Session 4 April 2015

[zak]

Another common misapplication of the idea is the New Age thought that one may accede to the unity of all things just by imagining it. At the human level, it seems the application of all is one is realized by actively participating and studying all which is, as objectively as possible.

Hi zak,

I think your summation is outstanding. I would like to add a trailer (my words) to the above.
Hopefully it will make sense.

At the human level, it seems the application of "all is one" is realized by
actively participating and studying all which is, as objectively as possible.

And that it does not stop there. Because in doing so, our internal transformation towards
STO and eventual one-ness gains. And there's perhaps a constant awareness needed
to recognize those gains in order to accelerate it further along. A certain mindfulness.

And that this particular desire for more gain is not STS.


FWIW.

Ditto from me Zak,

I agree with sitting that your summation is outstanding. :)

What is really outstanding, it's to be here as one networking
with the all of you networking !

I would like, sitting, to add too a quote of G (Views from the Real World) to your trailer:

"LIBERATION LEADS TO LIBERATION. These are the first words of truth — not truth in quotation marks but truth in the real meaning of the word; truth which is not merely theoretical, not simply a word, but truth that can be realized in practice. The meaning behind these words may be explained as follows:
By liberation is meant the liberation which is the aim of all schools, all religions, at all times.
This liberation can indeed be very great. All men desire it and strive after it. But it cannot be attained without the first liberation, a lesser liberation. The great liberation is liberation from influences outside us. The lesser liberation is liberation from influences within us.
At first, for beginners, this lesser liberation appears to be very great, for a beginner depends very little on external influences. Only a man who has already become free of inner influences falls under external influences.
Inner influences prevent a man from falling under external influences. Maybe it is for the best. Inner influences and inner slavery come from many varied sources and many independent factors — independent in that sometimes it is one thing and sometimes another, for we have many enemies.
There are so many of these enemies that life would not be long enough to struggle with each of them and free ourselves from each one separately. So we must find a method, a line of work, which will enable us simultaneously to destroy the greatest possible number of enemies within us from which these influences come.
I said that we have many independent enemies, but the chief and most active are vanity and self-love. One teaching even calls them representatives and messengers of the devil himself.
For some reason they are also called Mrs. Vanity and Mr. Self-Love.
As I have said, there are many enemies. I have mentioned only these two as the most fundamental. At the moment it is hard to enumerate them all. It would be difficult to work on each of them directly and specifically, and it would take too much time since there are so many. So we have to deal with them indirectly in order to free ourselves from several at once.
These representatives of the devil stand unceasingly at the threshold which separates us from the outside, and prevent not only good but also bad external influences from entering. Thus they have a good side as well as a bad side.
For a man who wishes to discriminate among the influences he receives, it is an advantage to have these watchmen. But if a man wishes all influences to enter, no matter what they may be — for it is impossible to select only the good ones — he must liberate himself as much as possible, and finally altogether, from these watchmen, whom some considerable undesirable.
For this there are many methods, and a great number of means. Personally I would advise you to try freeing yourselves and to do so without unnecessary theorizing, by simple reasoning, active reasoning, within yourselves."

 

[cubbex]

I have another question. My words fail to describe what I see, and I haven't read all the transcripts to find an answer, but why is it that the cs' sort of, in their answers, prefer to mention Mouravieff more than Gurdjieff. For example in one session, they ask if G teachings would be of benefit, they said open. I suppose because the way is not for everyone, though "open" for everyone who needs it. What has the cs' said about Gurdjieff in more detail?

 

[zak]

If it can help you a little Prometeo, i have this quote of the C's:
" A: Mouravieff, like many who have protected and passed on the "tradition" are merely carriers and not interpreters of the capacity of a Master."
I don't remember exactly the session.

And this of Laura:
" What I find encouraging about Gurdjieff and his ideas (wherever he got them from is still a matter of conjecture or dispute) is how closely they mesh with modern day cognitive science.

For example, if you will read Martha Stout's book "The Myth of Sanity" and Steve Mithen's "The Prehistory of the Mind", you will see how amazingly insightful and advanced Gurdjieff's ideas were.

What also amazes me is something that only has come over time, after spending a lot of time working with people, including on this forum - and that is Gurdjieff's assessments of what is really going on with people when they say or do certain things. Well, of course, for me, that is also informed by cognitive science but that takes us back again to the fact that Gurdjieff was way ahead of his time in analyzing the sleep/dissociative states of human beings.

