Religion as character development

[BHelmet]

Didn't Mouravieff call sin an error in conception? Or did he say that sin was a result of an error in conception?

So, what is sin a violation of? Is it dependent on orientation? For STS there probably is no sin. For the STO path, we are attempting to walk on a swords edge.

Dabrowski defined the feeling of sin as the self-awareness that one has behaved in a way that is not in line with her personality ideal, i.e. her higher values and aims ("sin, an internal experience, is then a more or less conscious offense committed by a given individual in conflict with the principles accepted, recognized, and affirmed by him, and a transgression for which his conscience holds him responsible").

Gurdjieff defined sin as that which is unnecessary for people who are on the way, i.e. in reference to their aim. So for both, sin is only something that really applies once one has enough of an inner "I" to differentiate between the higher and lower in oneself, in reference to their goal or aim. And the feeling of violating that inner standard, of 'falling' into the lower, is the feeling of sin.

The earliest interpreters of Paul thought he was saying something somewhat different, but which still fits the picture. For example, here's Origen, from his commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans:

it is one thing to have sinned, another to be a sinner. One is called a sinner who, by committing many transgressions, has already reached the point of making sinning into a habit and, so to speak, a course of study. Just as, on the other hand, one is not called just who has once or twice done some just act, but who continually behaves justly and keeps justice in use and makes it habitual. For if someone is unjust in nearly all other matters but should carry out some just work one or two times, he will indeed be said to have acted justly in that work in which he practiced justice; nevertheless he will not on that basis be called a just man. Similarly it will indeed be said that a just man has sinned if he has at some time committed what is not lawful. But he will not on that account be labeled a sinner, since he does not hold fast to the practice and habit of sinning.

Both ways of looking at it divide people into roughly two groups: those who are habitually disposed to a lower type of being (vice, the 'ordinary' man) and those disposed to something higher (virtue, the way). For Dabrowski and Gurdjieff, there is no sin at a low level because there is no awareness of sin and such a way of life leads to its natural result. In other words, in reference to their 'end' or telos, they are doing nothing wrong per se. They'll get what they give. But for Paul, that end was 'death', and when judged in reference to the telos of life, they are simply leading the wrong kind of life, our of harmony with the nature of the universe.

Thank you. I find it interesting that sin, in the sense described above, is an individual matter, while religion tends to make sin an absolute universal value outside of the realm of the individual. I can certainly admit that there were times when I was young that I only had a vague sense of doing anything 'wrong' but as I have aged and gained knowledge that sense has grown more acute.

 

[Joe]

Obviously "sin" relates directly to the ideas of good and bad, and Gurdjieff has provided the idea of the "law of three" i.e. there is good, bad and the specific situation that determines which is which. He also said that anything that progresses a person towards their aim is "good", anything that does the opposite is "bad". So sin and good and bad are all hopelessly and pointlessly subjective or dictated from outside until a person has an aim.

 

[Al Today]

Obviously "sin" relates directly to the ideas of good and bad, and Gurdjieff has provided the idea of the "law of three" i.e. there is good, bad and the specific situation that determines which is which. He also said that anything that progresses a person towards their aim is "good", anything that does the opposite is "bad". So sin and good and bad are all hopelessly and pointlessly subjective or dictated from without until a person has an aim.

Yep. I cannot say this any better than you...
To a cannibal, raised in cannibalism, can you tell them they sin when they know nothing else?

edit: and about aim... They only know what they are exposed to.
edit2: or anything else for that matter...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Obviously "sin" relates directly to the ideas of good and bad, and Gurdjieff has provided the idea of the "law of three" i.e. there is good, bad and the specific situation that determines which is which. He also said that anything that progresses a person towards their aim is "good", anything that does the opposite is "bad". So sin and good and bad are all hopelessly and pointlessly subjective or dictated from without until a person has an aim.

Yep. I cannot say this any better than you...
To a cannibal, raised in cannibalism, can you tell them they sin when they know nothing else?

I understand the point. But I'm not convinced that aims are wholly subjective. When speaking strictly in relation to a single person and their aim, sure. But if aims, ends, teloi are somehow intrinsic to the universe (e.g. as 'thought centers' or archetypes or information patterns), then anyone can be evaluated in reference to those aims, and if their own individual aims align with larger aims or cosmic 'trajectories'. Some aims will align with the 'goal' of 7D union through the STO path, and others will not (i.e. STS up to 4D, reflected in 6D).

