No Desire, No Purpose

[JonnyRadar]

Push against (an out) of it I suppose, try to introduce a little bit of discomfort in your life.

great point Johnno. Spoon, perhaps try volunteering at a soup kitchen, walking pets for the humane shelter or something else for a community organization. volunteer work is a great way to help people out, and force a bit of change in perspective while you're doing it. especially if you're feeling isolated and unmotivated. if you feel as though (perhaps) you have nothing to say, then lend your physical body for work.

 

[theos]

Great points Johnno and JonnyRadar.

Push against (an out) of it I suppose, try to introduce a little bit of discomfort in your life.

Stepping out of your comfort zone brings to my mind the concept of intentional suffering. I was just reading about this in the Cassiopedia Glossary which says:

The 4th Way has a complex notion involving conscious and automatic suffering, seen as being diametrically opposite in their effects.

Gurdjieff speaks of the holy 'being partkdolg duty' in Beelzebub's Tales. This is defined as consisting of conscious labors and intentional suffering and is an impulse necessary for man's development towards objective reason and being.

This is not to be confused with mechanical suffering, which is the emotional or physical reaction to anything ordinarily painful. This 'feeds the moon,' whereas intentional suffering and conscious labors produce internal friction which is necessary for crystallizing anything of lasting value. The difference between the two types of suffering can be quite subtle and often ambiguous.

Ouspensky quotes Gurdjieff in In Search of the Miraculous:

'… If there is anything in the world that people do not understand it is the idea of sacrifice. They think they have to sacrifice something that they have. For example, I once said that they must sacrifice 'faith,' 'tranquillity,' 'health.' They understand this literally. But then the point is that they have not got either faith, or tranquillity, or health. All these words must be taken in quotation marks. In actual fact they have to sacrifice only what they imagine they have and which in reality they do not have. They must sacrifice their fantasies. But this is difficult for them, very difficult. It is much easier to sacrifice real things. "Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."

From Beelzebub's Tales:

"He [Buddha] then, among other things, told them very definitely the following: "'One of the best means of rendering ineffective the predisposition present in your nature of the crystallization of the consequences of the properties of the organ Kundabuffer is "intentional-suffering"; and the greatest intentional suffering can be obtained in your presences if you compel yourselves to be able to endure the "displeasing-manifestations-of-others-towards-yourselves."'

The above has left me with many questions...
Can it be that our (or my) feelings of boredom and purposelessness in response to the drudgery of this life is strictly a mechanical reaction? Is this the mechanical "suffering" that must be sacrificed and replaced with intentional suffering? Intentionally placing ourselves in situations that test our mettle, so to speak? Particularly interesting to me is the notion of compelling "yourselves to be able to endure the displeasing-manifestations-of-others-towards-yourselves". Is this akin to using every interaction as an opportunity for having the mirror held up to you?

What can one do to step out of the comfort zone and intentionally suffer? For example, let's say that one fears criticism (which I do). Would asking people what they really think of you or your performance at a particular task and then examining the feelings it provokes qualify?

 

[Buddy]

Hi chachachick;

You do have some interesting questions! Some of which I am asking myself.

[quote author=chachachick]
The above has left me with many questions...
Can it be that our (or my) feelings of boredom and purposelessness in response to the drudgery of this life is strictly a mechanical reaction?
[/quote]

It seems to me that the state of the "True I" is indifference or impartialility and that is not the same as boredom and purposelessness, so I would say yes.

[quote author=chachachick]
Is this the mechanical "suffering" that must be sacrificed and replaced with intentional suffering? Intentionally placing ourselves in situations that test our mettle, so to speak? Particularly interesting to me is the notion of compelling "yourselves to be able to endure the displeasing-manifestations-of-others-towards-yourselves". Is this akin to using every interaction as an opportunity for having the mirror held up to you?
[/quote]

I asked myself these questions, and instead of seeing an answer, further questions came to mind, like:
If the answer to all those questions is "yes", would I be able to maintain the perspective of self-observation (for the most part) in order to benefit from the results or would I be more likely to 'fall into' identification and forget myself and why I'm in the work?
I'm still a baby in the Work, but I feel that when I get to the point that I'm ready, I will know the answer because one thing will naturally lead to another, provided I understand where the path of the work is supposed to lead me.

