"Total Celibacy"- what does it mean?

Jerry said:
In my department at work it's all about stroking the boss, who doesn't know anything substantial about the operation of nor the meaning of what the company does.

I'm about to be fired mainly because I don't do this.

You know, you might be missing an interesting learning opportunity here. You have a good role playing / external consideration opportunity. Your boss may be a weak man who requires external verification. You could externally consider by giving a few strokes here and there while remaining inwardly free? Remember that exteral consideration is about the output/behavioural side of things, you have no requirement to be fawning in the inside. If you find the idea of doing this 'stroking' repugnant or wrong then it might be an indicator to look for some sort of pride barrier?

Apologies for going off the thread topic , thought this might possibly be useful for Jerry.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
Jerry said:
In my department at work it's all about stroking the boss, who doesn't know anything substantial about the operation of nor the meaning of what the company does.

I'm about to be fired mainly because I don't do this.

You know, you might be missing an interesting learning opportunity here. You have a good role playing / external consideration opportunity. Your boss may be a weak man who requires external verification. You could externally consider by giving a few strokes here and there while remaining inwardly free? Remember that exteral consideration is about the output/behavioural side of things, you have no requirement to be fawning in the inside. If you find the idea of doing this 'stroking' repugnant or wrong then it might be an indicator to look for some sort of pride barrier?

Apologies for going off the thread topic , thought this might possibly be useful for Jerry.

Insightful.

I oversimplified the matter really. There are other factors involved: my lack of vigilance regarding my predator, a narcissist colleague, an overwhelming job, ignorant management heavily influenced by ponerogenic thought, and my own conscience bothering me for so long that I'm vulnerable and weak.

Maybe this post should be moved, it's off topic.
 
Perhaps this will lend more clarity on Gurdjieff's position.

From: Transcripts of Gurdjieff's Meetings 1941 - 1946, Meeting Four, Thursday, 8 April, 1943, pages 10 - 11:

Phillipe: Why are the major part of the associations, which interfere with the work, sexual associations?

Gurdjieff: This question is subjective. It is not so for all men. It is an abnormality which is a result of infantile masturbation. But what is the connection between this and suffering. There is no trace of suffering here. Each man has in him three excrements which elaborate themselves and which must be rejected. The first is the result of ordinary nourishment and eliminates itself naturally, and this must be each day, otherwise there follow all sorts of illnesses. (The physician knows this well.) for the same reason that you go to the bathroom for this maintenance, you must go to the bathroom for the second excrement which is rejected from you by the sexual function. It is necessary for health and the equilibrium of the body; and certainly it is necessary in some to do it each day, in others each week, in other again every month or every six months. It is subjective. For this you must choose a proper bathroom. One that is good for you. A third excrement is formed in the head; it is rubbish of the food impressions, and the wastes accumulate in the brain. (The physician ignores it, just as he ignores the important role of the appendix in digestion, and rejects it as wastes.)

It is not necessary to mingle the acts of sex with sentiment. It is sometimes abnormal to make them coincide. The sexual act is a function. One can regard it as external to oneself, although love is internal. Love is love. It has no need of sex. It can be felt for a person of the same sex, for an animal even, and the sexual function is not mixed up there. Sometimes it is normal to unite them; this corresponds to one of the aspects of love. It is easier to love this way. But at the same time it is then difficult to remain impartial as love demands. Likewise if one considers the sexual function as necessary medically, why would one love a remedy, a medicine? The sexual act originally must have been performed only for the purpose of reproduction of the species, but little by little men have made of it a means of pleasure. It must have been a sacred act. One must know that this divine seed, the Sperm, has another function, that of the construction of a second body in us, from whence the sentence: "Happy he who understands the function of the 'eccioeccari' for the transformation of his being. Unhappy he who uses them in a unilateral manner."

Aboulker: Why do religions forbid the sexual act?

Gurdjieff: Because originally we knew the use of this substance, whence the chasteness of the monks. Now we have forgotten this knowledge and only remains the prohibition which attracts to the monks qualities of specific disorders and illnesses. Look at the priests where they grow "fat like pigs," (the concern about eating dominating them) or they are "skinny as the devil" (and they have inside little love for their neighbor), the fat are less dangerous and more gentle.

