Session 20 August 2011

[François]

Are you familiar with Gurdjieff's work?

To answer precisely to your question : no.

 

[François]

- some ones hurt me deeply (not shock) and install a deep sadness

That's what shocks do Francois, they hurt - deeply. This is what a shock IS.

He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.
Agamemnon, Aeschylus

Say like that what I say 'hurt deeply' is 'shock', I agree.

I let the sadness to be installing, and will see what happens, will stay a short, long time, according to my own thought developping.

In saying 'not shock' I wanted to say : I am able to 'hear' things which hurt me deeply.

 

[Denis]

- some ones hurt me deeply (not shock) and install a deep sadness

That's what shocks do Francois, they hurt - deeply. This is what a shock IS.

He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.
Agamemnon, Aeschylus

Say like that what I say 'hurt deeply' is 'shock', I agree

I let the sadness to be installing, and will see what happens, will stay a short, long time, according my own thought developping.

In saying 'not shock' I wanted to say : I am able to 'hear' things which hurt me deeply.

Perhaps you feel deeply hurt because you developed a habit of hearing from other people what you WANT to hear, instead of what you HAVE to hear. OSIT

 

[Laura]

Perhaps you feel deeply hurt because you developed a habit of hearing from other people what you WANT to hear, instead of what you HAVE to hear. OSIT

That's pretty normal in a society where nobody ever speaks the truth or speaks sincerely. Conversation is a power game.

But the same is true to SOME extent in the U.S. though not so severe.

 

[François]

Perhaps you feel deeply hurt because you developed a habit of hearing from other people what you WANT to hear, instead of what you HAVE to hear.

Probably you are right and I have to hear that I am hypocrit, among other things, even it is not I think as far as I can know me, but this is open... This is why I say sadness, before digesting this if I am able.

 

[Denis]

Perhaps you feel deeply hurt because you developed a habit of hearing from other people what you WANT to hear, instead of what you HAVE to hear.

Probably you are right and I have to hear that I am hypocrit, among other things, even it is not I think as far as I can know me, but this is open... This is why I say sadness, before digesting this if I am able.

Well, you've been caught in a lie and you've had a lot of contradictions in your posts, and Laura called you out on that. What did you expect?

As long as you are identifying with your false personality (by mechanically reacting without thinking beforehand), people will point that out to you.
It is not really YOU that feels deeply hurt but your false ego- nothing hurts him more than being exposed in front of everyone. Trust me, I know it from my own personal experience. Ego is a difficult beast to conquer.

 

[Alana]

Perhaps you feel deeply hurt because you developed a habit of hearing from other people what you WANT to hear, instead of what you HAVE to hear.

Probably you are right and I have to hear that I am hypocrit, among other things, even it is not I think as far as I can know me, but this is open... This is why I say sadness, before digesting this if I am able.

We all have a part of us that's a hypocrite, but that's not all we are. We have lot's of other parts, good and bad. What we try to do on this forum is to eliminate the expression of those parts of us that keep us from forming true, intimate relationships with one another, prevent us from seeing the reality in ourselves and the world around us, and discovering who we really are at the core, below the pathological personalities we adopted from our families, cultures, religions, peer groups etc.

You wrote that you are not familiar with the work of Gurdjieff, and this might be one of the reasons that you don't understand what we talk about when we refer to "shocks" or multiple "I's". If you read Ouspensky's book, In Search of The Miraculous: fragments of an Unknown Teaching, you will understand the language we speak and what Work means on this forum...

I don't know it it's translated in French, it might be the first one on this list but I am not sure:

http://www.amazon.fr/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_fr_FR=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Ouspensky&x=0&y=0

 

[mkrnhr]

Actually ISOTM exists in French: http://www.amazon.fr/Fragments-dun-enseignement-inconnu-Ouspensky/dp/223405625X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314569576&sr=8-1

 

[François]

SolarMother,

Francois

I remember I read recently this on Mayans, and I get the reference :



Quote from: Session February 25, 1995
Q: (BP) Were the Mayans an STS civilization?
A: No.
Q: (BP) Why did they engage in human sacrifice and so forth?
A: They did not.
Q: (BP) They did not?! (L) I think that's an archaeological fallacy. (TM) Yes. (BP) Isn't that fascinating! (TM) I am going to be looking into that in the next
couple of months. (L) You ain't heard nothin' yet! (TM) Wasn't there another group... the Toltecs, were they the ones who engaged in human sacrifice?
A: At some point.

As long as this was not a "Frank corrupted" session, it could have been an older civilazation, the Toltecs.--that makes more sense.
The session below, 10, December 1994, is not the one I had in mind (about South America) but it does say something about the Mayans, but nothing about them eating people, but they themselves being eaten!

Q: (L) What happened to the Mayans?

A: Taken by Lizard beings to cosmos in 4 D. "Lizzieland."

Q: (L) What did they do with them there?




