Religion as character development

[luke wilson]

I've no idea how it connects to character building or virtues but employing the art of listening must surely play some role somewhere...

I was reading about the maxims of good discource and I liked what the analysis had to say about listening/hearing (both having different distinctions). It looks like many of these concepts are almost timeless and people have been talking about them since forever.

I liked this bit of the analysis

(441 - 449) introducing the difference between "hearing" and "listening"

Useful (luminous) & splendid is listening to one who hears. By entering the ears, words are heard. After hearing is perfected (a master-hearer who is an artisan of reception & reproduction), the hearer may "listen with his heart" or "inner being" and do more than only hear. Only listeners are able to surpass the limits of what they heard and hence move beyond the mere recitation of what they heard. The good discourse is a creative one, for speaking well adds something to the traditions one heard. Listening focusses on what is good, excellent & accomplished. To one who hears, it is splendid because it adds a new dimension : the manifestation of what is good, namely perfect love. So, when the good son "grasps" his father's words, he did more than just hear spoken words and comprehend them, he "read" them as living good examples of doing Maat. Then the sayings of the ancestors become so many memorial sign-posts pointing to Maat and the ongoing process of balancing-out according to the "Great Balance". Hearing is beneficial but listening is a good old age. The latter only depends on the condition of one's heart ... (greedy materialists have no tomb).

(450 - 502) the difference between "a listener" and a "non-listener" : the wise versus the fool

The distinction between "listener" and "non-listener" is pertinent : the former is loved by god, the latter hated. As we already know, it is the "heart" which decides what will be the case, not the "ears". Human freedom is made explicit. The fool decided not to listen. He who knows, i.e. the wise, always listens. Ptahhotep points out that the natural state of man's heart is positive and constructive : life, prosperity & health ! So, the fool is a product of his own choice. Death, poverty and sickness (the injured Eye), which are his every day, are the outcome of neglecting the plummet. These defects ought not to be (normative) but just are because people made & continue to make wrong choices, causing the scale to flip to one extreme of the spectrum of possible balancing states. They do not restore the Eye, and so never acquire the "third Eye" that always watches the plumb-line.

Of course, there is no listening without hearing (it is the hearer who listens to what is said). Moreover, the listener speaks well (is master of what is good) and does what is said (the hearer benefits too, but this does not necessarily mean that he will change his mind or way of life).

The ultimate realization for a son is to hear his father say that he is a master of listening. Note that Ptahhotep points out that one may teach one's son to be a hearer, but never to be a listener. The latter depends on the heart of the son and can only be affirmed by those nobles who listened to the words of the son and observed his excellent deeds.

"As for You, teach him then the sayings of the past, so that he may become a good example for the children of the great. May hearing enter him and the exactness of every heart that speaks to him. No one is born wise."

So maybe add listening into the mix.... being able to listen especially when what you are hearing is going against what you may call personal sacred cows I assume is a quality that will only add to character... We've all witnessed many people who are unable to hear or listen.... I like the notion of community as well and transmission of what is right/wrong through generations - father to son and so forth... Can you have character and virtue if you aren't taught? Surely a huge chunk of who we are is taught...

Thinking about myself, not sure about anyone else, all my vices were taught... it's my assumption that very few normal people are born with vices.. they learn them. Regarding the difference between sin and vice, I tend to agree with Mr Premise

As to the vice vs sin thing. My understanding has been that vice is a habit that harms oneself where sin is a deeper offense against others, God, the universe, whatever. For the example, gambling is usually considered a vice not a sin. It harms oneself but isn't morally wrong (except in the eyes of some hardcore funnies).

But in a different light, I suppose you can argue that vice is a sin, if you think of your body and your being as the abode of God, the universe, whatever, then by harming yourself, you are inadvertently committing some deeper offence... But then the universe gave us free will and surely part of that is the rightful choice to transgress? So is a sin an objective thing i.e. transgression against the universe/God/Whatever...

But in reading that site, they talk about "living in accordance with maat" which as per my understanding alligns with what AI described here

My experience is that in order to be a “good person” one has to learn as much as possible about REALITY—the reality that YOU live in (which may not be exactly the same as anyone else’s reality). Not just making beautiful gestures, not just looking for information that supports what you want to believe, but looking for what is real and how reality works. And then, living, acting and making decisions according to what you know about reality.