Anyone on board with an eccioeccari instruction manual?
 
Rabelais said:
Anyone on board with an eccioeccari instruction manual?

It's spelled 'Exioehary' in Beelzebubs Tales. Gurdjieffs Beelzebubs Tales explanation of the 'Food Diagram' is in the Chapter Purgatory.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
Rabelais said:
Anyone on board with an eccioeccari instruction manual?

It's spelled 'Exioehary' in Beelzebubs Tales. Gurdjieffs Beelzebubs Tales explanation of the 'Food Diagram' is in the Chapter Purgatory.

Thanks Stevie. It just started snowing here again, so it looks like a good day to curl up read some G.
 
Divide By Zero said:
Robson said:
Álvaro said:
Launched a Question: We can have sex without seeking self-satisfaction?

IMO, this is really what's all about. This is the question that we should all ask ourselves before we enter an intimate relationship.

I don't think it is that simple. Self-satisfaction can be had even by those who don't have sex.

Being STS, even someone who doesn't have a drive to have sex can feel good from having sex primarily due to the chemicals (oxytocin and whatever released in orgasm). There are also people who feel holy by sacrificing to not have sex, as if any sex is bad. In some cases it can be twisted to extreme by their own feelings of unworthiness, whether that be from religion or being invalidated by narcissists.

The main point I disagree with is that as human beings with hormones, do we ever forget that a part of sex does include self-satisfaction?

Maybe the easier way to put it would be how Laura and others said, paraphrasing here: If your partner was somehow unable to have sex, would you have things in common to still be with them?

I think that when two people have grown enough, or have fused a stable magnetic center, maybe, the act of sex CAN stop being exclusively for self-satisfaction. It both partners concentrate on making each other happy/feel loved through the act itself, they gain through the act of giving with a pure intent, i.e. STO. Sex in this way is but one form of expressing love, and in such an intimate way that it can only be experienced within the couple. Then, since it would be just one expression of love, the answer to the question "If your partner was somehow unable to have sex, would you have things in common to still be with them?" would definitely be Yes, since the relationship would be built on love before sex. But that type of relationship is extremely rare, unfortunately.

That's how I understand it at the moment, FWIW.
 
opossum said:
Approaching Infinity said:
It also gives new meaning to Gurdjieff's discussions about "masturbation" and "prostitution", i.e. not necessarily in relation to sex itself but in all fields of life. He once asked a waiter to stop the musicians in a restaurant from playing, because in his words, they were "masturbating" (playing for themselves and misusing energy?).
Good example! And prostitution? Any thoughts on what would constitute non-sexual prostitution?

The Oxford dictionary has a two part definition for prostitution:
1. The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
2. The unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.

So if you do something just for money or personal gain, whether it is sex or a job, you are engaging in prostitution. So prostitution is about "misusing energy". Having sex for money is an "unworthy or corrupt use" of sex. If, as Ailen says, sex should be when:

Ailén said:
both partners concentrate on making each other happy/feel loved through the act itself, they gain through the act of giving with a pure intent, i.e. STO. Sex in this way is but one form of expressing love, and in such an intimate way that it can only be experienced within the couple. Then, since it would be just one expression of love, the answer to the question "If your partner was somehow unable to have sex, would you have things in common to still be with them?" would definitely be Yes, since the relationship would be built on love before sex. But that type of relationship is extremely rare, unfortunately.

That's how I understand it at the moment, FWIW.

So both partners gain through the experience and they are working together, in a colinear way, to create something. In order to understand non-sexual prostitution I would try to apply the same reasoning to work life. I am reminded of something Laura wrote:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2014.msg11351#msg11351 said:
OPULENCE is the nature of the Universe and when you are spiritually aligned with the Creative principle the OPULENCE is YOUR nature as well.

And so, let's look at some things:

1) Know that money is, indeed, spiritual as is all that exists when perceived correctly. Remember that to be "spiritual" means to be alive, vigorous, energetic.

2) The real nature of money is to INCREASE. A child sees only part of the world, as an adult he sees more of it. So, too, will abundance in your life increase for you as you progressivly discover more of the infinite Universe in Truth which is aligned to the creative principle.

