Poll: Can you self-observe 100% of the time?

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Just wondering. I've been practicing it, and i think i've got it down to the point where i can percieve my actions, and accord them to different I's and break em up to the 4 different centers, but i forget and remember sporadically off and on. I was wondering if anyone can do it all the time, and if so how long it took from starting the practice to get there. Thanks!
Brent
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
do you actually HAVE to self-observe 100% of the time?

I am just wondering out loud. This is a Gurdjieffian concept, right? I have understood from the Patterson's Struggle of the Magicians that the way his teachings developed in the West may have given more weight and value to self-observation than was originally intended.

there is an extended discussion on this subject that I have not yet caught up on, so forgive me if this has been discussed already.

I suspect it is rather the results of self-observation (whether it be sustained or not), in terms of actual changes in living, being, and doing, that really count.

?????? don't know

in any case I am far from it :(
 

Craig

Jedi Master
Cyre2067 said:
Just wondering. I've been practicing it, and i think i've got it down to the point where i can percieve my actions, and accord them to different I's and break em up to the 4 different centres...
What does "accord them to different 'I's" mean? It seems you've got it the wrong way around, which suggests any "results" you think you have are imaginary. Again, you need to read In Search of the Miraculous thoroughly - and maybe again.

...but i forget and remember sporadically off and on. I was wondering if anyone can do it all the time, and if so how long it took from starting the practice to get there. Thanks!
It again seems you've got it the wrong way around. I think it's basically a question of how long can a state of self-remembering be "maintained" and the "quality" of self-observation.

Gurdjieff said:
Self-observation is very difficult. The more you try, the more clearly you will see this.

At present you should practice it not for results but to understand that you cannot observe yourselves. In the past you imagined that you saw and knew yourselves.

I am speaking of objective self-observation. Objectively you cannot see yourselves for a single minute, because it is a different function, the function of the master.

If it seems to you that you can observe yourselves for five minutes, this is wrong; if it is for twenty minutes or for one minute - it is equally wrong. If you simply realise that you cannot, it will be right. To come to it is your aim.

To achieve this aim, you must try and try.

When you try, the result will not be, in the true sense, self-observation. But trying will strengthen your attention, you will learn to concentrate better. All this will be useful later. Only then can one begin to remember oneself.

If you work conscientiously, you will remember yourselves not more but less, because self-remembering requires many things. It is not so easy, it costs a great deal.

The exercise of self-observation is sufficient for several years. Do not attempt anything else. If you work conscientiously, you will see what you need.

At present you have but one attention, either in the body or feeling. [Views from the Real World, p. 88-9]
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Craig said:
What does "accord them to different 'I's" mean? It seems you've got it the wrong way around, which suggests any "results" you think you have are imaginary. Again, you need to read In Search of the Miraculous thoroughly - and maybe again.

It again seems you've got it the wrong way around. I think it's basically a question of how long can a state of self-remembering be "maintained" and the "quality" of self-observation.
Like, how do i esplain... the person typing isn't me. It's merely a work I. Which one i can't surmise, but as im typing i know it's not the real me, and i watch the thoughts flow out of my mind and onto the screen. But they aren't really my thoughts, per se, but the thoughts of the I thats in my head at that point in time. Technically i should be using "it" instead of "I" but its hard to do that conversationally and make sense, but I'll try.

When i/it scratch my/it's nose (as I/it just did) i know that my real/true consciousness isn't controlling that action, (nor can it control any of my actions b/c its still asleep) its reflex, performed by a biological need I (which acts to fulfill any biological need that may arise, scratching an itch included). I watch it for a few moments here and there and then i forget and I become it which messes up the self ob bit. Sometimes i can maintain the self ob for a few moments, but if one of the Is needs to respond conversationally it takes up brainspace which i was using to observe myself, and thus loose the observation while it's talking. I mean, i haven't gotten it down correctly, nor for any length of time few seconds on few off, but i think i have the general idea of what im supposed to be trying to do. The more redundant the action, the more easily i can self ob. The more complex, the more thought it requires, the more emotionally active the more difficult it becomes. And sometimes i can be self-obing and one of those situations will arise, the self ob will get interuptted and as soon as the interrupting I is done (few seconds) i remember to self ob again. I'm just trying to excercise the muscle at this point.

