over Objective Truth, no matter how painful. To be Esoterically awake, is to have fused a singular 'I', with lower centers working in balance and a full connection to one's higher centers - a la the Work of Gurdjieff and the Hermetic Sciences. If you're not familiar with the work of G.I. Gurdjieff, it is highly recommended since a lot of the work done here on the forum is aligned with it.

Also, the Cassiopedia will come in quite handy for reference on a lot of these ideas.

In other words, for a human being to perceive Objective Truth, they must not be blocked by lies of the self - lies that define human existence every minute of every day. Often, in our current 3D state, we can only perceive Objective Truth as a network, with many colinear eyes providing different pieces of the puzzle, and thus approaching a higher perspective.

On the suffering part, I agree with you that there is no knowledge without suffering, but I think there is no need to seek it actively because it will come to you anyway if you like it or not, when approaching on the path of knowledge, whatever that might be to you.

Well, if one considers that there is Objective Truth, then wouldn't that necessarily mean that it's not about 'whatever that might mean to you' - but - rather - about 'what is True'?

 

[black_ronin]

On the suffering part, I agree with you that there is no knowledge without suffering, but I think there is no need to seek it actively because it will come to you anyway if you like it or not, when approaching on the path of knowledge, whatever that might be to you.

How then can you account for all the people in the world who are stuck in their suffering who still don't have knowledge? Why hasn't it come to them?

Well I am not really sure if I have understood your question. But let me put it this way. If life itself is a learning process maybe the people you consider as suffering are actually aquiring a knowledge they have to learn or even sending a message to people like you watching them suffering, considering the fact that all beings and human beings in particular are interconnected at a certain level. What makes you think that the knowledge that you have is superiour to their knowledge. Or maybe that you were in the past or will be in the future one of those suffering people?

 

[andi]

Mixtli, I have read all your posts (not in full context) and it seems to me it is not a first time that you find yourself in a similar situation (having hard time finding a new job or having mixed feelings about the one you are holding) I could be wrong.
You seemed to be wanting to let everybody know what you do for a living and that you do it fine(in almost every post). I do not question your abilities, and no one here does. Don't take too harshly what I say, I'm just offering you a mirror.

To try to answer your question would not be simple, in fact I don't even know if it would be possible. It took me a great deal of work to get to know the little I know. I myself have similar problems relating to jobs and I do not claim to completely understand the meaning of anticipation and non-anticipation.
I know it has been suggested that you read The Wave series along with other recommended material, and I would suggest also that you do that whenever you have time . It will answer many of your questions and give a much better position to communicate with the rest of the forum members on a commune language/knowledge.

I hope I didn't struck a cord in you with my post, and know that I have no interest in doing so. We are all here to learn and it takes time.
Other formers may be able to clarify this better; in fact it would be a good idea to open a tread and see what others have to say.

Best of luck Mixtli ;)

 

[truth seeker]

Well I am not really sure if I have understood your question. But let me put it this way. If life itself is a learning process maybe the people you consider as suffering are actually aquiring a knowledge they have to learn or even sending a message to people like you watching them suffering, considering the fact that all beings and human beings in particular are interconnected at a certain level. What makes you think that the knowledge that you have is superiour to their knowledge. Or maybe that you were in the past or will be in the future one of those suffering people?

Personally I think that everyone is suffering in their own way whether they realize it or not. I include myself in this. The difference between one person and anther in this context would be whether an individual makes the choice to attempt to wake up. The people I was referring to in my question were the ones who currently remain asleep for one reason or another and therefore are suffering unconsciously.

I am unsure as to why you would think that I believe "the knowledge I have" is superior to the knowledge of others. Can you clarify why you think this is so?

I can't and won't claim to be any more knowledgeable than another person. What I will say is that I am living my life in search of objective truth, however difficult that may be at times.

From what you write, I assume that you are "approaching on the path to knowledge" (please correct me if I'm wrong :) ). If this is the case, I'd be interested if you could give examples of what knowledge has come to you and in what way it came to you spontaneously, for lack of a better word?

 

[ana]

Why do some people repeat the same patterns although the result is always negative?
Is it wrong knowledge, action without thought or reflection?

We need to see the specific case, don't you think?

What of you have an obsolete or wrong map?

Sorry don't understand this question, may you clarify?

Does faith require an object as in: "I have faith in this or that?

i don't think so, that would be the description of a belief where attention becomes slave.