[quote author=chachachick]
For example, let's say that one fears criticism (which I do). Would asking people what they really think of you or your performance at a particular task and then examining the feelings it provokes qualify?
[/quote]

That seems like a 'loaded' question. Would the subjective, general answers that these questions ask for, be of any real use to you?
Assuming you are referring to being outside the forum, I would think that one would still want the most specific, objective feedback possible from someone who you asked in such a way that they felt completely safe giving their honest answer (otherwise you couldn't depend on it) - unless you had some other useful motive for drawing out answers in that particular form.

This probably hasn't helped, but at least you can know you're not alone! :)

 

[PepperFritz]

For example, let's say that one fears criticism (which I do). Would asking people what they really think of you or your performance at a particular task and then examining the feelings it provokes qualify?

If you said that you "don't respond well to criticism", then that strategy would make sense. However, when you say that you "fear criticism", that suggests to me that you might habitually avoid putting yourself into situations where you "might" be criticised, as you fear "the possibility of criticism". In which case you could try being consciously aware of those times when you find yourself shrinking from doing something, out of fear of being criticized for it, or of doing it "wrong" and then being criticized for it, etc. For instance, you may shrink from offering your opinion on something, from taking a leadership role in something, from dressing differently or behaving differently than you normally do, from doing something you've never done before -- and "intentional suffering" would entail purposely doing that which you fear doing -- i.e. exposing yourself to possible criticism.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ruth]

It seems you do no understand what reiki is. 

I'm not sure why you came to this conclusion, as I had the same thought that Namaste has expressed about what you wrote, and I do have some understanding of what Reiki is, as he does as well.

My appologies.  What I SHOULD have said is that my understanding or perception of Reiki does not concure with how or what some other people understand it to be.  From reading what has been said about Reiki by yourself and Namaste, I am thinking that you both think it is nothing but 'love and light', wishful thinking and freewill violation and therefore has no intrinsic STO value of its own.  This may be a misreading on my part, but to me, this is like saying something that is STO simply CANNOT operate or even EXIST within an STS environment.  I don't think that is entirely correct.

And it must therefor be completely corrupted and marginalised to even exist here.  I do not concure with that idea.  Although I am well aware that STS, in all its forms, seeks to corrupt and control every little thing that is STO so much depends of HOW something is transmitted (such as knowledge or in Reiki - lineage).  Alot depends on where something comes from. It's source.

When I see something on this planet that only appears to have STO 'modus operandi', I don't question its existance, rather I question how much distortion there is/was/has been, and if I find that there is not much at all, then why and how it got to be 'left alone'.    Was it 'invisible' to STS?  And how 'invisible' was it?

I am only a chanel.  Therefore it does not come from me, it only flows through me.  It is a universal life force (which could mean anything to anyone from health to awarness to removing obstacles).

Hi Ruth, I must admit that this is a rather odd statement.  Just because it does not come from you does not mean that you are not directing it.  As I'm sure you know, Reiki can be 'turned on and off' as it were - thus when you direct it toward people who have not asked for it, you are the one making that decision - it is not done through you, since you have made the decision to send energy to a person.

From what you have written here, it appears that you do so without asking, which is, to my understanding, a violation of Free Will.

That is why you ask - but then, you don't have a problem with that, do you?  The process of 'calling up' is the one that contacts and asks the higher self of the person you are going to Reiki.

As long as this is done verbally with the intended receiver, and not only in your own mind, then, yes, this would be getting permission. Considering that you stated that you send it to your 'enemies', I'm rather confused over why they would accept such a thing.

Permision is either granted or withheld by the Reiki recipients higher self.  And no, that person's higher self is not contacted verbally or face to face.  Not with Reiki 2 anyway.  Therefore the process that includes calling up and asking permission of that person's higher self is very important.  Generally I will verbally offer Reiki to people who are not familiar with what it is (and not cognitively impaired).  This is separate from the calling up and actual Reiki process done in Reiki 2 (which includes distance Reiki chaneling and the power symbol). 

