How does one develop their "Being?"

[Boza48]

Hello.

As I gather information, I keep coming across the idea of the development of Being. My problem is I don't quite understand what this means as most who speak about it describe it in vague and nebulous terms. Gurdjieff in ISOTM was vague in relation to the concept. Ouspensky and Madam deSalzmann even moreso in some of their writings. Doing a few searches on this forum also didn't really produce anything concrete (not to mention "being" is an overly common search term so it didn't yield the results I was looking for).

I have a few ideas about what "development of Being" means and what it entails but wanted to ask this forum what are your thoughts regarding this concept and more importantly how can we begin to apply it in our lives.

Thanks for reading.

Hi,
do You mean "awakening"?

 

[Andrey]

Hi,
do You mean "awakening"?

Didn't think about it that way, but yes I suppose that can also be a way to define it.

 

[Andrey]

I found this to be a decent explanation. I think it's from Ouspenky's book "The Fourth Way."

By the way, I highly recommend the channel. Most of it is stuff I've read already, but when certain ideas are narrated the way it is done in this channel it hits a different way.

 

[T.C.]

I think as far as Gurdjieff is concerned, Being is equivalent to Will. I think his definition of knowledge aligns with the idea of pure theory, whereas Being aligns with practical experience.

I’ve tried to lay these ideas over the framework of Being vs. Non-Being, but I’ve found they don’t fit very well, since both knowledge and Being in a person come under the category of or are reflections of the over-arching category of Being itself, as opposed to Non-Being.

So to try to answer the question of how one increases one’s Being in the Gurdjieffian sense, I’d say it’s a question of ‘getting out of the classroom’ and going out into the world. Of having experiences, rather than just focusing on ideas. That you can’t ever really get a good understanding of how things actually work in real life by only focusing on theory. Being is about practice and practicality, experience. That practical experience leads one to being more objectively useful and able (the ability to Do) since it is born from interaction with reality.

 

[Ben]

I tried to think of a way to distil it down into a more concise description, and reconcile the differences between 4th way terms and Laura's. The best I could come up with was something like:

'Being is a measure of how one utilises objective information about reality'

This means more knowledge, more utilisation of that knowledge and more accurate knowledge all contribute. The objective part distinguishes it from the path of non-being, which is ultimately subjective.

Gurdjieff might well call this wiseacring, perhaps fairly

 

[axj]

Also, if one finds that it is difficult to find a solid "me" in all the different personas that one finds as one looks within, or one looks back, an idea that has always helped me in this instance is to realize that if there's no solid being within all the personality that one constantly uses to interact with world, then one gets to choose who that person is to be.

In my own experience, and this is a constant work in progress indeed as I keep on discovering aspects of myself that require work, it wasn't so much finding my own self, or my real self.. or my real being, but rather to invent it. I think Mary Balogh put it best in one of her novels, it's realizing that we're all in a constant state of becoming.

We can certainly choose who we want to become, but this can only be done when we are at least somewhat connected to the real self (the beingness at our core). When we are disconnected, not present and stuck in programs or in the ego 'false self', then it is very difficult if not impossible to truly choose who we want to be.

First we need to connect to our "be" (true self) and only then can we choose who we want to become. Without at least some connection to the true self first, there is the danger of falling into fantasy that has nothing to do with our beingness or who we really are.

Becoming present and more connected to the core self/beingness is the first step. Choosing who we want to become it the next step. Taking action on that choice is the step after that.

In my experience, being present (Gurdjeff's Self-Remembering) throughout the day is indeed quite tricky, since the true self is not physical, emotional or mental. The true self is basically a non-physical spirit being that is the "driver" of the physical body vehicle. All we can do is choose or intend to be more present.

At some point it also becomes possible to focus on the energy sensation of one's true self, the spirit beingness at our core.