And i know i need to read ISOTM over and over, and i will, but at this point im experimenting anyway and dig the feedback. The Impatience tends to be one of the nastier fusions i have. Or perhaps it would better be described as a coagulation, or aggregate.... what im trying to say is its one of my more permanant traits, that and procrastination....
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
As Craig mentioned, both quantity and quality of self observation need to be considered. As I understand it, if you are verbalising or analysing the process is any way you are probably just thinking about self observation rather than actually doing it. I think it is a very difficult thing, and I am basically at the same point that you are with the Work, Brent. I have just read ISOTM and am reading the Fourth Way (which I highly recommend because it is comprehensive and concise, and it is easy to find the material on a particular subject).

I find I can remember myself some of the time, as is to be expected, but that this depends on my emotional and intellectual state at the time. I need to remember myself when somebody is arguing with me, for example, rather than when I am walking down the street with nothing else to do. Results are proportional to understanding, and we need to combine this with some attempts and practice of our own if we are to improve. So keep it up!
 
T

tschai

Guest
Hi Brent- I was wondering if you could post the method for seperating into multiple "I's"-so I can send one "me" to work while the "real" me stays home in bed! (Mirth!) I know what you mean though-sometimes it does seem like information / inspiration - what have you, does appear to come from elsewhere -another "you". I believe the Greeks refered to "them" as the Muses! they literally thought there WERE different beings responsible-and did not atribute it to their own genius /insight. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong thing?

I find the more I concentrate on self observation the more difficult it becomes to walk...

I talk to "myself" all of the time-and I never lose an argument!

I got lost in myself and then had to find myself...

I asked all my selves to vote on a particular thing-the verdict? The "I's" have it!

See what fun you can have with self observation?
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Ah im not really one to explain it because i don't really know how to do it yet either. It takes some work. There's a great thread for you to read if your really interested here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=22

But other then that I'll tell you what other have told me. Get In Search of the Miraculous & The Fourth Way, both by PD Ouspensky, Gnosis by Mouravieff, Beelzebub's tales to his Grandson and Life is only real when I am both by Gurdjieff, read them in whichever order suits you. I'm starting with In Search, and its blowing my mind. They're all available offa amazon.

Good Luck!
 
U

Unbeliever

Guest
The exercise of 'self observation' is an ego wish. The fact of total awareness already precludes the impression that the ego has of a self. You cannot be an ego and observe the ego. You would have to look with the eyes of your source which means giving way to its presence. This is what some have called the little death, the realization of the irreality of the personality and the realization of the illusion of the self, egoically speaking.

On the other hand, if one stops associating with the energies that flow through the ego-channel, these can be identified as such (foreign).

If the ego realizes that everything that flows through him is not him, he would not be self-observing but rather would simply be. Otherwise it seeks to be what it observes and identifies to it.

Excuse the analogy (pun intended) but it is as if we were an anus and insisting on identifying with what comes through, what fills the space. Then also there is always the subtle exitation that comes with the passage, so we are hoping for next time, and hopefully there will be more of it. In that sense, we are not full of ourselves but we are full of... it.
(just kidding here. I am of course not talking about people here.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Unbeliever said:
The exercise of 'self observation' is an ego wish. The fact of total awareness already precludes the impression that the ego has of a self. You cannot be an ego and observe the ego. You would have to look with the eyes of your source which means giving way to its presence. This is what some have called the little death, the realization of the irreality of the personality and the realization of the illusion of the self, egoically speaking.
I would gather this all depends on how you define "ego". I don't think the understanding behind self-observation is that the ego is an inherent, natural part of self. In that understanding it seems to be more of an adaptation to the circumstances of mechanical conditioning, a mechanical program posing as self-identification.