Here is a personal example: When I emigrated to Canada I had one intent in mind: I will never go back!
Is this selfconfidence or faith?Or is it unconditional commitment to the experience?

i think, this is a personal purpose relating the ideas about your life and yourself you had at that moment wich may have not changed.


Faith is a real commitment to truth and self interest cannot be mixed with truth.

 

[black_ronin]

Interesting. If that is your perception.

It's actually more my understanding than my perception.

I would like to ask you something: Do you see a difference between emotions and feelings?

Yes.

And is there a difference between knowledge and information.

Yes.

Is there something like an objective Truth, and if yes is it possible for a human being to experience it?

Yes, to my understanding there is Objective Truth. The purpose of this forum is to attempt to approach an understanding of Objective Truth. It is only possible for a human being to 'experience it' (to perceive, recognize and understand it) if that human being is awake in the Esoteric sense. To be awake in the Esoteric sense is a very complex matter, but, at its base, it is defined by no longer choosing comfortable lies to the self over Objective Truth, no matter how painful. To be Esoterically awake, is to have fused a singular 'I', with lower centers working in balance and a full connection to one's higher centers - a la the Work of Gurdjieff and the Hermetic Sciences. If you're not familiar with the work of G.I. Gurdjieff, it is highly recommended since a lot of the work done here on the forum is aligned with it.

Also, the Cassiopedia will come in quite handy for reference on a lot of these ideas.

In other words, for a human being to perceive Objective Truth, they must not be blocked by lies of the self - lies that define human existence every minute of every day. Often, in our current 3D state, we can only perceive Objective Truth as a network, with many colinear eyes providing different pieces of the puzzle, and thus approaching a higher perspective.

On the suffering part, I agree with you that there is no knowledge without suffering, but I think there is no need to seek it actively because it will come to you anyway if you like it or not, when approaching on the path of knowledge, whatever that might be to you.

Well, if one considers that there is Objective Truth, then wouldn't that necessarily mean that it's not about 'whatever that might mean to you' - but - rather - about 'what is True'?

I am not that intellectual you know, I am just a simple man more something like an artist and English is not my mothertongue but I will try to express my thoughts on this one.
From what I have learned, understanding is based on your perception and the frame of reference that you have, so to speak the nature of your knowledge. Now if knowledge is infinite than what you perceive as objective Truth can only be a tiny fraction of the Truth. The way you are speaking or better to say teaching, sounds to me that you consider yourself to have reached the state of an "eternal I" and that's a pretty strong statement. If not your knowledge is only based on your subjective perception of reality and so your telling people what is true and not true, or making judgements about the knowledge other people posses is simply arrogance.
Though I do not know the whole body of work of George Ivanovic Gurdjieff I do know some of it. The problem with this is, that from what I know his writings do not really give a practical persuit of his teachings and he rather tried to teach certain people around him, especially Ouspenski, to carry on his knowledge. And at the end he was very unsatisfied with the result regarding Ouspenski, so most of his teachings remain rather intellectual and corrupted.
But no offence, Gurdjeff was a great man of knowledge and we are all learning right?
RESPECT

 

[Oxajil]

I am not that intellectual you know, I am just a simple man more something like an artist and English is not my mothertongue but I will try to express my thoughts on this one.
From what I have learned, understanding is based on your perception and the frame of reference that you have, so to speak the nature of your knowledge. Now if knowledge is infinite than what you perceive as objective Truth can only be a tiny fraction of the Truth. The way you are speaking or better to say teaching, sounds to me that you consider yourself to have reached the state of an "eternal I" and that's a pretty strong statement. If not your knowledge is only based on your subjective perception of reality and so your telling people what is true and not true, or making judgements about the knowledge other people posses is simply arrogance.
Though I do not know the whole body of work of George Ivanovic Gurdjieff I do know some of it. The problem with this is, that from what I know his writings do not really give a practical persuit of his teachings and he rather tried to teach certain people around him, especially Ouspenski, to carry on his knowledge. And at the end he was very unsatisfied with the result regarding Ouspenski, so most of his teachings remain rather intellectual and corrupted.
But no offence, Gurdjeff was a great man of knowledge and we are all learning right?
RESPECT

Gurdjieff probably knew that people will misinterpret or misunderstand his teachings; are you not one of them? It would make sense, since you are also misunderstanding anart's words as well as the purpose of this forum. Have you had the chance yet to read the Wave?

I hope you don't take this as disrespectful, it's just that, as one of our members once wrote: "we recommend that new members of the forum endeavour to read Laura's Wave series in its entirety [..] as the ideas and concepts presented in that work form the basis for most discussions on the forum." Reading the Wave will also probably give you an interesting look on Gurdjieff's teachings. Reading "In Search of the Miraculous" is also recommended.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Leo40.