 

[Al Today]

[...]
but if aims, ends, teloi are somehow intrinsic to the universe (e.g. as 'thought centers' or archetypes or information patterns), then anyone can be evaluated in reference to those aims, and if their own individual aims align with larger aims or cosmic 'trajectories'. Some aims will align with the 'goal' of 7D union through the STO path, and others will not (i.e. STS up to 4D, reflected in 6D).

I had to look up teloi:
the end term of a goal-directed process; especially, the Aristotelian final cause.

Love this. Always learning. Always finding out that I do not read enough and there is so much to learn...

All I can offer is ignorance, but I will speak my mind.
Getting back to our physical life here, unless one is exposed to whisperings, or even hears them, they can be attentive or still remain ignorant.Our essence is what it is. What we will be methinks we will be. After how many eons? We are what we are. BUT, free will choice can alter our path. Free choice come only from knowledge of potential. And this takes many lessons. If learned... Lessons are to be learned, and perhaps they are not. But meanwhile, we are "here" and experiences are experienced, and the future is open...

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thinking over this discussion, I'm wondering if there's a certain "minimum threshold" of character development for the individuals that would make up a community (to make the community coherent), but that it's taken to a whole new level within the community? Perhaps there's a limit where any individual can develop without being part of such a community (I know the literature suggests this, but in trying to think practically about starting communities that have specific affinity to the maximum human development and alignment with the creative direction of the Cosmos). It's kind of a chicken and egg question for me, it seems. There SHOULD be a certain amount of character development within the individuals that form a community, but then the highest development may only be possible WITHIN such a community?

 

[Joe]

Obviously "sin" relates directly to the ideas of good and bad, and Gurdjieff has provided the idea of the "law of three" i.e. there is good, bad and the specific situation that determines which is which. He also said that anything that progresses a person towards their aim is "good", anything that does the opposite is "bad". So sin and good and bad are all hopelessly and pointlessly subjective or dictated from without until a person has an aim.

Yep. I cannot say this any better than you...
To a cannibal, raised in cannibalism, can you tell them they sin when they know nothing else?

I understand the point. But I'm not convinced that aims are wholly subjective. When speaking strictly in relation to a single person and their aim, sure. But if aims, ends, teloi are somehow intrinsic to the universe (e.g. as 'thought centers' or archetypes or information patterns), then anyone can be evaluated in reference to those aims, and if their own individual aims align with larger aims or cosmic 'trajectories'. Some aims will align with the 'goal' of 7D union through the STO path, and others will not (i.e. STS up to 4D, reflected in 6D).

When we speak of an "aim" here, we're talking about it in Gurdjieffian terms. The universe/living system has an aim - to perpetuate itself - and there are other individual or group aims that seek to work within that broad aim, so yes, everything is "aimed" at something. The question here as it related to character development/esoteric work on the self, is whether or not that aim is your own conscious aim based on an objective observation and reading of reality.

Gurdjieff also spoke in terms of "laws" to which beings at different levels of development are subject. So we could depersonalize this and say that "aim" is a purely subjective concept that doesn't really exist in the sense that anyone can pick whatever "aim" they like and go for it. Rather, we could say that the "aim" for each being at each level of development is to remove itself from all or some of the "laws" to which it is subject and move on to the next level of development where less "laws" are in force and therefore more freedom is obtained.

 

[whitecoast]

Obviously "sin" relates directly to the ideas of good and bad, and Gurdjieff has provided the idea of the "law of three" i.e. there is good, bad and the specific situation that determines which is which. He also said that anything that progresses a person towards their aim is "good", anything that does the opposite is "bad". So sin and good and bad are all hopelessly and pointlessly subjective or dictated from without until a person has an aim.

Yep. I cannot say this any better than you...
To a cannibal, raised in cannibalism, can you tell them they sin when they know nothing else?

I understand the point. But I'm not convinced that aims are wholly subjective. When speaking strictly in relation to a single person and their aim, sure. But if aims, ends, teloi are somehow intrinsic to the universe (e.g. as 'thought centers' or archetypes or information patterns), then anyone can be evaluated in reference to those aims, and if their own individual aims align with larger aims or cosmic 'trajectories'. Some aims will align with the 'goal' of 7D union through the STO path, and others will not (i.e. STS up to 4D, reflected in 6D).