As such, it CAN be observed. Yet, because it has so embedded itself as something that is OF self addressing it directly is difficult, and at first one probably has to observe what passes through it. And this program resists its observation because as you said: "you cannot be an ego and observe the ego". Hence observing it separates it from our being, and it does go through death thrashings in its attempt to identify its demise as our own.

It's like a parasite posing as a vital organ in our flesh. The reactions come from our flesh, which has also adapted to its presence, but the true cause is the parasite thrashing about as it is being re-referenced according to its true mechanistic nature.

I don't believe dissolving the ego includes dissolving individual identity. I think ego dissolution involves the mechanistic variables of our identity.

Regarding self-remembrance, I think at some point through constant application, however intermittent, everyone has an experience that they can absolutely identify as "self remembrance". This is like an epiphany or "eureka" experience. Once you have it, I think it helps to use the memory of how your body responded to that epiphany as a link to re-establish it as you simultaneously observe yourself.

The body records the experience in its own objective way, and can help put the whole self in the right context to align with real remembering in greater intervals of duration. The thing to remember IMO is that mechanistic impersonators of self-identification are programmed for self-preservation and manipulate the nervous system and the rest of the body to condition it to perpetuate their existence.

One learns alot about oneself when the mechanical defense mechanisms begin to reveal themselves, because the reaction points to where the program is embedded in the psycho-neurological matrix. So IMO the reaction we observe is coming from us, in terms of our biology, but the stimulus creating that reaction, as well as the off-hand interpretations that seem to present themselves to explain away such reactions (which I view as internal mechanistic disinformation) stem from the programs themselves.
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Okay, so i got to the point where i thought i could do it, realized i couldn't, then figured out ways to do it for extremely short increments of time, then realized i wasnt Self-obing at all, got frustrated and gave up, tried it again and now i think i can do it in some slight way for a short period of time.

I try to focus on the motion of my body and the input it recieves (motive/instinctive centers) because whenever thoughts become more then an internal monologue i get swept up in them and loose myself again. Emotions I tacitly notice (in terms of self-ob) but if the emotional impulse is more then an annoyance or mild pleasantness it sweeps me up again and i lose myself again. Sometimes i remember myself after the "flare" of emotion passes, but depending on the emotional echo left in the system or the thoughts said emotional flare produces i find it difficult to continue the thread of self ob.

Im just posting it here because i like to read my older posts, in which i was obviously suffering from self-delusion or just not enough information.
 

Ryan

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
EsoQuest said:
Regarding self-remembrance, I think at some point through constant application, however intermittent, everyone has an experience that they can absolutely identify as "self remembrance". This is like an epiphany or "eureka" experience. Once you have it, I think it helps to use the memory of how your body responded to that epiphany as a link to re-establish it as you simultaneously observe yourself.
Agreed. What I think of as "self-remembrance" has occurred a few times in a sort of "flash", with a unique "taste" or "feel" to it. The sense of divison is most definitely present - sort of like a looking out from yourself and at yourself simultaneously. This state has usually corresponded to some kind of recent shock, too. Here's a snippet from ISOTM that I was recently re-reading regarding the idea of "roles" and how shocks might play an integral role in self-remembering.

Gurdjieff said:
"You must realize that each man has a definite repertoire of roles which he plays in ordinary circumstances," said G. in this connection. "He has a role for every kind of circumstance in which he ordinarily finds himself in life; but put him into even only slightly different circumstances and he is unable to find a suitable role, and for a short time he becomes himself. The study of the roles a man plays represents a very necessary part of self-knowledge. Each man's repertoire is very limited. And if a man simply says 'I' and 'Ivan Ivanich,' he will not see the whole of himself because 'Ivan Ivanich' also is not one; a man has at least five or six of them. One or two for his family, one or two at his office (one for his subordinates and another for his superiors), one for friends in a restaurant, and perhaps one who is interested in exalted ideas and likes intellectual conversation. And at different times the man is fully identified with one of them and is unable to separate himself from it.