  The reiki master who 'tuned' my chanel only ever had one.  And that person was never obliged to tell her why.

Apologies for being unclear on what you mean here, but 'only ever had one' what?   

One rejection from the intended recipient of that Reiki.  They didn't tell her why, so one must assume that the rejection was 'for the higher good'.

One of the 'challenges' or 'tests' if you like, that our Reiki teacher did was to ask us to Reiki our 'enemies' - or people or places that are causing problems for us,  and sometimes physical problems for us.  The 'test' was a test of attitude - our tendency to withhold good things (such as Reiki) from people we don't like, who annoy us, or who we can't control.  :)  And then, watch for results.  Some people just accept the results.  Some people, like myself are interested in what changed and why.  The how of course, is totally beyond my understanding.  Perhaps it is best left beyond the understanding of most people on this planet?

Are you sure you know anything about Reiki?  Or were you just questioning how I use it?

 

[theos]

Pepperfritz said:

If you said that you "don't respond well to criticism", then that strategy would make sense. However, when you say that you "fear criticism", that suggests to me that you might habitually avoid putting yourself into situations where you "might" be criticised, as you fear "the possibility of criticism". In which case you could try being consciously aware of those times when you find yourself shrinking from doing something, out of fear of being criticized for it, or of doing it "wrong" and then being criticized for it, etc. For instance, you may shrink from offering your opinion on something, from taking a leadership role in something, from dressing differently or behaving differently than you normally do, from doing something you've never done before -- and "intentional suffering" would entail purposely doing that which you fear doing -- i.e. exposing yourself to possible criticism.

Does that make sense?

Does this make sense? Absolutely. You've totally described the issue I've been struggling with for years! I see it as one of my biggest issues that affects several aspects of my life. I've made a few inroads to alleviating this issue and I will explore the genesis of this fear further then take steps to break away from it.

You've really given me food for thought. Thanks. ;D ...and I'm still a baby in the Work too, Buddy.

 

[theos]

Concerning Reiki: It seems that any Reiki given without consent, even distance Reiki, is a violation of free will. I've even given Reiki (I have a level I attunement) hands on to a person who gave me verbal permission but in reality was only caving to pressure from a third party. Even in that situation I think I violated that person's free will because he really didn't want it.

Ruth said:

Permision is either granted or withheld by the Reiki recipients higher self. And no, that person's higher self is not contacted verbally or face to face. Not with Reiki 2 anyway. Therefore the process that includes calling up and asking permission of that person's higher self is very important.

How do you know you've contacted a persons higher self and not something else or aren't just "talking" with yourself? (What if they don't have a higher self?) And how does a person's higher self answer your request?

 

[bedower]

[quote author=The Spoon yesterday] I've something to reply to this but before I do can I ask you: What relationship - if any - are you making here between an activity being enjoyable (or not) and Self Remembering? [/quote]

Hi Spoon, initially I didn't mean anything by it; merely commiserating about chores in general, which unless we're very lucky all of us have to do at some time or another!

But then I remembered something I once read in one of Colin Wilson's books (The Mysteries? The Occult? The Outsider? - can't remember!) back in the 1980s. He wrote, and I paraphrase; 'The best time to think is when we are doing something utterly mundane. The activity, whatever it is, takes up the attention of the conscious left brain, leaving our creative right brain to come to the fore. In this way, we sometimes have our best ideas.'

This is something I've practiced since I read that, and it works for me. Since I discovered SOTT and the Cassiopaeans, my chore time now is taken up with cogitating and mulling over the latest readings, especially from the Cass site and this forum; namely, am I doing the Work right and following the excercises correctly, am I remembering to self-remember? At odd times, I observe myself actually doing the chore; the way my physical motor system works, what I'm doing with my hands, how I'm standing, and so on.The next thing is the chore is done. So yes, chores enable me to self-remember. I suppose it all comes down to focus. And this also happens when I play with my grandchildren; I feel so incredibly focused.