This means that as you shed your illusions, you will unlock your own creative potential in all areas of your life.

3) Know that your TRUE nature is "rich and affluent" just like Nature. The Universe itself is infinite and unending, and so are you.

By becoming your true self, your real, permanent "I", you will have the only real security and happiness available in the Universe. This will reflect in your outer life. Because certainly we know that the material expression - the symbols - are material and impermanent and constantly change in the flow of life.

4) Money is made of "mind stuff." The fact is that nothing exists external to you. Money consists of consciousness of energy and thus is part of you.

In the final analysis, Knowledge is acquired by the expenditure of energy. "Knowledge application generates energy, which, in turn, generates light."

Knowledge protects.

The more knowledge you have, the more you APPLY it, the more "richness" you will have in your life in ALL respects, including money.

Acquiring knowledge is like building a magnet inside you. It will attract people and circumstances to you that will literally change your life.

Regard everything in your life as an opportunity to be as creative as the Universe is.

And never forget that giving of yourself must be done as the Universe does it: completely and infinitely and without strings. To give of yourself is to receive.

If you are unable to recive without immediately offering something in return or becoming embarrassed, or you accept something from another without appreciation, you violate the law and it means that you do not know how to give.

At the same time, if you are constantly giving your work, time, money, or energies of any kind away without expecting and receiving proper payment (which doesn't always mean money), you are violating the law. That which you give therefore cannot and will not be appreciated by the recipient. To be ONLY able to give, is selfish and egocentric. When you understand that it is your true nature to share your life with all of Life, you will give intuitively to the right people at the right time.

By this line of reasoning prostitution could be "constantly giving your work, time, money or energies of any kind away without expecting and receiving proper payment". So a person who works their butt off as a middle manager running a company, the CEO's "right hand man", but never gets a raise or a promotion or any recognition. He could be working with people who value him to create his own company, but instead he plays it safe and continues to work for less than he is worth.

IMO It could also be working at a job that is a corrupt use of your talents, like a brilliant scientist working in an arms factory because they pay him more than he would make as an academic. Maybe he would have been a brilliant research physicist, but he decided that he'd rather be rich. He is misusing his energy. Instead of creating something, engaging in real WORK, he's just doing it for the money.

Does this make sense or am I way off the mark? I hope this wasn't too far off topic.
 
opossum said:
Approaching Infinity said:
It also gives new meaning to Gurdjieff's discussions about "masturbation" and "prostitution", i.e. not necessarily in relation to sex itself but in all fields of life. He once asked a waiter to stop the musicians in a restaurant from playing, because in his words, they were "masturbating" (playing for themselves and misusing energy?).
Good example! And prostitution? Any thoughts on what would constitute non-sexual prostitution?

Gurdjieff connects it with "laziness" and getting something while "doing absolutely nothing". I guess when you believe in free lunch, you are prostituting yourself. You're letting yourself be controlled by external forces and you end up "getting screwed" in the process. Take the Standard American Diet (SAD), for example. People eat what they like (free lunch!), because it's what is promoted culturally. They don't put any effort into giving their bodies what they need, and the resulting ill health and disease is the result. People prostitute themselves to ideology, the opinions of 'experts', societal norms. They give up their free will in the service of forces which will only destroy them. But in his little allegory, Gurdjieff makes sure to tell us that it is not the "prostitute's" fault. It is "her" parents, guardians, husbands who have failed to teach her how to become responsible. In other words, it's not people's fault that they're machines. Machines are not responsible for their condition or their actions. They are not "sinful"; they just don't know any alternative. It's the responsibility of those who know better, and should provide guidance and education, but don't. Society makes prostitutes of us all, constantly selling our will to the highest bidder (what "feels good", what is "easy" and comfortable).
 
Seamas said:
IMO It could also be working at a job that is a corrupt use of your talents, like a brilliant scientist working in an arms factory because they pay him more than he would make as an academic. Maybe he would have been a brilliant research physicist, but he decided that he'd rather be rich. He is misusing his energy. Instead of creating something, engaging in real WORK, he's just doing it for the money.