There is only this one word: knowledge. How do we indicate which knowledge we are talking about?

What different 'knowledges' does this question refer to?

Knowledge can mean just knowing a lot of facts,

Just knowing a lot of facts? Are you using 'knowledge' as a synonym for 'information', or 'information packages'?

Whatever you think you know needs to be tested which in turn leads to experience and then
to understanding. Intellect alone can not do this.

That makes sense.

Knowledge can also be likened to a map:
it shows you the road but you have to walk it to experience the country and then you understand
what it's like.

Looking at it that way, I don't see a one-to-one relationship between map and knowledge until both the map and the country it represents have been examined and the map corrected where, and if, needed. It appears to me that you may be inadvertently trying to keep knowledge and understanding as separate 'things' and leaving out the vital role that data and information plays.

Maybe that's where faith comes in?

Where? Believing in your map after it has been put to the test? Perhaps the map should always be made and kept as accurate as possible and left open for possible changes as the territory evolves. That doesn't mean you shouldn't act on it though, while keeping the eyes wide open!

Why do some people repeat the same patterns although the result is always negative?
Is it wrong knowledge, action without thought or reflection?

Speaking generally, maybe some people believe so firmly in their map that when they see negative results, the only thing that comes to them is the idea that they need to continue what they are doing, but pushing even harder. To them, the negative evidence just shows that they are 'obviously' not putting enough energy into their efforts because deep down they also believe the methods are supposed to work. They also misunderstand 'supposed'.
I'm sure that's not the whole answer, though.

What of you have an obsolete or wrong map?

What do you think?

Does faith require an object as in: "I have faith in this or that?

If the keyword is 'require', and the context is the Work, I would say no. I prefer to attach my faith to what I have experienced as real and valid, where the Truth underlying the real has been confirmed. To some folks, that sounds backwards, but to me, it's an expression of a lack of doubt in my understanding of what's going on. That's not a word game. The difference is subtle perhaps, but it is real to me at the moment.

Here is a personal example: When I emigrated to Canada I had one intent in mind: I will never go back!
Is this selfconfidence or faith?Or is it unconditional commitment to the experience?
Perhaps some kind soul can make sense of my confusion?

You called it "intent" in the first sentence of the quote. I would stay with that.


This is just my thinking, Leo. If you need to question anything said, please do. I'm no kind of expert on anything. :)

 

[henry]

Well I am not really sure if I have understood your question. But let me put it this way. If life itself is a learning process maybe the people you consider as suffering are actually aquiring a knowledge they have to learn or even sending a message to people like you watching them suffering, considering the fact that all beings and human beings in particular are interconnected at a certain level. What makes you think that the knowledge that you have is superiour to their knowledge. Or maybe that you were in the past or will be in the future one of those suffering people?

Hi, there, black_ronin. I read this and I think, "Sure, on some level this might be the case. On some cosmic level, from the viewpoint of the eye of God." But, I think there is a problem with only having this level of understanding. I am not at the level of the 'eye of God'. I am stuck down here in the mud with all those other people who are suffering with me.

I would say I am not here to 'understand' our suffering, at least not as a first priority. I am here to feel that suffering, then to understand it. And in feeling and then understanding it, it leads me to want to DO something about it. But in understanding it, I want to understand, first, its cause, because if I wish to alleviate and end that suffering, I must understand its cause.

So it seems to me that coming to an understanding that the world is run by psychopaths and other pathologicals, that these individuals have corrupted the values of people of conscience, and that people of conscience must do what they can to re-establish a community free from pathological influence is a different level of understanding than what you propose above. One is not wrong and one is not right. They are both correct from their respective points-of-view. But I would consider it 'wrong' to stop at your point-of-view on our level of reality, if I am understanding you correctly.

If, as you write, "all beings and human beings in particular are interconnected at a certain level", then how can I, in good conscience, not respond to their suffering? Yes, everyone is acquiring knowledge on some level, but are they doing it consciously or unconsciously? And if people are suffering in order to send me a message, then when I receive that message, it seems to me it calls forth a necessary response on my part if I am to act in conscience to that message.

The world does not exist simply to send me a message. That would be a narcissistic view.

 

[ana]

From what I have learned, understanding is based on your perception and the frame of reference that you have, so to speak the nature of your knowledge. Now if knowledge is infinite than what you perceive as objective Truth can only be a tiny fraction of the Truth.