I think this is well put. In other words, it's this awareness of all aspects of reality that helps us to make good decisions, based on the way reality really works. So, here on the forum we have info on diet, health, relationships, understanding political realities, learning to identify and transform our programming, dealing with hyperdimensional realities, and more. All this information helps us to transform our old ways of living into new ones. We learn to behave in new ways based on an objective reading of all aspects of reality. And without that information, we wouldn't be able to do it.

i.e. living in accordance with truth. If you transgress against what I suppose is objective reality, then you introduce imbalance into the system and chaos will occur, social disorder, disease, decay etc.... So I suppose maybe sin exists at our level and is a law that is real, if by committing sin, the result is negative to either individuals or societies then I suppose it's something to take seriously for self preservation reasons.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking gibberish now... LOL! Al Today, I feel like you do... but anyways, that's all I got to add!!!

Oh yeah, ka, you have an interesting name... I was getting confused and always have been by the notion of essence and personality. I sort of understand personality, it's how I come across, but essence/soul is a hard concept to really understand. What is it and why all the different names? soul/essence/spirit etc etc.... I may be wrong but I think your name along with other concepts like Ba, akh provide a different angle to look at the same thing. I don't know enough about it right now (just been seeing references on the linked site) but maybe you do seeing you chose it as a name?

 

[Mr. Premise]

i.e. living in accordance with truth. If you transgress against what I suppose is objective reality, then you introduce imbalance into the system and chaos will occur, social disorder, disease, decay etc.... So I suppose maybe sin exists at our level and is a law that is real, if by committing sin, the result is negative to either individuals or societies then I suppose it's something to take seriously for self preservation reasons.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking gibberish now... LOL! Al Today, I feel like you do... but anyways, that's all I got to add.

That makes sense (in other words not gibberish). It reminds me of St. Augustine's conception of sin. To put it in different terms, it's an offense against the higher self, so it makes a person divided, since a part of a person wants to live in harmony with God (or the Universe as we might say) even as another part selfishly doesn't want to. So you're split. In Gurdjieff's terms you could say that being divided that way makes it impossible for you to Do anything

 

[Joe]

So I was thinking a little more about this topic of 'character development' and it occurred to me that, given the nature of human society, the vast majority of people need work on their 'characters', with the development of character being synonymous with working on issues/programs instilled in us from childhood that have prevented us from being as true to our real selves as we might be. This also relates to something Laura mentions often: to heal the past, you change the present, and that takes care of the future.

If 'character' is a list of virtues like honesty, integrity, selflessness etc. then most people have problems in these areas and the work on the self as described by Gurdjieff, and as further explicated and simplified by the work of this forum, provides practical ways to deal with these problems.

From our understanding of the value of communities working towards a common aim, character development is very important. Character defects can present problems for the success of communal living projects and communal living projects present almost ideal conditions for revealing character problems that are inimical to successful communal living.

For example, if I'm lazy and don't do my share of the work, that becomes a problem for others. If I'm selfish and take more than my share, that also is a problem. Or if I'm dishonest, that too is a problem for proper community function (you can think of other examples I'm sure). The feedback and 'mirroring' aspect of community life, as we see it, serves to help others (and ourselves) develop their characters in a positive direction.

The idea of 'fixing the past' is also interesting in this context. In theory there is a complete list of character 'flaws' that could be traced back to experiences from early childhood development, or even 'past lives'. But whatever the source of these ingrained, learned ways of behaving, by correcting them through feedback from others and our own conscious efforts, could it not be said that at the point where all such flaws have been corrected, the past that created these flaws has been effectively changed? Because we are no longer acting in a way that is dictated by that past? I think it can, at least, be said that the past has been changed in terms of how it relates to our present selves. Or that the past is no longer 'relevant' because it no longer holds such sway over our present experiences, which are the experiences that will define the future.

As for how religion enters into all of this; I think that if such a process is couched in religious or spiritual terms it can be useful as a motivational tool. People need motivation after all, and as long as the religious context presented is not delusional and instead based largely on the practices I described above, then it is certainly a good idea. Christianity, for example, promises a 'new world'/heaven etc. where the problems and suffering of this world are no more, a kind of utopia. Well, in a general sense, that idea seem in keeping with the Work practices of community-based character development and "healing the past to change the future" I described above.

 

[SeekinTruth]

It's funny, I was thinking about it in a very similar way the other day about "changing" the past, Perceval. We may not be able to change what happened in the past, but we can certainly change the relationship of the past to our present attitudes and behaviors.

 

[Pierre]

We may not be able to change what happened in the past, but we can certainly change the relationship of the past to our present attitudes and behaviors.

