Gregory James - Faux "Master"?

GregoryJ said:
Yes, Spiral Out. And I think you know that I wrote that piece so to avoid having to explain it so many times. ;) And I think you know that it is a explanation of a classical perspective pertinent to the context of the tradition – rather than a self-agrandizing endeavor. If this is your idea of a contribution to the thread, dear friend, perhaps you could also import your insights and my clarifications from some of the conversations we've had on the matter. As our friendship has developed and proven mutually beneficial, you are likely to be in the best position to confirm for others that my intentions are well placed. I know the topic has been a sticking point for you, but I also know you have come to terms with it in the proper context.

The thing is, it's not anyone else's job or position to confirm, or deny, that your intentions are well placed. That's really up to you. Whatever has happened outside of this forum is really very different than what happens on this forum. The point is, it's YOUR words that matter, and it's your words that will be used as the factor in determining your sincerity here. No one else can, or should, do that. The fact that you ask Bernhard to add his "insights and clarifications", basically asking him to defend you, does not bode well. The fact that you let people call you master, that it doesn't bother you, is a sign that you identify with it. The nitpicking about it (and elsewhere in the same post about other issues you have) is pretty much proof of that.
 
Very well, Anart. You somehow know me much better than I know myself, apparently. I know that sounds sarcastic but I don't mean it that way – truly. You are insisting that I have been insincere, and that is not true. If I say I appreciate something, I appreciate it. How can you insist it is obvious that I do not? Obvious? Why, because I gave feedback on your comments? ...because I didn't accept everything you said without question? I am asking sincerely? I am not being antagonistic – it is not my intention (and I am well aware of my words) – and I am not trying to defend myself, nor am I posturing, nor am I irritated. How you can insist on these things is again a question in my mind. You don't actually know me – can we at least agree on that? I am always open for constructive criticism and learning, and I well and truly believe [due to effort and observation] that the only way this can occur is by being honest with oneself and participating in discussion and relationship with others.

Maybe I am missing something? Am I not supposed to question an adim? I'm asking sincerely? Is that out of line? I am under the impression, most of all from you, that there is no such thing as a senior figure beyond question. I question my own teacher and I encourage my students to question me.

I don't see the problem with having reverence for ones practice and having photos of oneself that represent that practice on one's FB page (presuming that is to what you refer). If I were a firefighter or a restaurant owner with a meditation image on his FB page, I could see your point, but I'm a meditation teacher (and anyway, I only just added that image a few days ago, prior to that, for several months, there was an image of the earth – go look at the upload dates for yourself). That image is there because a student took a lovely photo and I thought it was nice – that's it. Would I not be identified with the practice if I were afraid to post pictures or tell about myself for fear that I will be seen as identified? Can I not be beyond it and present myself this way for the sake of representing what I teach and what I love? Isn't that what a FB page is for, in fact? I mean, I hear where you are coming from, I do, I just think your projecting a bit – and accusing me of being irritated doesn't mean I am. It seems you are irritated by me, more so. That is just how it seems to me, and I remain available to be found wrong. Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight or to challenge you, but as you said, we are here to discuss the matter and that's my only intention. Why is that hard to see? Why am I not sincere? If you see something I don't I am happy to consider it. Or we can leave it as it is and I'll continue to contemplate your input.

One thing that gives me cause for concern in this forum (though I am still working to see about it, and not yet at a resolution) is the way some members come at things rather sharply and sometimes with a bit of malice or at least spite – rather than a sincere effort to help others understand. This is how it SEEMS to me based on my limited experience (which is not to say that cunning antagonism cannot be a practical means to bring positive change, only that we have to check the level of merit vs. general contempt in the presentation – IMHO). It seems, for example, that you are very irritated with me, at least put off. The aim of the forum, in my understanding, is to facilitate support and clarity via a mirror of other members. I feel this is mostly provided here, and I DO appreciate a no BS policy, but at the same time, it seems some members just use it as a way to express contempt for others with whom they do not agree (that is not pointed at you Anart, just a general observation – I have of course observed very patient and kind individuals as well; more so in fact). This is a bit unfortunate, and the fact (as it seems) that there is not more discouragement of this from key members seems at odds with the purpose of the forum. So getting a bunch of flack is allowing me an opportunity to see if some can take it as well as they can dish it out (so to speak), and to find out what the motives really are. This is as yet unclear, as I last addressed and am addressing here. I'm not trying to create problems, of course. I just wish to understand. If I am really out of line you can just say so and I'll leave you alone and I won't come back to the forum. But it SEEMS to me that the forum is designed to help, not to banish or curtly criticize.