Hi black_ronin,

Here you are an extract of In search of the Miraculous on understanding wich may help :) :

"Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another thing."
"People often confuse these concepts and do not clearly grasp what is the difference between them."

"Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being.

"In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge. They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.

"And yet a person accustomed to self-observation knows for certain that at different periods of his life he has understood one and the same idea, one and the same thought, in totally different ways. It often seems strange to him that he could have understood so wrongly that which, in his opinion, he now understands rightly. And he realizes, at the same
time, that his knowledge has not changed, and that he knew as much about the given subject before as he knows now. What, then, has changed? His being has changed. And once being has changed understanding must change also.

"The difference between knowledge and understanding becomes clear when we realize that knowledge may be the function of one center. Understanding, however, is the function of three centers. Thus the thinking apparatus may know something. But understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it.
"We have spoken earlier about mechanicalness. A man cannot say that he understands the idea of mechanicalness if he only knows about it with his mind. He must feel it with his whole mass, with his whole being; then he will understand it.
"In the sphere of practical activity people know very well the difference between mere knowledge and understanding. They realize that to know and to know how to do are two different things, and that knowing how to do is not created by knowledge alone. But outside the sphere of practical activity people do not clearly understand what 'understanding' means

"As a rule, when people realize that they do not understand a thing they try to find a name for what they do not 'understand,' and when they find a name they say they 'understand.' But to 'find a name' does not mean to 'understand.' Unfortunately, people are usually satisfied with names. A man who knows a great many names, that is, a great many words, is deemed to understand a great deal—again excepting, of course, any sphere of practical activity wherein his ignorance very soon becomes evident.

 

[Buddy]

Hi black_ronin. Would you mind pointing out the words, phrases or sentences that justify the assessment below?

[quote author=black_ronin]
The way you are speaking or better to say teaching, sounds to me that you consider yourself to have reached the state of an "eternal I" and that's a pretty strong statement. If not your knowledge is only based on your subjective perception of reality and so your telling people what is true and not true, or making judgements about the knowledge other people posses is simply arrogance.[/quote]

When we operate from a conventional mindset, we tend to see in others what we find in ourselves. Maybe this is not the case with you, thus the question about qualifying the comments. Hopefully you do not perceive yourself as opposing an adversary here, because in the final analysis, objective reality is what we are all working to understand. :)

 

[anart]

I am not that intellectual you know, I am just a simple man more something like an artist and English is not my mothertongue but I will try to express my thoughts on this one.

You've been posting quite successfully in several sections of the forum so far, so there doesn't appear to be any issue with your intellect.

From what I have learned, understanding is based on your perception and the frame of reference that you have, so to speak the nature of your knowledge. Now if knowledge is infinite than what you perceive as objective Truth can only be a tiny fraction of the Truth.

I am still approaching an understanding of Objective Truth. As I said earlier, that is the purpose of this forum - we are all still working on it.

The way you are speaking or better to say teaching, sounds to me that you consider yourself to have reached the state of an "eternal I" and that's a pretty strong statement.

Not at all. Why would you think that based on what I wrote? Could it be that something I wrote rubbed you and your image of yourself the wrong way? If so, that was not my intention.

If not your knowledge is only based on your subjective perception of reality and so your telling people what is true and not true, or making judgements about the knowledge other people posses is simply arrogance.

Again, you are projecting quite an interesting interpretation of my words - an interpretation that is almost completely false. Why do you think that is? Did something I say threaten your own view of yourself? Or, perhaps it is just a language barrier of some sort?

Though I do not know the whole body of work of George Ivanovic Gurdjieff I do know some of it. The problem with this is, that from what I know his writings do not really give a practical persuit of his teachings and he rather tried to teach certain people around him, especially Ouspenski, to carry on his knowledge. And at the end he was very unsatisfied with the result regarding Ouspenski, so most of his teachings remain rather intellectual and corrupted.

From all accounts and evidence, Ouspenski could never over come his own self-importance, this is true. However, Gurdjieff's work stands on its own and, since you are not that familiar with it, it might be quite beneficial for you to learn more about it (if you so choose).

But no offence, Gurdjeff was a great man of knowledge and we are all learning right?

No offense taken, in any way. Of course we are all learning, that is, after all, the point. :)

 

[salleles]

Strictly thinking 3D (in terms of polarity), what would be the opposite of faith? The intellectual center might end up with 'doubt', the emotional center with 'fear' and the moving center with 'weakness'.

Faith is a VERY difficult concept, even more for non-native English speakers. Any thoughts on this?