I often quote Gurdjieff when analyzing a situation, but I also utilize science to understand - it's just that Gurdjieff said it first and better."

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,23285.msg255667.html#msg255667

My two pieces of bacon.

 

[Lilou]

[quote author=zak]
My two pieces of bacon.
[/quote]

Good one, zak! Way better than 2 cents, and thanks for the quotes.

 

[cubbex]

Wow, thanks for the help. I agree on that statement, Mouravieff is well intended though he bases too much on the bible, and biblical gloss is not big enough to explain some concepts, or does not provide proper analogies for some processes. The question does not refer to a disagreement with Gurdjieff, the reason is because the guy nails it in every explanation, I get the feeling he knew more of what he was able to share with his students.

I suppose the new Laura's book will provide a little more of a clue for this. Though I am 100% sure the clues are already there, in the open for everyone.

The cs' said this alchemical work is in Mouravieff gnosis, they didn't mention Gurdjieff, another reason I have this question, also a motivator to study Mouravieff and Gurdjieff work deeply. The timing was great for that session, before the session I asked myself if alchemy was indeed possible, and if it was, why not to try the challenge? then well, the questions were made and I was shocked to see Mouravieff had it and I was blocked to see it. I thought Mouravieff was just talking nonsense that is why I never opened enough to understand it, also, the first time I read it I was trying to discern programming and influences from religion from other sources like culture or TV, so I felt a little bit in danger to take everything he said literal. Possibly not in the right frame of mind.

But Gurdjieff, man, he nails it right, his responses also has this sort of calming effect. Maybe both had different purposes for the use of such tradition. Is called esoteric science for a reason, and maybe like math science or any science, the data is there, the application is variable. I also need to read secret history vol 1, 2 and 3 for more info, which are not easy readings.

So, based on that quote, this keeps the fire under another question I have, ok, Mouravieff pass this tradition, so he was not really able to achieve this "great work" because he was not at the master level. But Gurdjieff do seem to me a true master, and still he did not achieve this great work. He did a lot well, he was super advanced, but still he didn't do it so probably he lacked a clue, or probably it was not his aim to achieve it the full work, you know? like "I am able to do it any day I chose, but I prefer to stay and teach others".

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think a big clue may be that G just didn't have the kind of network necessary. He certainly seems to have been connected to authentic esoteric / 4th Way school(s) (probably more than one). And he spent his life pursuing this kind of knowledge, and then working with groups with actual practice (whereas M never did). But his major "mission" seems to have been to bring out some of the most closely guarded secrets (e.g. "food for the moon") into the outer circle of humanity (and also make a certain amount of his students progress at least to a certain extent).

He may have also been given this knowledge exactly because he met the criteria that the authentic schools would want for it to go into the larger world. The hypothetical / theorized alchemists that accomplished the Great Work were in almost all cases of claimed success in direct contact with their master who had also accomplished the Great Work. But even in the case of Fulcanelli, he seems to have been hanging around with a bunch of other alchemists in an enclave in the mountains in Spain (according to his student, Cansaliet). And Fulcanelli was supposed to be 113 years old by that time when Cansaliet met him again, but looked younger than he had last seen him in his 80's (he says he looked like he was in his 50's). So, my point being, that even those who accomplish the Great Work do not necessarily go to 4th Density immediately - but as G and the C's have said, there has to be someone to put on the step behind you - and G didn't seem to have that unbroken chain to be able to put someone on the step behind you, and that one in turn does the same, etc. FWIW.

Oh, and by the way, I of course mean graduating to 4D in the STO path (which is what authentic 4th Way is), whereas STS paths don't have that necessity of putting someone on the step behind you so that all rise on the spiral together....

 

[cubbex]

Thanks, interesting points. Talking about Fulcanelli, my studies brought be into bioenergetics again, certain questions arised and James Prescott Joule was doing a research related to this I wanted to know. For example, what is energy? what comes first, the mechanical work or the energy that impulses the work? what energy does our body produce? Good guy James had a reason to research this, funny that when he did, he did not drain a lot of attention, until 40 years later. The joule, interesting concept that may help me to tie these all together. For now science describes a few types of energies, but does not define what human energy is, or what all types of energies are there. The most simple thing I can see is the mechanical work from the body which produces heat, simple and obvious for most, but that's why is fun because is not that obvious :P

Sometimes I feel the balance is here, those who can help us in mysterious ways. These alchemist... funny individuals, why I can't find one? lol

 

[SeekinTruth]

I should have mentioned another very strange thing among others about Canseliet's claimed meeting of Fulcanelli in the Pyranees in 1954. He says that among the other alchemists in the enclave, there were some in 17th century and some in 16th century dress (and used the language of that time). In fact, the correspondence he received which led to being invited to the alchemists' enclave was using French of centuries before....