I agree completely that taking responsibility is key, but we can take it by simply acknowledging the mechanism without blaming. And no one is going to accept blame just because you tell them they are identified or because their behavior clearly illustrates it; it is the mechanism that must be addressed, not people's character – especially if they are unable to see it and are asking you where it is. What I am saying is that I don't take it personally at all, and I am hoping you don't either. I am hoping we can discuss the mechanism that appears to be irritating one or both of us and perhaps reconcile the difference. For my money, this means knowing how to communicate effectively and with a degree of effort toward amicability and patience rather than pointed and circular argumentation. Maybe we just have our wires crossed and are misunderstanding each other.

In all sincerity.
 
Heimdallr said:
GregoryJ said:
Yes, Spiral Out. And I think you know that I wrote that piece so to avoid having to explain it so many times. ;) And I think you know that it is a explanation of a classical perspective pertinent to the context of the tradition – rather than a self-agrandizing endeavor. If this is your idea of a contribution to the thread, dear friend, perhaps you could also import your insights and my clarifications from some of the conversations we've had on the matter. As our friendship has developed and proven mutually beneficial, you are likely to be in the best position to confirm for others that my intentions are well placed. I know the topic has been a sticking point for you, but I also know you have come to terms with it in the proper context.

The thing is, it's not anyone else's job or position to confirm, or deny, that your intentions are well placed. That's really up to you. Whatever has happened outside of this forum is really very different than what happens on this forum. The point is, it's YOUR words that matter, and it's your words that will be used as the factor in determining your sincerity here. No one else can, or should, do that. The fact that you ask Bernhard to add his "insights and clarifications", basically asking him to defend you, does not bode well. The fact that you let people call you master, that it doesn't bother you, is a sign that you identify with it. The nitpicking about it (and elsewhere in the same post about other issues you have) is pretty much proof of that.

Thank you for teaching/sharing with me, Heimdallr. That makes sense.
 
GregoryJ, you have awknowledged that the title of Master has been a "stumbling block" (as my pastor father would say) for others, yet seem to think that because you have a logical understanding and explaination of what the title "means really" that all is quite well. I have done this so many times as a musician and performer, and it has always been an issue of identification and usually a lack of external consideration for others. You asked Anart if she would have had such a reaction if you were called "Sifu," and I think that further indicates that you can't see this issue very clearly.

Even though I loved what you wrote in your "Eye of the Beholder" article, I still felt that I had to share it with some explaination - not because of what you wrote, but precisely because of the "master" title issue. This is a charged word with associative implications for your entire potential spehere of influence whether you like it or not, whether you gave yourself the title or it was handed to you by a teacher. If you are interested in sharing the truth in a way that is considerate of other's subjective state and capacity to take said information on board, why hold onto the title that could so easily be misconstrued in a way detrimental to others (both in the blind "guru follower" catagory and the "skeptic" catagory)? Is it worth it?

*edit: posted this while two other responses took place. Apologies. I will review them now...
 
GregoryJ said:
One thing that gives me cause for concern in this forum (though I am still working to see about it, and not yet at a resolution) is the way some members come at things rather sharply and sometimes with a bit of malice or at least spite – rather than a sincere effort to help others understand. This is how it SEEMS to me based on my limited experience (which is not to say that cunning antagonism cannot be a practical means to bring positive change, only that we have to check the level of merit vs. general contempt in the presentation – IMHO). It seems, for example, that you are very irritated with me, at least put off.

fwiw, I used to read malice and agression in Anart's posts all the time. This happened to me with a lot of forum members, and I felt the strong desire to rush in and "help" others that were being subject to such harsh treatment. What I didn't realize at the time, and has taken quite a bit of effort to recognize (I still fall into it), is that this almost always corresponded to something that was unaddressed and hidden from view in my own process. Of course, I do not know if this could be the case with you, but I share it to encourage you to continue to take the time to observe the dynamics of the concern you have brought up here with an open mind.
 