We can also perceive the past in a different way, i.e. assess it more objectively.

 

[Laura]

We may not be able to change what happened in the past, but we can certainly change the relationship of the past to our present attitudes and behaviors.

We can also perceive the past in a different way, i.e. assess it more objectively.

We can also literally change it. Because today soon becomes the past...

 

[Mr. Premise]

Regarding grace, maybe it's a function not of the universe, where we get what we deserve (grace being an unmerited gift) but a function of the higher self or future self. I'm thinking of what the Cs said recently that if we do all we can our future self can close the gap.

 

[Laura]

Regarding grace, maybe it's a function not of the universe, where we get what we deserve (grace being an unmerited gift) but a function of the higher self or future self. I'm thinking of what the Cs said recently that if we do all we can our future self can close the gap.

I think Grace is when you align with the Universe's purpose way of seeing things and stop thinking/acting orthogonally to the Creative principle.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Regarding grace, maybe it's a function not of the universe, where we get what we deserve (grace being an unmerited gift) but a function of the higher self or future self. I'm thinking of what the Cs said recently that if we do all we can our future self can close the gap.

I think Grace is when you align with the Universe's purpose way of seeing things and stop thinking/acting orthogonally to the Creative principle.

And in order to do that, we need to see reality as it is, from our bodies, emotions, and minds to the wider world around us. I think the reason grace is a 'gift' is because "the truth is out there!' We just need to do our part by seeking it, and implementing it in our own lives. And we can't do it on our own: we need each other.

 

[mkrnhr]

Regarding grace, maybe it's a function not of the universe, where we get what we deserve (grace being an unmerited gift) but a function of the higher self or future self. I'm thinking of what the Cs said recently that if we do all we can our future self can close the gap.

I think Grace is when you align with the Universe's purpose way of seeing things and stop thinking/acting orthogonally to the Creative principle.

And in order to do that, we need to see reality as it is, from our bodies, emotions, and minds to the wider world around us. I think the reason grace is a 'gift' is because "the truth is out there!' We just need to do our part by seeking it, and implementing it in our own lives. And we can't do it on our own: we need each other.

Grace can be seen as what is being received when one has a well aligned receivership capacity.

 

[Buddy]

I think Grace is when you align with the Universe's purpose way of seeing things and stop thinking/acting orthogonally to the Creative principle.

Whenever I read anything written by you and Perceval on Grace, I get a feel for a simpler time in my life before pathological thinking, behaving and living conditions began to influence me - changing me in ways I thoroughly disagreed with but could in no way stop due to ignorance. To improve my character by working to reduce my own psychological complexity inherited from those previous life experiences would seem able to 'gift' me with a return to a state similar to the simplicity and innocence of youth - but as an adult version and with the full rememberance of the struggle involved.

I can't fully describe what I feel in y'all's descriptions, but this is like a constant that's present. If we were talking about a scale of forms, and character development is the variable, then the more work one does, the more the variable increases until a certain critical threshold is reached and the 'shape' or form of something (character maybe?) suddenly changes to the next higher form and the felt experience would be a positive one and its description would match how y'all talk about it.

Anybody can do a forum or site search on Grace and see it for themselves and someone else may see something different but this is what I see and I wanted to express appreciation for the opportunity to share it.

 

[3DStudent]

I had typed this out, and just caught up to this thread:

It seems that we are open to grace, but must have the catalyst, or suffering to open up to the reception of those energies. Gurdjieff says we should be thankful for the people who show us our undesirable selves. But it seems we should also be thankful for our suffering.

On a related note, I wonder if we really should regret our faults, mistakes, and periods of great suffering? I often beat myself up over mistakes thinking something like, "Oh well, if I had not made that mistake or had behaved better, I would be on a different and better timeline." But isn't our current path, our current reality, exactly what we need to learn? And therefore, exactly the "right" path? Or put otherwise, isn't it like a two sided coin, where there is suffering on one side, and then a great lesson you learned on the other?

A thought I had now is that so with what Perceval is saying, it seems there may be a cap or limit to standard morality or character development when you don't include spirituality. To be truly spiritual and make that jump, you need some spiritual construct, i.e. religion. Life is religion. If you need life, you need religion of some sort. Ideally that would be objective and true, as you can have a religion and live life based on mundane things. That was mentioned this recent podcast, which I recommend: What's up with religion?