To see the roles, to know one's repertoire, particularly to know its limitedness, is to know a great deal. But the point is that, outside his repertoire, a man feels very uncomfortable should something push him if only temporarily out of his rut, and he tries his hardest to return to any one of his usual roles. Directly he falls back into the rut everything at once goes smoothly again and the feeling of awkwardness and tension disappears. This is how it is in life; but in the work, in order to observe oneself, one must become reconciled to this awkwardness and tension and to the feeling of discomfort and helplessness. Only by experiencing this discomfort can a man really observe himself. And it is clear why this is so. When a man is not playing any of his usual roles, when he cannot find a suitable role in his repertoire, he feels that he is undressed. He is cold and ashamed and wants to run away from everybody. But the question arises: What does he want? A quiet life or to work on himself? If he wants a quiet life, he must certainly first of all never move out of his repertoire. In his usual roles he feels comfortable and at peace. But if he wants to work on himself, he must destroy his peace. To have them both together is in no way possible.
 
U

Unbeliever

Guest
You have been more precise than me Eso. I like what you wrote here in general.

I don't think the understanding behind self-observation is that the ego is an inherent, natural part of self. In that understanding it seems to be more of an adaptation to the circumstances of mechanical conditioning, a mechanical program posing as self-identification.
Quite right. Actually, if you took away the memory of the soul, the astral reflexes of consciousness, the subjective thought process, the material based instincs, everything that is thought as self by identification, you would have what is the center of that consciousness and that would not be yet what we call the 'higher self'.

I don't believe dissolving the ego includes dissolving individual identity. I think ego dissolution involves the mechanistic variables of our identity.
Agreed. The dissolution of the ego would be more related to the dissolution of his impression of self. With the Impression of self gone, the ego can start talking objectively and becomes a pure channel. Pure in the sense that it is transparent. Transparent because it is free of those parasites. Needless to say that even the impression of humanity is gone at that point and that any concept has lost its value.

epiphany or "eureka" experience.
Realization shocks?

The thing to remember IMO is that mechanistic impersonators of self-identification are programmed for self-preservation and manipulate the nervous system and the rest of the body to condition it to perpetuate their existence.
Quite right again. May I add that the dissolution of the ego brings about the neutralization of instinctive consciousness against the mental.
 
U

Unbeliever

Guest
Something I should have added too.
With the dissolution of the egoic illusions, because of course it is not the ego that is dissolved but its relationship with energies that occupy its psychic territory and that are in a technical act of possessing, the ego will not be in a state of 'self-observation'.

It won't because it will have lost its impression of self.

The Impression of self already comes from the identification of the ego to those energies that some call the program. (I prefer to refer to these energies as active principles rather than just mechanical programs, even though the ego under these influences becomes very mechanical)

With the loss of the impression of self comes also the loss of the egoic drives.
This is a principle that stems from the separation of egoic consciousness and the consciousness of death (astral).

Self-observation in itself is an egoic wish because it stems from a spiritual programming.
In fact, the ego should not seek to self-observe so much that he should simply observe.
That observation of course requires a great deal of energy because the ego is constantly quieried through its very fabric.
The ego, technically speaking, is what it contains.
The actual war between light and the forces of darkness referred to the possession of that psychic territory. It is the possession of that territory that defines the mind of the reincarnate.

The most powerful key to drive a spike into the psychic trap that imposes a karmic law that must be supported by the ego is the knowledge of the real nature of thoughts. The one most important item in the seemingly infinite list of egoic identification.

So long as we believe that we think by ourselves, no matter what is observed, the subjective nature of the ego will remain and his observation will remain at the level of the impression, adding to the experience of the soul rather than adding to the ego's ability to control his life, therefore possess his soul, eventually become that 'higher self' by integration of his principles.

For this to happen, space must be made in the psychic channel that the ego is to allow another, far more subtle, energy to possess the space.