SethianSeth said:
GregoryJ, you have awknowledged that the title of Master has been a "stumbling block" (as my pastor father would say) for others, yet seem to think that because you have a logical understanding and explaination of what the title "means really" that all is quite well. I have done this so many times as a musician and performer, and it has always been an issue of identification and usually a lack of external consideration for others. You asked Anart if she would have had such a reaction if you were called "Sifu," and I think that further indicates that you can't see this issue very clearly.

Even though I loved what you wrote in your "Eye of the Beholder" article, I still felt that I had to share it with some explaination - not because of what you wrote, but precisely because of the "master" title issue. This is a charged word with associative implications for your entire potential spehere of influence whether you like it or not, whether you gave yourself the title or it was handed to you by a teacher. If you are interested in sharing the truth in a way that is considerate of other's subjective state and capacity to take said information on board, why hold onto the title that could so easily be misconstrued in a way detrimental to others (both in the blind "guru follower" catagory and the "skeptic" catagory)? Is it worth it?

*edit: posted this while two other responses took place. Apologies. I will review them now...

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks, SethianSeth.

I have mulled over this issue many times, actually. Firstly, I would really rather prefer NOT to use the title (I am more inclined to find it awkward, personally). However it is the title I am given by my Master, and it is our tradition, for many very valid reasons. So to honor the tradition and my Teacher, it is somewhat of an obligation (and we could do the whole rigamarole with identification here, but bear with me). I have devoted 15 years of my life to it and I am very grateful for the Path – I have come to see the world and life in a very beautiful way (Clearly).

I have the option of taking the title of Sifu, which means "Master" in Chinese, and is the title given traditionally in China and Taiwan (and some do elect this), however, we try to use mostly English equivalent terms these days, and thus, "Master" is the official title given to me, not "Sifu". For instance, most people have no idea what "Sifu" means (which may be better, in the end). 

It's really no different (only in the mind) than a title of Doctor, for instance — which no one seems to have a problem with, in fact they honor it highly. Like a doctor, the title only denotes that a great deal of Work has been done and certain requisites have been met. Also, the title of Master is the mark of one who is recognized and qualified to teach and give transmission of our esoteric practice. It is the same in Zen, Tibetan, Theravada, Siddha Ayurveda, Yoga, and others, however, some of these systems use terms like "Rōshi", "Sotapanna", "Acharya", "Swami", "Rinpoche", "Shihan", etc., which all essentially mean the same thing — "Master Teacher" 

That being said, most people don't have a clue about any of this, which leaves me to have to explain, which is tiresome. 



I don't mind having the discussion with those in this forum (even though it was not the original aim of the thread – I suspect this has become the relevant topic, so let's have it). 

I know that the use of the title, in general, is a point of contention for some people, especially for Westerners. As far as why I include it in the blog, I have gone round about this as well. Originally, the site was really about presenting the TaiChi Tao Teaching and its esoteric wisdom (in an applicable sense pertinent to modern analogies and circumstances, etc). The title, was really a formality (for "insiders") and a way to indicate both my expertise (to "outsiders") on the subject. In fact, in TaiChi and other East Asian practices, it is expected that you carry a title if you are going to present knowledge of the practice – or you are not to be taken seriously. I think the main difference is cultural – East vs. West – but I agree, an eye on the subjective observation of my audience is key to getting the message out.

There is the issue of "humbleness", which of course is really an issue of "others' conjectured opinion of what is 'humble' of another", which is of course, ironically, pretty un-humble.  True Humbleness is in the heart, not in the outward appearance of humility, which can be a great trap, actually — for many reasons. So, on one hand, I don't really mind if someone thinks it's not humble (their judgment doesn't really speak to my character or actions at all). On the other hand, I do seek to reach people, and I know that it often involves certain compromises. 