Now I can usually 'remember' myself as I walk on the Strip; how do other peopleperceive me; what do they see, what do they think? How would I appear to myself if I met me?

This may sound a silly suggestion, but perhaps the next time you are going to have to cook (and not looking forward to it) you might pretend you are a famous chef demonstrating on the tv, complete with all the flourishing gestures (including the upturned cupped hand, which many male chefs seem to think is an integral part of any explanation); watch yourself doing this, turn it into a game, but most of all, be aware of yourself while you are doing it.

You did not write how old your son is, but if he's a toddler, have you introduced him to books and colouring yet? There is nothing wrong with 'learning games', imo. After all, isn't that how we all learnt, initially?

 

[Laura]

My appologies. What I SHOULD have said is that my understanding or perception of Reiki does not concure with how or what some other people understand it to be. From reading what has been said about Reiki by yourself and Namaste, I am thinking that you both think it is nothing but 'love and light', wishful thinking and freewill violation and therefore has no intrinsic STO value of its own. This may be a misreading on my part, but to me, this is like saying something that is STO simply CANNOT operate or even EXIST within an STS environment. I don't think that is entirely correct.

Well, I agree that Reiki is not just "love and light", but I'm not sure that it is "STO" per se.

And it must therefor be completely corrupted and marginalised to even exist here.

I'm with you here, also. There ARE things that are beneficial in our reality, you just have to wade through a lot of stuff, get the weeds out, and find the essence.

I do not concure with that idea. Although I am well aware that STS, in all its forms, seeks to corrupt and control every little thing that is STO so much depends of HOW something is transmitted (such as knowledge or in Reiki - lineage). Alot depends on where something comes from. It's source.

Well, sorta. A source can be corrupted and a line of transmission can also be corrupted. But sometimes, if there is great care taken all along a line of transmission, some integrity of essence can be preserved.

When I see something on this planet that only appears to have STO 'modus operandi', I don't question its existance, rather I question how much distortion there is/was/has been, and if I find that there is not much at all, then why and how it got to be 'left alone'. Was it 'invisible' to STS? And how 'invisible' was it?

That's an interesting point. I agree that some things can be "invisible" to STS, but I have found enough evidence of direct and deliberate corruption of Reiki as it is widely practiced that I'm sure that Reiki is not one of those things that is invisible or left alone.

I am only a chanel. Therefore it does not come from me, it only flows through me. It is a universal life force (which could mean anything to anyone from health to awarness to removing obstacles).

Hi Ruth, I must admit that this is a rather odd statement. Just because it does not come from you does not mean that you are not directing it. As I'm sure you know, Reiki can be 'turned on and off' as it were - thus when you direct it toward people who have not asked for it, you are the one making that decision - it is not done through you, since you have made the decision to send energy to a person.

From what you have written here, it appears that you do so without asking, which is, to my understanding, a violation of Free Will.

That is why you ask - but then, you don't have a problem with that, do you? The process of 'calling up' is the one that contacts and asks the higher self of the person you are going to Reiki.

That's what the Reiki teachers tell us, but I'm not sure that it is entirely correct. That is to say, this idea may, itself, be a corruption.

As long as this is done verbally with the intended receiver, and not only in your own mind, then, yes, this would be getting permission. Considering that you stated that you send it to your 'enemies', I'm rather confused over why they would accept such a thing.

Permision is either granted or withheld by the Reiki recipients higher self. And no, that person's higher self is not contacted verbally or face to face. Not with Reiki 2 anyway. Therefore the process that includes calling up and asking permission of that person's higher self is very important. Generally I will verbally offer Reiki to people who are not familiar with what it is (and not cognitively impaired). This is separate from the calling up and actual Reiki process done in Reiki 2 (which includes distance Reiki chaneling and the power symbol).

Like I said, this is what is widely taught, but I have some problems with that idea. You see, Reiki is a lot like Spirit Release... I learned the hard way that people can seem to be asking, or say that they give permission, but it just ain't so...