 

[zak]

I think a big clue may be that G just didn't have the kind of network necessary. He certainly seems to have been connected to authentic esoteric / 4th Way school(s) (probably more than one). And he spent his life pursuing this kind of knowledge, and then working with groups with actual practice (whereas M never did). But his major "mission" seems to have been to bring out some of the most closely guarded secrets (e.g. "food for the moon") into the outer circle of humanity (and also make a certain amount of his students progress at least to a certain extent).

He may have also been given this knowledge exactly because he met the criteria that the authentic schools would want for it to go into the larger world. The hypothetical / theorized alchemists that accomplished the Great Work were in almost all cases of claimed success in direct contact with their master who had also accomplished the Great Work. But even in the case of Fulcanelli, he seems to have been hanging around with a bunch of other alchemists in an enclave in the mountains in Spain (according to his student, Cansaliet). And Fulcanelli was supposed to be 113 years old by that time when Cansaliet met him again, but looked younger than he had last seen him in his 80's (he says he looked like he was in his 50's). So, my point being, that even those who accomplish the Great Work do not necessarily go to 4th Density immediately - but as G and the C's have said, there has to be someone to put on the step behind you - and G didn't seem to have that unbroken chain to be able to put someone on the step behind you, and that one in turn does the same, etc. FWIW.

Oh, and by the way, I of course mean graduating to 4D in the STO path (which is what authentic 4th Way is), whereas STS paths don't have that necessity of putting someone on the step behind you so that all rise on the spiral together....

(...)
Sometimes I feel the balance is here, those who can help us in mysterious ways. These alchemist... funny individuals, why I can't find one? lol

The quest for the Holy Grail
...
"the Holy Grail is the end result of nurturing the divine ‘spark of the Christos’ within us. Discovering and nurturing this ‘divine spark’ is achieved via an esoteric process of transformation – which the Gnostics called becoming ‘Christed’ (meaning ‘anointed’, or blessed) – via the alchemical transmutation of the ‘lead’ of our programmed personalities into the ‘gold’ of the soul.

This process of nurturing is the path of objective knowledge. It is a process that has been described and practised by many. Ancient shamans, alchemists, gnostics, Cathars and Templars are said to have been privy to it. People such as Boris Mouravieff, Georges Gurdjieff, Carlos Castaneda, Fulcanelli and Sufi mystics have written of it. More recently, author Laura Knight-Jadcyzk has written of this process after years of intense study of all of the above sources as well as others. In her book, “The Secret History of the World”, she proposes that many ancient myths which focus on the themes of suffering, death and rebirth, the Arthurian legends describing the quest for the Holy Grail, and even the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were actually metaphors. These metaphors represent ways in which individuals throughout history may have been able to transform and break the cycle of rebirth – to achieve the great work of the alchemists: that they were ‘instructions’ of a ‘spiritual science’, a possible process leading to the transformation and evolution of one’s old self into the new which, it is theorised, may actually involve activation of DNA. (See Laura Knight-Jadcyzk’s, “The Secret History of the World” for details of this theory.)"
...
www.livingnow.com.au/articles/living-and-learning/the-quest-for-the-holy-grail


Sott podcast In Search of the Miraculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_saygYDdjE

[quote author=zak]
My two pieces of bacon.

[/quote]

It's so funny Lilou !

My Two pieces of dancing bacon !

 

[cubbex]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I like a lot of authors network their knowledge, even if in anonymous ways. Still personally, I find this only ends until we literally rise those eagle's wings, the reshape our old ways into new, more functional ones. Till the bottom, thing is, it takes a lot of time. Step by step.

 

[silos]

Hi Laura and the rest I ve been a little busy these days so no posts were given but now that i am free i would like to ask some questions and also share some experiences like some of the people above my post.

1. Dear Laura and the rest what is your personal take on the movie called Thrive ? Have you already watched it before? The guy in this movie seems and sounds VERY legit and much of what he tells coincides almost 100 % with the C's info over the years. He sounds very convincing and all of what he tells about many things like free energy suppressed inventions human history sacred geometry the state of our economy is almost 99% close to your work Laura and the C's So a little guidance on your behalf in regards to that movie would be much appreciated.