So, please, I do invite critique – if indeed what you think changed at all after reading this. I value feedback very much.

But I actually don't "identify myself" as it may appear. I don't really think of myself as a "master", or even as a "man", as "short", as "tall", as "thin", as "caucasian," as "Taoist", as "Gregory", or whatever. I don't mean to be mystical (or "arrogant"), I just don't think of myself as anything special or significant where any identity is concerned. You can ask my students, in fact; they know well that I am not afraid to make an ass of myself to convey a point, or sacrifice my reputation 'round town so to not interrupt a critical process for a student (for example). Indeed, if I seem brazen here it is because I don't much care what anyone thinks of me. And I know that this is something I arrived at; before I was indeed very identified with the whole thing and the idea of one day being a "Master". Thus, you can call me Fred the jackass if you prefer, I will take no offense whatsoever, but the student who calls me "Sifu", I know to take seriously (that said, I do not insist on it – some students seem to need this, others don't). The title is not for "me". Truly. 

I just value the system because I know why and how it works. And sticking to what works makes sense. Honoring the title has alway been a valuable part of this process, for the students' sake. I know that this is where the Fourth Way and Eastern practices differ, but I ask you to try to think out of the "Fourth Way box" for just a moment.

But you are right, it probably reaches less people by keeping to a formal title that is "exclusive" from an "outsider's" perspective, rather than something THEY can more easily "identify" with , like a plain-ol' name. It's always a pickle! 

I am not sure anyone not trained in an Eastern way can understand what I mean, really. At least, most probably it is very difficult to understand for anyone not responsible to students — like a doctor responsible to his patients, or a pilot to his passengers. We are all responsible to others (by being responsible for who we are) of course, but that's not what I mean. You must know that when guiding others who still need some kind of idea to trust (before they have seen for themselves) that "idea" of a "Master" is actually very helpful in the trust process. It's all total BS, of course, but it's what the student seems to need. 

If a cow can't recognize a cow as a cow and a bird as a bird (thinking that the "bird" is just a "cow with wings") then he may have a hard time accepting the "birdly" paradigm — always approaching it from a "cow's" paradigm, with no way of understanding. But if you tell the cow, "hey man, I'm a bird, not a cow anymore; I've changed from a cow to a bird", then the cow MAY begin to try to figure out what that means, otherwise they think, "oh, he's just a cow like me." (I don't mean that the "bird" is "better" or "special", just that he sees clearly from a totally different perspective, for he can both fly high in the sky AND sit on the ground with the cow; the cow seldom even looks up!) That is the basic reason for the title from the perspective of an Eastern practice. 



I have found however that in the Western culture (where people are so very proud) it doesn't work the same as in the East (in that "tradition") and therefore, perhaps you are right, perhaps I should "revise" the tradition a bit. Of course, it is true that the tradition binds the mind, but often binding the mind is the way to Free it — another lovely paradox. The difference is, the one who is accomplished realizes completely that tradition is not real, not NOW, and therefore inflexible and dead. A true teacher throws off the shackles of tradition, as he Knows that the old and dead do not adequately fill into the Renewal of the Living One. That being said, the teacher must know what works and what doesn't based on experience and the formula handed down via a tradition. Irony, all day.



I will deeply consider the advice given — humbly. Thank you. 

If you have anything to add, you are always welcome.
 
SethianSeth said:
GregoryJ said:
One thing that gives me cause for concern in this forum (though I am still working to see about it, and not yet at a resolution) is the way some members come at things rather sharply and sometimes with a bit of malice or at least spite – rather than a sincere effort to help others understand. This is how it SEEMS to me based on my limited experience (which is not to say that cunning antagonism cannot be a practical means to bring positive change, only that we have to check the level of merit vs. general contempt in the presentation – IMHO). It seems, for example, that you are very irritated with me, at least put off.

fwiw, I used to read malice and agression in Anart's posts all the time. This happened to me with a lot of forum members, and I felt the strong desire to rush in and "help" others that were being subject to such harsh treatment. What I didn't realize at the time, and has taken quite a bit of effort to recognize (I still fall into it), is that this almost always corresponded to something that was unaddressed and hidden from view in my own process. Of course, I do not know if this could be the case with you, but I share it to encourage you to continue to take the time to observe the dynamics of the concern you have brought up here with an open mind.