The reiki master who 'tuned' my chanel only ever had one. And that person was never obliged to tell her why.

Apologies for being unclear on what you mean here, but 'only ever had one' what?

One rejection from the intended recipient of that Reiki. They didn't tell her why, so one must assume that the rejection was 'for the higher good'.

I think you are falling into a trap with this approach.

One of the 'challenges' or 'tests' if you like, that our Reiki teacher did was to ask us to Reiki our 'enemies' - or people or places that are causing problems for us, and sometimes physical problems for us. The 'test' was a test of attitude - our tendency to withhold good things (such as Reiki) from people we don't like, who annoy us, or who we can't control. :) And then, watch for results. Some people just accept the results. Some people, like myself are interested in what changed and why. The how of course, is totally beyond my understanding. Perhaps it is best left beyond the understanding of most people on this planet?

Are you sure you know anything about Reiki? Or were you just questioning how I use it?

[/quote]

I am actually shocked that a Reiki Master would propose such a thing. Well, actually, having discussed with a number of them (being one myself), I know that there is a whole lot of garbage out there that passes as "enlightened teaching" and a lot of what gets taught by Reiki Masters is along that line.

Like I said, I learned first hand, with pain that it is really, really, REALLY, not a good idea to mess with someone else's karma.

 

[Ollie]

Hi chachachick

One way to overcome the fear is facing up to what you don't want to do, to get out of the comfort zone, in my case preparing to prepare, and in doing so PepperFritz beat me to a reply (with which I concur)!

So, I'll offer something else. In terms of facing up to the fear, exposing yourself to possible criticism, the fear may be alleviated by considering the following. People tend to think of criticism as negative and praise as positive; in the true sense, there is only one response, and that is 'feedback'. All responses in a dialogue are only 'feedback'.

Secondly, if the 'feedback' is subjective, remember the first rule of psychotherapy: the complainer (blamer) is the one with the perceived problem (and is attempting to transfer it to 'you').

 

[Turgon]

Rather than being in a state of bankruptcy, I'm comfortable. Mild boredom. Middle class angst we'd call it in the UK. I feel a bit like an amoeba - lack of stimulus, lack of response. No difficulties, no lessons, no growth.

However, I realize that "all there is is lessons" and I attempt -- not nearly as successfully as I would like to -- to use this time to study my machine relatively free from distraction (i.e. stress of poverty, abuse, living in a war torn environment) so that maybe, if I find myself plunged into a more chaotic environment I may have some control over myself because I'd hopefully be more aware of my machine. So maybe this feeling of being at a standstill can be an opportunity for intense introspection that you may not otherwise have if you were in a different environment

I think you nailed it with that response chachachick. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I become complacent, when I am not challenging myself in some way, it leads to boredom and stagnation. And I think for me, its a signal that I'm missing out on something important, something that I need to pay attention to, or be aware of that I'm not. Somewhere along the way I fell back into some automatic or mechanical response. This then becomes a great opportunity for me to delve into deep introspection, to discover what lead me to "stop".

I assume this is where intentional suffering and recapitulation (same as self-remembering? .. I haven't read Gurdjieff yet) come into play? Because usually there are thoughts, actions and interactions with others that I have to remember, objectively, in order to find out why I am at a standstill. And its not easy, because I really have to exercise my memory, and objectivity to discover more of my own thoughts and actions, and in doing so hold that mirror up to myself. And I guess, in a way, this adds some type of purpose to my life? A desire to find the root of my behaviour, accept that part of me, and consciously choose to change it or not?

So maybe, in practicing these simple (yet challenging concepts) such as introspection, recapitulation, objective awareness, brings purpose into ones life and frees a person from stagnation, fear, etc. Osit.

 

[Ruth]

How do you know you've contacted a persons higher self and not something else or aren't just "talking" with yourself? (What if they don't have a higher self?) And how does a person's higher self answer your request?

One has to stay open to the impressions that are received and remain vigilent. Being 'tuned' as a reiki chanel is supposed to have the effect of taking the lower self out of the equation.