This is why it was said that man could not save himself. Without the pressure of that other energy, the ego risks turning his observations into philosophical and spiritual energies which become even more powerful programming concepts that will fill his mind.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Allow me to exercise a bit of precision once more.

Unbeliever said:
I said:
I don't believe dissolving the ego includes dissolving individual identity. I think ego dissolution involves the mechanistic variables of our identity.
Agreed. The dissolution of the ego would be more related to the dissolution of his impression of self. With the Impression of self gone, the ego can start talking objectively and becomes a pure channel. Pure in the sense that it is transparent. Transparent because it is free of those parasites. Needless to say that even the impression of humanity is gone at that point and that any concept has lost its value.
We must be careful with the term "impression of self" as it can be taken at various levels of depth of awareness. Since you agree with me, I take it that you mean mechanistic impression of self or the impression of the mechanistic self. This is important because it qualifies what follows in your statement.

The ego becomes a pure channel, and again we need to understand "purity". You state that it is "pure in the sense that it is transparent", and free of parasites. We need to be careful that we do not confuse "transparent" with nonexistent. A lens is transparent and thus affects what light passes through it. The natural ego or individualized true self allows for the inner essence to express through personality patterns in the outer world.

Without these patterns, relating to the world of form is meaningless because we have no reference and no axis of inner I. So the natural ego is both transparent as a focusing lens of higher awareness in terms of grounded physicality and is also a transparent prism to differentiate that awareness in terms of personal qualities.

This ego is not precisely the real I in essence, but the link between it and our physiological being. There are states, and I have experienced them briefly myself, where this link can be taken at least partially off-line (never severed because then we die), when cortical brain activity isolates itself from the rest of the body, either through trance, trauma or chemical induction.

Sometimes this state can be attained through practice. However, if you make this link, "transparent" in the way you say, you lose body identification and thereby the whole meaning of physical existence in your life. Those who who have attained this state consciously must be taken care of as infants because they have no sense of taking care of themselves. This material reality is an illusion to them, not because it IS an illusion, but because they are dissociated regardless of the specialized enhancement of their conscousness identification.

This enhancement is transcendent consciousness, but it is not grounded in the body aside from specialized cortical activity. To these people the body is "other" and a beast in which they reside. Even if part of them is in Divine awareness, this is still a schizoid state, and therefore undesireable to one practicing balanced center opening and grounding, and contradicts the purposes of self-observations as described here.

Now if we consider the impressions being removed as mechanistic, then we cannot include "the impression of humanity" as one of them. The impression of humanity is not an impression, but a reflection of our physical and genetic state of being.

So we must be careful because those (and I speak of possible trans-human influences as well as human ones)who would encourage us to deny our "impression" of humanity, or who may "inspire" us to believe it is desireable, may have it in their interest to use our then neglected humanity for their own reasons.

One does not so easily discard the gifts of manifest being, in my opinion. That would be a "step" in the wrong direction, as I see things.

Unbeliever said:
May I add that the dissolution of the ego brings about the neutralization of instinctive consciousness against the mental.
Once again, we have to be careful not to confuse our terms. Neutralization of instinctive consciousness is not necessarily the same as neutralization of mechanistic consciousness. The latter is formed by conditioning, and perverts the former. Many sages have followed this path only to come into conflict with their own instinctive being, a battle that all bodies must lose because life depends on this consciousness.

Instinctive consciousness is not the enemy in and of itself. What allows mechanistic consciousness to get a hold is the separation of instinctive consciousness from the rest of our being, emotional and mental. Instinctive, emotive and mental expression must come into coherence and resonance. These three elements must act as one to become a true vehicle of the real I, or else its presence cannot be sustained.

One of the reasons (aside from what G wrote in Ryans quote) that we feel discomfort in our brief confrontations with the real I, one of the reasons we feel naked, is because we have not yet integrated instinct, emotion and mentation into a coherent system that can contain, and BE the vehicle of expression for the real I.