That is very helpful, as well. Thank you.
 
[quote author=GregoryJ]
True Humbleness is in the heart, not in the outward appearance of humility, which can be a great trap, actually — for many reasons.[/quote]

Apologies GregoryJ, but I see the above as a case of either/or thinking which might could be improved. I agree that there are subjective understandings, interpretations and expectations associated with appearances of "humbleness" (re: the Pharisees and their public displays of prayer), but genuine humility is easily recognizable as itself, OSIT.

The TAO that can be spoken is not the eternal TAO. Likewise, humility that has to be explained to others is not genuine humility, OSIT. In some cases, genuine humility may even think of others 'opinions' as more important than their own dear 'truth'.

Do you see what I mean? I ask because I have a tendency to confuse others and even myself much of the time.

Also, I agree with SethianSeth about 'first contact' with anart (and a couple of others) in my early days on here. To 'feel' some people, it seems like you have to move some of yourself out of the way. That's the best way I can think of to say it. :)
 
FWIW there seems to be a lot of fuss over the title of "master". That is understandable, particularly coming from Western culture where nobody wants to be under authority. It is important to recognize that it is simply a translation of a title. Moreover, it is a traditional martial art which requires respect towards the teacher. I always thought of it like in ISOTM where Gurdjieff stipulates that unless we accept the WILL of our teacher we cannot move forward as in the beginning we have no will or our own. Tai chi also requires coming to your teacher with an "empty cup" and accepting his way of learning. Tai chi is very complex and requires following the right path of development, hence the need to submit to the teacher's way of learning and progress. Using the title Sifu (master) is one way of fixing in the students mind that he/she IS but a learner and that they must respect their teacher. The title of Sifu is also no different from having a black belt in karate, it is a sign of having reached a certain level. I call my teacher "sensei" as that is the Japanese title for the same position. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the Master issue.

Gregory is the head instructor in a tai chi school. I think a lot of his interaction on FB is also in regards to this work, hence some people address him as "master Greg". I have been interacting with him for a few months, but have not seen him request someone on FB use the title toward him.

I have not discussed with Gregory whether or not he is on the 4th Way. I do know that many of his views coincide with Gurdjieff's teachings, though not all. I would for sure recommend the 4th Way to him, but as he is entrusted with his Tai Chi school's traditions, and also is a meditation teacher, I am not sure how far he would take it.

I do not know him well enough to be the judge of whether or not what people are saying on this thread is accurate or not. I simply wanted to clarify how his Tai Chi practice and work relates to this issue.
 
Gregory, fwiw, like many others around here I've benefitted greatly by the mirroring provided by anart and others. At first it seems harsh, and as you say, one thinks "what assumptions, that person doesn't REALLY know me, does s/he? How can they analyze based on just something I wrote?" But, believe me, there's a lot one can tell of a person based on their writings, and the mods here have a lot of experience in doing that. The thing is, as we read our own posts, at first, we can't see the things others are pointing out. But if we're open to the possibility that there's something in ourselves that we can't see, e.g. mechanicalness, many I:s, there's a chance that we can use the shock of a mirror for something constructive. I'm not saying that I can always do this myself, but that's why I'm part of this forum, to find my 'real I'.

As I see it, one of the aims of this forum is to help others to "deprogram", to see things in themselves that they have no chance of seeing by themselves. For instance, your replies of "now we're getting somewhere" tells me (others may see this differently), that you're cherry picking which of the answers you get are helpful, which you're ready to take into consideration. As an "outsider" I however would "choose" the replies by anart and Heimdallr as the most helpful - as hard as they may be to assimilate.