 

[obyvatel]

On a related note, I wonder if we really should regret our faults, mistakes, and periods of great suffering? I often beat myself up over mistakes thinking something like, "Oh well, if I had not made that mistake or had behaved better, I would be on a different and better timeline." But isn't our current path, our current reality, exactly what we need to learn? And therefore, exactly the "right" path? Or put otherwise, isn't it like a two sided coin, where there is suffering on one side, and then a great lesson you learned on the other?

Our current reality is just what it is. Blaming ourselves for past "mistakes" will not change the current reality. Yet we do this to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe it is because we want ourselves and others and the world to be different from what we/they are. While wishing to be better is a necessary condition for development, I doubt if regrets help.

To develop, we need understanding and energy. Regrets can arise with understanding, when we recollect our past actions and discover possibilities of acting differently. However if we expend energy in blaming ourselves for our past actions, then that energy is not really used for development. So from this perspective, "beating oneself up for past mistakes" is bad because it hinders development, assuming development is the goal we are working towards.

Apart from this utilitarian perspective, the approach I find useful towards past mistakes is to channelize the emotional "charge" which arises from an understanding of the past mistakes towards developing "humility". The fact is I did not understand what was the better way to think or act in the past, yet I may have been sure then that I was doing the right thing. I may have learnt the immediate lesson associated with the particular past incident where I made the mistakes now, but have I learnt the bigger lesson? Humility is an attitude which makes me aware that whatever I may understand at the moment is incomplete. One of its functions is to keep egoism in check. As humility grows in us, the tendency to "beat ourselves up" reduces - or so I have experienced.

[quote author=3D Student]
It seems that we are open to grace, but must have the catalyst, or suffering to open up to the reception of those energies. Gurdjieff says we should be thankful for the people who show us our undesirable selves. But it seems we should also be thankful for our suffering.
[/quote]

I think it depends on how we understand suffering. It seems that the term "suffering" is used by different people to indicate different things. I don't know much about Christian theology but from the little I have read about it, it seems that this term "suffering" is given a lot of emphasis. Suffering is not glorified in other religions. A lot depends on what exactly is meant by suffering.

Gurdjieff used the term "intentional suffering", which he considered to be useful, in a specific way. My understanding of how Gurdjieff used it, in a nutshell, is to set a goal of one's own initiative and work towards realizing it, enduring whatever difficulties and pain might come in the way. His life was a testimony to such intentional suffering.

As for being thankful to people who show us a side of ourselves which we find undesirable, it would come naturally if we really had self-knowledge and development as our true goals. Then we would be thankful for learning something about ourselves that we did not know earlier. It usually is painful to our egoism. So we may have to suffer or endure the pain that comes from the removal of certain illusions about ourselves. However such suffering is not the main focus of the process but rather a byproduct.
OSIT

 

[Buddy]

On a related note, I wonder if we really should regret our faults, mistakes, and periods of great suffering?

Phrased that way, it certainly doesn't seem like dwelling on regret would lead to anything beneficial. I would open that up a bit and ask something like: I wonder if feeling regret at our faults, mistakes and suffering might be a sign of a hidden arrogance of the false personality...as if we were actually "one" who had any choice to act in any other way than we did at that time? (I'm assuming you've studied Gurdjieff)

"Oh well, if I had not made that mistake or had behaved better, I would be on a different and better timeline." But isn't our current path, our current reality, exactly what we need to learn? And therefore, exactly the "right" path?

You recognize a relationship of some sort to "time", so I might suggest that in G's cosmology, there is a concept of timing or "poise". It is said that this is an example of the "originary" time that is man's only apparent hope of getting out of an otherwise fully automated way of life. To explain this, the metaphor used is of a dancer. The dancer has learned her movements well and any given step flows automatically to the next with no conscious thought needed. However, at a tiny point in time, after finishing a twirl, there is a split second where she could collect herself before launching into the next movement. At this point, she could, if she wanted, do something different. This is referred to as "poise before entering the fray."

On the public forum, a useful analogy seems to be to read a post and then take the time to think about what the poster is saying and the background context in which the saying is taking place before replying. Or something like that.

"Timing", or poise is practiced by looking for those split-second windows where, like the dancer, if you will "collect yourself" before continuing your movement, you may have an opportunity to do something different, maybe even novel. You may experience a more creative sense of yourself. Over time and with practice, you would become familiar with a feeling you might understand as participating in the creative evolution of the Absolute.

As to what this has to do with Grace, I'm not sure yet. I'm still synthesizing the two contexts of Work involved in your question and my reply: G's and the work this forum represents.