When we speak of an "aim" here, we're talking about it in Gurdjieffian terms. The universe/living system has an aim - to perpetuate itself - and there are other individual or group aims that seek to work within that broad aim, so yes, everything is "aimed" at something. The question here as it related to character development/esoteric work on the self, is whether or not that aim is your own conscious aim based on an objective observation and reading of reality.

Gurdjieff also spoke in terms of "laws" to which beings at different levels of development are subject. So we could depersonalize this and say that "aim" is a purely subjective concept that doesn't really exist in the sense that anyone can pick whatever "aim" they like and go for it. Rather, we could say that the "aim" for each being at each level of development is to remove itself from all or some of the "laws" to which it is subject and move on to the next level of development where less "laws" are in force and therefore more freedom is obtained.

To follow up with this idea, Ibn Al Arabi talks about God having two commands for each created thing: the engendering command and the proscriptive command. All things, by virtue of being created by God, are acting through the will of his essence (7D). This is the engendering command. STS and STO alike obey this command to act as they are or have potential to act. The proscriptive command, which manifests through the input of cosmic information, is different. We are capable of heeding or ignoring this command. Obedience to the proscriptive command leads to felicity and alignment with the beneficent faces of God. Disobedience to this command leads to wretchedness and the maleficent faces of God. Of course, Arabi characterizes following this command as obeying the koran, which I doubt is the case. Obviously STO beings do not "command". So it's up to those whose engendered command compels them to search for the proscriptive command to clean their reading instruments.

 

[dant]

Awesome! Great post!

 

[shijing]

The question is, "Is developing one's character all there is to 'religion' or is there more?" Well religion, as I understand it, is all about the afterlife, heaven. We don't develop our character to serve our religion, rather our religion serves to enable us to develop our character for the purpose of making ourselves suitable to be accepted into heaven - the "good" afterlife, as opposed to the bad one (hades), which requires no character development.

My understanding of the concept of this forum, at least in part, is that members are developing their character for transition into 4th density. This is a purpose, not simply to satisfy the C's or your own or each others egos - the C's are aiding you in the right way to do this. Am I altogether wrong?

Not altogether, but there are some subtle points that you'll probably understand better once you continue reading and allow yourself time to digest more material.

From what I gather according to what you wrote above, you are equating 4th density with "heaven". In our understanding, there is no "heaven" or "hades", in the eternal Judeo-Christian sense, awaiting us once we die -- upon death, souls return to 5th density, which is a "contemplation zone" where the lessons of the most recent life are reviewed in preparation for the next incarnation, where further lessons will be chosen to continue our character development.

We eventually "graduate" to 4th density as a strictly natural phenomenon, when we have learned the lessons we need to learn in 3rd density and our knowledge and being have developed sufficiently to move on. It's not something that's "earned" in the sense we are often conditioned to think by the monotheistic religions; it reflects a process similar to a plant germinating from a seed, or a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly -- it happens at the appropriate time based solely on natural laws.

A common pitfall for us is to want to do whatever we can to reach 4th density as soon as possible, because we assume it will be better than what we currently experience in 3rd density -- to "get to heaven" if you will. However, this kind of thinking is actually STS (and therefore counterproductive), because we are ultimately doing this for selfish reasons, even if we may not be aware of this at a completely conscious level. It is not an obvious point, and often requires patience on our part as we get to know our own thinking better, and work on seeing ourselves and our motives more objectively.

I hope this is helpful. Don't feel rushed, because learning can't be -- sometimes we need to just be patient for awhile and let new information sink in, particularly when it directly challenges a worldview that we've held for a long time.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

We eventually "graduate" to 4th density as a strictly natural phenomenon, when we have learned the lessons we need to learn in 3rd density and our knowledge and being have developed sufficiently to move on. It's not something that's "earned" in the sense we are often conditioned to think by the monotheistic religions; it reflects a process similar to a plant germinating from a seed, or a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly -- it happens at the appropriate time based solely on natural laws.

Just wanted to point out a qualifier here to avoid any misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure by 'natural', you just mean it in the sense of "the way things are". But 'natural laws' are usually understood as mechanistic, materialistic laws, i.e. things that 'just happen' without any input by us or any 'higher powers'. So I wouldn't disagree with anything in the above; I'd just make clear that 'naturalism' should be expanded to include things like free will, consciousness, and 'built-in' processes and functions in addition to physical laws.