I think you might benefit by adding to your knowledge base the writings of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff, and their concepts of "false I:s" etc, if you haven't done so.
 
Buddy said:
[quote author=GregoryJ]
True Humbleness is in the heart, not in the outward appearance of humility, which can be a great trap, actually — for many reasons.

Apologies GregoryJ, but I see the above as a case of either/or thinking which might could be improved. I agree that there are subjective understandings, interpretations and expectations associated with appearances of "humbleness" (re: the Pharisees and their public displays of prayer), but genuine humility is easily recognizable as itself, OSIT.

The TAO that can be spoken is not the eternal TAO. Likewise, humility that has to be explained to others is not genuine humility, OSIT. In some cases, genuine humility may even think of others 'opinions' as more important than their own dear 'truth'.

Do you see what I mean? I ask because I have a tendency to confuse others and even myself much of the time.

[/quote]

I do see what you mean. Thanks. And I appreciate the way you are presenting it... very thoughtful.

Often I see people pretending to be "humble", or performing... contrived humbleness is not humbleness. In context to the rest of what I was saying, contrived "humbleness" can also be projected, if one assumes he/she knows what it is and demands their version of it from someone else who is actually humble, just not weak, bashful, or compromising, etc. While true humbleness CAN be obvious, I don't agree that it always is. But I do get your point. Well received. Thanks again.
 
abeofarrell said:
FWIW there seems to be a lot of fuss over the title of "master". That is understandable, particularly coming from Western culture where nobody wants to be under authority. It is important to recognize that it is simply a translation of a title. Moreover, it is a traditional martial art which requires respect towards the teacher. I always thought of it like in ISOTM where Gurdjieff stipulates that unless we accept the WILL of our teacher we cannot move forward as in the beginning we have no will or our own. Tai chi also requires coming to your teacher with an "empty cup" and accepting his way of learning. Tai chi is very complex and requires following the right path of development, hence the need to submit to the teacher's way of learning and progress. Using the title Sifu (master) is one way of fixing in the students mind that he/she IS but a learner and that they must respect their teacher. The title of Sifu is also no different from having a black belt in karate, it is a sign of having reached a certain level. I call my teacher "sensei" as that is the Japanese title for the same position. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the Master issue.

Gregory is the head instructor in a tai chi school. I think a lot of his interaction on FB is also in regards to this work, hence some people address him as "master Greg". I have been interacting with him for a few months, but have not seen him request someone on FB use the title toward him.

Yes, that is correct, Abe. And living in Japan, you must feel this more than most.

Also, if I remember correctly, I have even mentioned to you in private chat re: TaiChi (Abe is a practitioner as well) that it was not necessary to use my title. I appreciated the respect being given as a formality, but indeed I have not insisted on it and in fact have asked simply to be addressed by name. Just saying. :)
 
Aragorn said:
Gregory, fwiw, like many others around here I've benefitted greatly by the mirroring provided by anart and others. At first it seems harsh, and as you say, one thinks "what assumptions, that person doesn't REALLY know me, does s/he? How can they analyze based on just something I wrote?" But, believe me, there's a lot one can tell of a person based on their writings, and the mods here have a lot of experience in doing that. The thing is, as we read our own posts, at first, we can't see the things others are pointing out. But if we're open to the possibility that there's something in ourselves that we can't see, e.g. mechanicalness, many I:s, there's a chance that we can use the shock of a mirror for something constructive. I'm not saying that I can always do this myself, but that's why I'm part of this forum, to find my 'real I'.

As I see it, one of the aims of this forum is to help others to "deprogram", to see things in themselves that they have no chance of seeing by themselves. For instance, your replies of "now we're getting somewhere" tells me (others may see this differently), that you're cherry picking which of the answers you get are helpful, which you're ready to take into consideration. As an "outsider" I however would "choose" the replies by anart and Heimdallr as the most helpful - as hard as they may be to assimilate.

I think you might benefit by adding to your knowledge base the writings of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff, and their concepts of "false I:s" etc, if you haven't done so.