 

[Andrey]

I guess it becomes a priority of which word you value more. "Knowledge" or "Being." Gurdjieff says knowledge and being must be developed simultaneously, but in my opinion, I value knowledge more than "being," because "being" is too vague to define and "knowledge" is more easy to define. I think Gurdjieff's claim as described in text in Ouspenky's words that "being and knowledge must be developed simultaneously," is something to be discarded, because "being" (whatever it is), from my estimations, develops naturally as a result of more knowledge, so there isn't a need to think about it like I've been doing! So "Being" is sort of an overhyped term in fourth way speak and I will move into the direction of the spirit of the C's as transmitted through Laura, where they say "knowledge is all you need." I don't believe everything that comes out of the experiment, but I've gone over the weight of the words "knowledge is all you need" juxtaposed over "you need knowledge and being" and I personally pick the former.

 

[Andrey]

i guess what I want to say is I have been going through phases where I have been applying knowledge sparingly (not as much as I should) and I find myself slipping in comparison where I feel I should ideally be. And trying to define "being" intellectually is a waste of time. It's a word that's vulnerable to subjective definitions. "Knowledge", on the other hand, is a more "objective" word, or a word that's closer to objectivity. "Being" is subjective.

I haven't always applied all the information i've absorbed in my life, but I've definitely felt like the information (as in just simply knowing about it) has given me immense protection.

So I value knowledge more than "being" and this thread is a waste of time! See you later.... :P

 

[hesperides]

I value knowledge more than "being" and this thread is a waste of time! See you later.... :P

I guess you don't mean it literally, or am I missing your point?

 

[Joe]

I keep coming across the idea of the development of Being. My problem is I don't quite understand what this means as most who speak about it describe it in vague and nebulous terms.

Think of someone you knew of heard of that was not very well educated, not "worldly wise" but was a very good person, salt of the earth type, probably giving, tolerant, patient, kind, strong as concerns matters of conscience. That's the 'being' part. Basically, someone who had mastery/control over the 'smaller' part of themselves, and had developed the 'bigger' part, by whatever means. We might describe a person with a well developed Being as an 'STO' person, because to be more STO, one has to be able to subordinate/have control over self-centered (STS) inclinations. Such a person does not have to be knowledgeable. Their lack of knowledge may, however, mean they are easily manipulated or taken advantage of. That's why a fairly equal level of knowledge is necessary, to effectively put Being into appropriate service.

 

[Joe]

So I value knowledge more than "being" and this thread is a waste of time! See you later.... :P

Adding to my post above, you can probably see the problems that arise with knowledge that is not balanced out with sufficient Being. You have all this knowledge, but lack the Being to put it appropriately into practice. I think that was briefly discussed in a session at one point.

 

[Wandering Star]

Your definition impressed me a lot Joe.

Almost to put it in a picture.

Thank you.

 

[kenlee]

I think one way of looking at Being and it's development into higher levels of same is to see it as a fusion or integration or coalescence of our ordinary fragmented 'I's' or 'will's' brought about by the fire of the Will thru continueous applied actions toward a greater unified understanding.

 

[Andrey]

I guess you don't mean it literally, or am I missing your point?

Just realizing the futility of the aim of this thread. Everything ultimately comes from knowledge, whatever form that takes. Out of all the explanations so far, I like joe's the best where he attributes ' being' to conscience. I can relate to that. I don't do the things I used to anymore.

 

[Honzap]

Just realizing the futility of the aim of this thread. Everything ultimately comes from knowledge, whatever form that takes. Out of all the explanations so far, I like joe's the best where he attributes ' being' to conscience. I can relate to that. I don't do the things I used to anymore.

Futility? Well, while I like Joe`s explanation as well, there is nothing futile about learning your own machine. Quite contrary.
I literally had the "a-ha" moment yesterday in the middle of the night. Having read Gurdjieff and Castaneda I was familiar with a theoretical knowledge of predatory mind and mechanical man for last few years. But only yesterday when musing over some grim things it came to mind that I was actually actively observing my own thoughts (and myself) as they developed inside my head for the first time ever. It came completely as a surprise and the realization of such made me smile despite the absurdity of the situation I was in. Priceless.
Now I can finally see and know what they were talking about!
And it is only one of many steps into developing your being. More practice, more awareness