Yet, it is the presence of this "I" that pulls these aspects together, so even though uncomfortable, the longer we can sustain these experiences, and the more frequent they become, the easier it will be to sustain them. That is because our real foundation of instinct/emotion/cognition is then coherent enough so we don't feel like we are coming apart, or naked as a fish out of water. In this case, the central I is the fish and the "water" is the medium of triple center integration.

So rather than dissociate the instinctual from the mental, which would be counterproductive if we truly seek integration/wholeness, we must align them, bring them into resonance so that wherever our attention moves these three centers move along with it. This is called developing singularity of being in the lower centers.

When this is accomplished, the mechanistic dynamics will have already dissolved, because they cannot coexist in this complete state, and a natural flow from higher center potential commences (probably already partially initiated as we continued to integrate the lower centers prior to full alignment), where we affirm true expanded self instead of deny its "lower" aspects.

So we may not really be in such close agreement, after all, and this from what you have written so far, as it stands. In your next post you seem to qualify your statments further, so permit me to examine if what you are stating above is the same as what you are stating below. I gather you are using specific terminologies, which makes understanding a bit difficult because we do not have a common reference of meaning.

In any case, you have qualified "Impression of self" in the former post in one way, where its apparent loss would lead to inevitable schizoid dissociation. Here you qualify it as follows:

UB said:
With the dissolution of the egoic illusions...the ego will not be in a state of 'self-observation'.

It won't because it will have lost its impression of self.

The Impression of self already comes from the identification of the ego to those energies that some call the program. (I prefer to refer to these energies as active principles rather than just mechanical programs, even though the ego under these influences becomes very mechanical)
This understanding of Impression of self is different than the previous you mentioned, because "loss of identification with alienating energies" is different than "loss of value for every concept". When every concept loses value there can be no comparison of differences, and hence all choice is the same, hence choice itself and freewill loses all meaning and function. You understand the implications of what you are saying.

You see, when you identify Impression of self as energies that are really not natural to who we really are physically/genetically, as well as at the fundamental awareness level of individuality, then losing the Impression of self implies losing what inhibits self-observation, because this self has cleared all obstructions from feeding back into itself.

Without awareness-feedback or self-reflection, which is not really reflection, but the ouroboros of awareness looping back into itself, there is no sense of self, there is only an open-ended sense of non-identification. It is this self-identification that is the identification with the soul-self, and THAT is what is qualified to make transcendent connections without fragmentation.

So according to your definition, loss of the Impression of self, which is really the false impression created by obstructions to pure awareness flows, leads to true self-observation.

UB said:
With the loss of the impression of self comes also the loss of the egoic drives.
This is a principle that stems from the separation of egoic consciousness and the consciousness of death (astral).
I agree, if we qualify the reunion of these two modes of consciousness as the establishment of the continuity of consciousness regardless of the event of physical death, and the transcendence of the "bardo" state.

UB said:
Self-observation in itself is an egoic wish because it stems from a spiritual programming.
This would contradict your definition of Impression of self, where the conclusion is quite the opposite. I will agree, however, that self-observation is a natural function of the obstruction-free ego or individuality container of true I awareness, resulting from the alignment of the lower centers (instinct/emotion/cognition).

UB said:
In fact, the ego should not seek to self-observe so much that he should simply observe.
You are correct, again if we qualify that statement as "should not only seek to self-observe", for if you lose awareness of self then you are not the center of your own existence. If you are not, then who or what is? Being the center of your own existence is not to be confused with selfishness. It is a prespective at the root of being an individual. And from that perspective, then awareness can incorporate greater vistas, identifying with consciousness-field of those vistas, and not with those vistas as the ego self.

In other words, the central I is grounded in the individuality form generated by the body, and the alignment of the three centers, as I see it, but also has the option of greater identification. The I self-observes and is self-aware, and it can also expand beyond that into greater identifications beyond the vehicle, while still remaining rooted in it during life.

To not do so is to dissociate as when one is in trance, where often possession is a danger. At least it is a neglect of our grounded being and a reversal of our higher centers from our lower ones, which defeats the purpose of esoteric unfoldment. And that purpose is to be more of total, living, physically-grounded self FIRST, before you attempt any greater vistas. Otherwise, the purpose of incarnation is defeated.