Good points, Aragon. Especially re: the cherry picking. You're right, I was taking in certain data better than Anart's, but I hope I've been clear that it is not due to a lack of respect or value of what is being said, necessarily. I'm not going to blindly accept what I don't recognize to be objective or even a fair assessment (and I am not totally inept at the powers of discernment). I know from reading her post in the past that Anart is impressively intelligent and intuitive and I am happy to give her the credit and respect she is due (and I hope that I am). I get it too that it has something to do with me, but I still wonder how much of what took place in the conversation between us so far is actually me and how much was projection. I am willing to grow, and I wish to learn, I just don't feel hammering staunch assertions of guilt are the way to facilitate that and I was looking for something that better illustrated a little compassion and prudence, and maybe the development of trust before cutting in (in my mind, these are traits of one who is achieved in the Work).

Now I know I just listed some preferences and I know that's not the way good teaching works (a skilled teacher/guide/elder supplies exactly what is needed regardless of what the student wants), but I also know what I have stated is reasonable. It is also reasonable not to enjoy an insinuation that I am lying about appreciating the input and to state why I think it's unwarranted and an invalid observation. I still feel some of the other observations were invalid, but like I have said, I remain available to be proven wrong. The truth is what interests me, not who is right or who is wrong – but statements don't become true simply because they are stated with confidence. It seems to me that their is a general and unfair contempt for my practice underlying her statements, beyond a genuine interest to show me how I was incorrect and identified, etc. Again, I could be wrong, but that has yet to be fairly addressed. I don't need it to be, of course, but it would go a long way with trusting the validity of this Work. As per your own recommendation to take it up, I am sure you can see my point.

Either way, I see the value in the forum and I plan to stick around so long as it remains of value in this respect. Cheers.
 
BTW: in reply #31, I stated a couple times: "I am asking sincerely?" For clarification, those instances are meant to be statements, not questions: "I am asking sincerely."

Sorry, it's late, I'm traveling, on a long layover, etc. And I can't edit my post yet, to boot. 50 posts I believe it is. Please excuse the messiness.

Also, I hope my posts are read in the tone of one who is calm and serene in stating them, as that is the state of my mind as I write them. I never know if that is clear from the written word. Again, I'm new to this and mostly a face-to-face type of guy, where tone of voice, body language, expression, etc., says far more than just the words. I know that it is easy to misread tone in reading someone's writing.

I intend respect to everyone.
 
I am willing to grow, and I wish to learn, I just don't feel hammering staunch assertions of guilt are the way to facilitate that and I was looking for something that better illustrated a little compassion and prudence, and maybe the development of trust before cutting in (in my mind, these are traits of one who is achieved in the Work)

Gregory, with respect, the words you use "hammering staunch assertions of guilt" are emotionally loaded and show that you are still not taking it objectively. You will notice that this thread is in the "The Work" section of the forums. In this section we try to be a mirror for others. Sometimes it is not the actual content which is the point, but rather the usefulness of the words in causing a response in others in order that they may see aspects of their false personality they need to Work on. We are not about guilt here, that is a path to paramoralizations. What is important is to recognize how we respond to others as we interact with them. Gurdjieff describes this as a key part of self-observation and indeed the crux of conscious suffering. Gurdjieff was often criticized similarly for being overly harsh and lacking gentleness when talking with students, but his point was to break the spine of the false personalities which held them prisoner, not to gently point out their problems.

It is important to realize that what we are dealing with is the Predator Mind. And it is this predator mind which holds us slave in every interaction. It comes out most vividly when dealing with others. It is at such time that we often fall into the trap of identifying with the external, considering internally. In such cases our personality falls back on automatic reactions to provide buffers to protect us psychologically from truths we are not ready or willing to hear.

Anart has certainly been one of the best mirrors in my work. As I am sure she has been with others. I guess I am trying to say that you should focus more on how you are reacting to other's responses here rather than nitpicking on the content. The number one focus of the forum is to help us all to break free from our false personalities, so that is what we should focus on.

Hope this has been of help.
 
Back
Top Bottom