A: Many possibilities.

Q: (L) Do any of those possibilities include having them for dinner? Sorry about that, I couldn't help myself. (J) "Mayan Helper." And I helped!

A: Maybe.

This is said here : Topic: Who were the Mayans? > http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8988.0

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

 

[mkrnhr]

François....
Solarmother didn't say the YOU corrupted the transcripts. If you read the Wave, you will see that some transcripts are less reliable than others. For example the presence of "Franck" during the sessions corrupted the information through his anticipation and wishfull thinking. So, SolarMother used the term "Franck corrupted session", which means sessions that are very probably corrupted by the presence of Franck.
Again, it is not about you...

 

[anart]

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

Isn't it absolutely exhausting to assume that everyone, at all times, is talking about you in a negative way? You really - really - need to get a grip on your emotional thinking, it's completely out of control.

 

[François]

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

means :

I precised that I have not collected any corrupted transcripts, because I have not collected the data myself

Please don't think I think SolarMother is thinking I corrupted something...

I posted just before the link to Cassiopaean forum topic on Mayan for clarification. Just to say data are not coming from my side (= collected by me) but are existing in the forum database, so if corrupted this is said or discussed in the topic on Mayans, and yes as you can read this is discussed, I have estimated that it was interesting to notice, but 'Franck' is not mentionned.

You can reproach this is badly expressed, or written too quickly, but there is nothing of what you suppose behind...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

means :

I precised that I have not collected any corrupted transcripts, because I have not collected the data myself

Please don't think I think SolarMother is thinking I corrupted something...

I posted just before the link to Cassiopaean forum topic on Mayan for clarification. Just to say data are not coming from my side (= collected by me) but are existing in the forum database, so if corrupted this is said or discussed in the topic on Mayans, and yes as you can read this is discussed, I have estimated that it was interesting to notice, but 'Franck' is not mentionned.

You can reproach this is badly expressed, or written too quickly, but there is nothing of what you suppose behind...

Francois, talk about completely missing the point! mkrnhr was basically just telling you not to worry and letting you know what SM meant by "corrupted". It's obvious you did not understand her, so he clarified. In other words, he was being considerate and hospitable towards your misunderstanding (and even with your clarification above, it's still clear that it WAS a misunderstanding). And then you go and take this legalistic, nitpicking tone defending yourself. Lighten up, man!

I can only second what anart has written: "Isn't it absolutely exhausting to assume that everyone, at all times, is talking about you in a negative way? You really - really - need to get a grip on your emotional thinking, it's completely out of control."

 

[EGVG]

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

means :

I precised that I have not collected any corrupted transcripts, because I have not collected the data myself

Please don't think I think SolarMother is thinking I corrupted something...

I posted just before the link to Cassiopaean forum topic on Mayan for clarification. Just to say data are not coming from my side (= collected by me) but are existing in the forum database, so if corrupted this is said or discussed in the topic on Mayans, and yes as you can read this is discussed, I have estimated that it was interesting to notice, but 'Franck' is not mentionned.

You can reproach this is badly expressed, or written too quickly, but there is nothing of what you suppose behind...

Francois, you've done it again. Anart is right, your waisting your energy in thinking legalistically and assuming, is exhausting for me to read, I can only imagine how draining must be for you.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

I am here because I thought C's material I discovered on the Net 10 years ago is valuable (that I said as newbie)

Are you familiar with Gurdjieff's work?

To answer precisely to your question : no.

I do not have corrupted transcripts.

means :

I precised that I have not collected any corrupted transcripts, because I have not collected the data myself

Please don't think I think SolarMother is thinking I corrupted something...

I posted just before the link to Cassiopaean forum topic on Mayan for clarification...

You can reproach this is badly expressed, or written too quickly, but there is nothing of what you suppose behind...

François, I for one am shocked that you are not familiar with Gurdijeff's work if you found the C's material 10 years ago! This shows to me that you either pick and choose what to read, which says a lot about you as a person as a whole, (note that I said a person in general not a French person), or that you did not really find the C's material 10 years a go... or that you just don't grok anything written here at all! Also, your claim that you "have not collected any corrupted transcripts, because you have not collected the data yourself" makes no sense to me. The transcripts are the way they are. Everyone has access to the same transcripts. If you have read the Wave, which explains the detailed background of the transcrips- than you would have known what Solarmother was talking about when she said "Frank corrupt sessions". This again shows me that you have not read the wave, and your posts are hard to understand, not because of a language barrier, but because you really don't understand what this website's work IS.

And finally, you say

You can reproach this is badly expressed, or written too quickly, but there is nothing of what you suppose behind...

Don't blame your complete lack of communicaton on it being written too quickly because as I said above, it doesn't seem to be so. And if it is, why not take Windmill Knight's suggestion of NOT POSTING unless you have completely thought it through so you're not creating anymore noise. This is also called external consideration. Are you at least familiar with that concept?