I have been told that reiki works regardless of who or what a person is - it works for 'the higher good'. Most people (and things) are connected in some way to a higher source. How much of them is "present" there and manifests in their higher self may vary. But, when doing reiki, I assume that it is there, and that it can answer me when I ask permission. That's why we have the 'calling up' process in place. If it wasn't there, we could just discard it and violate free will.

As most people know, you can reiki most things, but, I am thinking that a rock, or a salad (or any inanimate object), would not have the same higher self as a person. Therefore, I would be asking myself why I am reikiing an inanimate object unless it was for my own good or for selfish reasons. And whether I would be better off reiking something else if there is a problem in my life that I wanted to change.

How do they answer my request? Psychically and directly and usually with very few words or impressions. How else would you communicate with anybody's or anythings higher self? Seriously, I don't know of any other way. Perhaps its a question of observing results and remaining open to impressions and vigilent.

 

[kenlee]

Talking with my wife. Usually I only Self Remember at those times if we're having an argument. I've something to reply to this but before I do can I ask you: What relationship - if any - are you making here between an activity being enjoyable (or not) and Self Remembering?

I think your saying here that “I only Self Remember at those times if..." does not mean it’s self remembering. It might be you are just initiating an effort to self remember or, possibly, your head brain is just thinking about it and has a mental image of it. I think that when you say "I only Self Remember at those times if..." your head brain is putting the term self remembering within the context of a knowable situation where your head is assuming that it knows what self remembering is in the same way that it ‘knows’ what the other knowable elements of the situation are. In that case your limiting it and closing off possibilities instead of opening them.

What I have learned from my efforts to 'self remember' is that it has two aspects. There is the ‘effort to self remember’ and then there is the ‘state of self remembering’. Two different things in my view. From my experience the (repeating) efforts to self remember comes first and then the ‘state of self remembering' may then come at some point (unexpectedly) from the accumulation of the efforts. I've found that this ‘state’ (which is rare in my case) is a new connection that my thoughts have with my body that’s mediated by a (new) feeling. That’s the best way I can describe it.

The ‘state of self remembering’ is what brings it all, more or less, together for me as a ‘tangible’ reality where my mind, emotions and body are better connected because they (apparently) understand each other a little bit better, possibly because I become more aware that my head, emotions, and body have their own language and there is less crosstalk between them by virtue of this state. But this connection is real, it's new every time I experience it, it has a certain quality energy to it and there is a real presence, a real ‘substance’ there. ‘I’ am there, at least for those moments when the connection is made.

So I think it’s important to differentiate between the ‘effort’ and the ‘state’. The efforts to self remember will get me to a certain point (so to speak) but then at some point I have to kinda ’let go’ to receive the state that allows the connection to be made.

But, then again, as far as I know, in Gurdjieff’s book Beelzebub’s Tales To His Grandson he never uses the term ‘self remembering’ even though it’s talked about in Ouspensky’s book In Search Of the Miraculous. So, I think it’s easy for the head brain to get fooled by words and put a mental image to the word ‘self remembering’ and believe that the mental image that it has of it is the actual state.

 

[T.C.]

And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."
[...]

Particularly interesting to me is the notion of compelling "yourselves to be able to endure the displeasing-manifestations-of-others-towards-yourselves".  Is this akin to using every interaction as an opportunity for having the mirror held up to you?

I think it's helpful to substitute the word "suffering" in G's statement, to the words "self importance". That mechanical suffering comes from self importance, like the displeasure of manifestations of others towards us. If we self observe during interactions, it's not necessarily an opportunity to see ourselves in the mirror, because we can't be that objective on our own; but, with knowledge, we can see our "lower" natures, and use each interaction to struggle against those natures and their manipulations. Basically, it's an opportunity to remember ourselves.

Then we can network the "snapshots" we take in these moments, as G called them, and that's where the mirror comes in.

 

[theos]

I think it's helpful to substitute the word "suffering" in G's statement, to the words "self importance".

Yes, very helpful. The more I practice the work, the more I'm coming to realize that self importance seems to be THE issue.