2. Have you or any of the crew ever researched or even asked the C's about this event in Jerusalem that happens every year - the so called descent of the holy fire - you know what i mean like today What is this really? Artificial or maybe some strange natural phenomenon? Why doesnt it burn and what is its chemical nature? I know the real history of christianity and that it is bogus throughout as any imposed STS monotheistic religion but this phenomenon of holy fire coming down every year is really interesting. Som people claim that they see at the moment of its descent the flashes all around the dome above them and the tech malfunctions so my best guess would be that it is some sort of a complex EM phenomenon.

3. And at last i would like to share some of my wave sensations too. I ve really felt like for a month now total absense of any physical craving in terms of sex drive you know and it looks to me now more and more like some useless and dirty occupation. I feel that i don't need even when i see some very arousing images around me. So it hit me today that it might be what the C's said about many guys losing their sex drive and becoming more spiritual So if the wave IS here and it is hitting i can feel it with every cell of my body. Sometimes i feel depressed too maybe a little like one who sees the vanity and uselessness of the old ways and things and wants some change because feels that it can be different.

Can you, please, point me to session where this is being discussed?

 

[herondancer]

Hi silos

I can see where these would be interesting questions for you. Have you tried using the search function? Learning is more meaningful and profound when self-guided. You can put a couple of search terms in the box on the upper right, or there's a nifty advanced function you can access from the links under the header bar. It's third from the left. You can start your search in the board "Movie Picks & Pans" to see what has been discussed about Thrive. Then go on to your other areas of interest. Sometimes you find the thing you need the most in the place you'd least expect (especially on this forum!)

Have fun!

 

[cubbex]

Divine will... mmm wonder why they had to put "configurations" and "permutations" separated. Math says depending on how you see it, there is different combinations and permutations, close to an infinite potential if you are able to repeat the element. If you had 7 base elements you are able to configure them into a branch that achieves a limit, combining nature into an artificial branch achieving a specific repetition of patterns which form strict reality maybe, but then what limits artificiallity from configuring itself as the base materials?

Mouravieff says the lower centers achieve a total of 987 configurations. I find that funny, if I remember good guy Fulcanelli died in 1987.

What is the difference between the natural and the artificial if both are made by the same thing? what defines nature anyway? what separates the creator from the creation if both have the same power? what is the difference between myself and another forum member?

I get the idea that this perception of what "chaos" is from science and humans is nothing but constant expansion and creation.

Numbers, words, all the same logo just forming different permutations, wonder why the mind requires a specific order.

 

[goyacobol]

Divine will... mmm wonder why they had to put "configurations" and "permutations" separated. Math says depending on how you see it, there is different combinations and permutations, close to an infinite potential if you are able to repeat the element. If you had 7 base elements you are able to configure them into a branch that achieves a limit, combining nature into an artificial branch achieving a specific repetition of patterns which form strict reality maybe, but then what limits artificiallity from configuring itself as the base materials?

Mouravieff says the lower centers achieve a total of 987 configurations. I find that funny, if I remember good guy Fulcanelli died in 1987.

What is the difference between the natural and the artificial if both are made by the same thing? what defines nature anyway? what separates the creator from the creation if both have the same power? what is the difference between myself and another forum member?

I get the idea that this perception of what "chaos" is from science and humans is nothing but constant expansion and creation.

Numbers, words, all the same logo just forming different permutations, wonder why the mind requires a specific order.

Prometeo,

Actually, I have wondered about the difference between the "artificial" and "natural" as you mention. Obviously (to me anyway) is the 4D STS manipulation that even includes "time loops" is not quite what I would call "natural" but has to use natural or "real" technology to mess with some established structure.

So, the best I can speculate is that if there is "freewill" but it may depend on "awareness" within the "reality" of the truly "natural" to achieve a certain level of maturity to choose to manipulate the "prime creator's" expanding design. I now think that it could be either STS or STO.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Cs mention of the Quorum but they say that there is at certain levels a blending of STS and STO which seems to indicate that there is not such a black and white separation of STS and STO. I think this may be why we (myself included) may not see the difference between "artificial" and "natural" when it comes to the "chaos" around us.

What if the "order" you mention is determined by choice?

 

[SeekinTruth]

Prometeo, where do you remember from/how did you come to think that Fulcanelli died in 1987? Could you elaborate a bit. And what do you mean by "died"?