UB said:
That observation of course requires a great deal of energy because the ego is constantly quieried through its very fabric.
I actually, I have long practiced something similar to what you refer. If you are familiar with Ramana Maharshi, it is the dissolution of the I-thought, so THAT which underlies it is revealed. And I do not disagree with you that it is a major experience, and part of esoteric development, to those inclined to that direction.

From experience, however, I can tell you that it is an incomplete method, because without a firm grounding in the individuality of physicality represented by the three coherent lower centers, it leads to a dissociated transcendent state. And let me tell you in metaphoric terms (as it is hard to conceptualize these things):

When you meet the "Face of God", as it were through such an experience, you enter into a situation as if this F
Face were saying: "What the hell are you doing here? If I wanted to come back empty handed to Myself I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of creating anything in the first place!" Of course there is no I/You relationship in such states, but the understanding is clear, nevertheless.

UB said:
The ego, technically speaking, is what it contains.
Actually, the ego is a container or pattern generated by the three centers, fragmented when they are fragmented, coherent when they are coherent, and the individual I is what it contains when coherent.

UB said:
The actual war between light and the forces of darkness referred to the possession of that psychic territory. It is the possession of that territory that defines the mind of the reincarnate.
This is true if by "light" you mean creative Living Being and by "darkeness" you mean entropic decay. And it is for this reason that we should not dissociate from our individuality completely, because it leaves that field wide open to unwanted infiltration.

UB said:
The most powerful key to drive a spike into the psychic trap that imposes a karmic law that must be supported by the ego is the knowledge of the real nature of thoughts. The one most important item in the seemingly infinite list of egoic identification.
You are correct, but this correct statment supports an erroneous conclusion as far as self-observation is concerned, IMO. Let's see what you mean by "the true nature of thoughts".

UB said:
So long as we believe that we think by ourselves, no matter what is observed, the subjective nature of the ego will remain and his observation will remain at the level of the impression, adding to the experience of the soul rather than adding to the ego's ability to control his life, therefore possess his soul, eventually become that 'higher self' by integration of his principles.
You may have wanted to say "adding to the ego's ability to control his life rather than adding to the experience of soul", but then I may have misunderstood. Frankly, you get my drift I think, and I have analyzed your text enough.

Let me present my understanding in brief:

Certain directions of esoteric thought pose three grades of awareness, the Immanent, the Pervading and the Transcendent. The first is the Divine within, the second the Divine around (pervading creation), and the third the Divine beyond. All three are the same in essence and different in reference, and all three are interlocked, but phenomenally obstructed from each other in this pervasive entropic state of affairs.

To maintain continuity of BEING none of these three must be sacrificed for any other, as far as we are concerned, and as long as we are alive, and even after, the Divine Within is the Primary Reference. We may shift and we may fuse references, but we never premanently lose that sense of the Inner Divine rooted in the energies formed by the lower centers, or rather in what is called the magnetic center (according to 4th Way terminology).

This is our Core and our Center. Thus when WE enter into environmental (Pandeistic) or Transcendent Communion, that Core is what enters into Communion, and it is not so restricted so that it has to deny its physical rooting to do so.

Beyond this, I urge caution when you use the words like "possession", as you do in the next sentence in your post. Such terms can easily be taken the wrong way, or make people think "possession" is the deeper motive for what you are developing here. Especially if in a reality of essential Unity and Oneness, you undermine the redemptive potential of the individual true I claiming that "another" energy is needed.
 
S

sinimat

Guest
What about focusing on the hara (aka tan dien, or belly). Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism, teaches of its importance. However, there are not many books written on it. Coinsidence (spelling?), or is it the ghouls/lizzies trying to hide the truth?

Personally, I think breathing into the belly, and focusing on that is good. I too, am trying to do this 100% all of the time. However, I'm just starting :)

Namaste
 
Top Bottom