 

[davey72]

Hi ARC. I am not very theologically learned myself, so am unable to add anything, but i thought maybe the casswiki may be of interest to you in your search. Here are two entries.

http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Religion

http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Fourth_Way

 

[shijing]

I'm pretty sure by 'natural', you just mean it in the sense of "the way things are". But 'natural laws' are usually understood as mechanistic, materialistic laws, i.e. things that 'just happen' without any input by us or any 'higher powers'. So I wouldn't disagree with anything in the above; I'd just make clear that 'naturalism' should be expanded to include things like free will, consciousness, and 'built-in' processes and functions in addition to physical laws.

Yes, that's exactly right -- I appreciate the clarification, AI.

 

[John G]

We eventually "graduate" to 4th density as a strictly natural phenomenon, when we have learned the lessons we need to learn in 3rd density and our knowledge and being have developed sufficiently to move on. It's not something that's "earned" in the sense we are often conditioned to think by the monotheistic religions; it reflects a process similar to a plant germinating from a seed, or a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly -- it happens at the appropriate time based solely on natural laws.

Just wanted to point out a qualifier here to avoid any misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure by 'natural', you just mean it in the sense of "the way things are". But 'natural laws' are usually understood as mechanistic, materialistic laws, i.e. things that 'just happen' without any input by us or any 'higher powers'. So I wouldn't disagree with anything in the above; I'd just make clear that 'naturalism' should be expanded to include things like free will, consciousness, and 'built-in' processes and functions in addition to physical laws.

Yes thus there's no reason that the laws of nature/physics can't include free will, consciousness, and built in processes that can be teleological. Kind of like with Thomas Nagel and his teleological evolution, there's an all roads lead to Rome effect but you can choose roads better as you learn more which is good cause some roads could include a trip back to primordial matter before moving back up the ladder. In a facebook foundations of logic group I'm in I phrased it as scientific realism and monistic idealism (kind of fundamental units of consciousness at the top of the ladder) aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[obyvatel]

Thinking over this discussion, I'm wondering if there's a certain "minimum threshold" of character development for the individuals that would make up a community (to make the community coherent), but that it's taken to a whole new level within the community? Perhaps there's a limit where any individual can develop without being part of such a community (I know the literature suggests this, but in trying to think practically about starting communities that have specific affinity to the maximum human development and alignment with the creative direction of the Cosmos). It's kind of a chicken and egg question for me, it seems. There SHOULD be a certain amount of character development within the individuals that form a community, but then the highest development may only be possible WITHIN such a community?

Per my understanding, if the goal is transformation, then no one can do it by the merit of his own efforts alone. Rare exceptions can possibly include those who are called "prophets and messengers" (Sufism has descriptions) - but then their goal is different from transformation anyway, so not relevant here. To transform help is needed. Help can come from various sources. G did not talk about community but a school as a source of help. In a school there are teachers/more advanced students who help themselves and others at a different level. While a community is different from a school, there are usually more advanced people required to start a community as well. So how are teachers/more advanced students "made" which would make a school possible in the first place?

My current understanding is that teachers/advanced students/community leaders are "made" with help as well but such help comes from sources which may include a community but goes above and beyond that penetrating deeply in the domain of what was discussed as "grace" earlier in the thread. There are people with potential for development beyond average, who through a combination of their own efforts (knowledge input, struggle, sacrifice) and help from outside become capable of starting new schools or communities or rejuvenating existing ones. They attract people who are colinear and thus a nucleus gets formed around which bigger groups can be formed. This is how it has worked here and in all such places in the past afaik.

So I do not necessarily agree with the general statement that the highest form of development can only happen from within a community. History shows otherwise as far as exceptional people go. They had to be dissatisfied with their status quo, venture out of it, struggle, suffer and develop in a qualitatively different way to reach a different level, and then come back to help others.

The key point is such paths are not destined for everyone. For most people, their own individual highest state of development is more likely to be reached within a community of colinear people.

In human history, communities have been the norm rather than an exception. People have always banded together and still do in most places for the many obvious advantages that numbers provide - especially in the domain of getting things done. The question is not whether a community is good or necessary imo. The challenge for communities is to figure out methods and create conditions in which members of a variety of essence qualities can achieve qualitative development. Only then can a community overall continue growing qualitatively instead of just increasing its numbers.

As far as the level of character development required to join a community, I feel it is preferable to have a degree of humility which would enable one to take on board and seriously consider the community view when that view conflicts with one's own. Without this, all other talents a person may have or develop may not be of benefit to him/herself or the community in the long run - osit.