Does this make sense or am I way off the mark? I hope this wasn't too far off topic.
It makes sense to me and not off topic at all.
The Oxford Dictionary said:
1. The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
2. The unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.
This is certainly food for thought, the "personal gain" could be very subtle and it could be easy to fool oneself, no?
Laura said:
Regard everything in your life as an opportunity to be as creative as the Universe is.

And never forget that giving of yourself must be done as the Universe does it: completely and infinitely and without strings. To give of yourself is to receive.

If you are unable to recive without immediately offering something in return or becoming embarrassed, or you accept something from another without appreciation, you violate the law and it means that you do not know how to give.

At the same time, if you are constantly giving your work, time, money, or energies of any kind away without expecting and receiving proper payment (which doesn't always mean money), you are violating the law. That which you give therefore cannot and will not be appreciated by the recipient. To be ONLY able to give, is selfish and egocentric. When you understand that it is your true nature to share your life with all of Life, you will give intuitively to the right people at the right time.
Thanks for sharing Laura's post here, this is brilliant!
I have come to the conclusion that although I am "totally celibate", I am sometimes a prostitute . This is so funny and it feels good to have a laugh at myself. Thank you all for the different perspectives.
Approaching Infinity said:
Gurdjieff connects it with "laziness" and getting something while "doing absolutely nothing". I guess when you believe in free lunch, you are prostituting yourself. You're letting yourself be controlled by external forces and you end up "getting screwed" in the process. Take the Standard American Diet (SAD), for example. People eat what they like (free lunch!), because it's what is promoted culturally. They don't put any effort into giving their bodies what they need, and the resulting ill health and disease is the result. People prostitute themselves to ideology, the opinions of 'experts', societal norms. They give up their free will in the service of forces which will only destroy them. But in his little allegory, Gurdjieff makes sure to tell us that it is not the "prostitute's" fault. It is "her" parents, guardians, husbands who have failed to teach her how to become responsible. In other words, it's not people's fault that they're machines. Machines are not responsible for their condition or their actions. They are not "sinful"; they just don't know any alternative. It's the responsibility of those who know better, and should provide guidance and education, but don't. Society makes prostitutes of us all, constantly selling our will to the highest bidder (what "feels good", what is "easy" and comfortable).
Thanks for this very important reminder that it is not our fault. I keep forgetting this.
 
opossum said:
The Oxford Dictionary said:
1. The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
2. The unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.

This is great. So another example: using your natural ("God-given") talents in the service of something which they weren't intended for. Someone might have a talent for science, and prostitute themselves to the military industrial complex in order for money, prestige, health benefits, job security, etc. Talent gets wasted and prostituted in the corporate environment.

Laura said:
Regard everything in your life as an opportunity to be as creative as the Universe is.

And never forget that giving of yourself must be done as the Universe does it: completely and infinitely and without strings. To give of yourself is to receive.

If you are unable to recive without immediately offering something in return or becoming embarrassed, or you accept something from another without appreciation, you violate the law and it means that you do not know how to give.

At the same time, if you are constantly giving your work, time, money, or energies of any kind away without expecting and receiving proper payment (which doesn't always mean money), you are violating the law. That which you give therefore cannot and will not be appreciated by the recipient. To be ONLY able to give, is selfish and egocentric. When you understand that it is your true nature to share your life with all of Life, you will give intuitively to the right people at the right time.

And another: prostituting yourself by constantly "giving". I guess that could be "pathological altruism", constantly giving to those who don't deserve it (e.g. psychopaths). So total celibacy would apply to all areas of life, not just sex!
 
opossum said:
I have come to the conclusion that although I am "totally celibate", I am sometimes a prostitute . This is so funny and it feels good to have a laugh at myself. Thank you all for the different perspectives.
Approaching Infinity said:
Gurdjieff connects it with "laziness" and getting something while "doing absolutely nothing". I guess when you believe in free lunch, you are prostituting yourself. You're letting yourself be controlled by external forces and you end up "getting screwed" in the process. Take the Standard American Diet (SAD), for example. People eat what they like (free lunch!), because it's what is promoted culturally. They don't put any effort into giving their bodies what they need, and the resulting ill health and disease is the result. People prostitute themselves to ideology, the opinions of 'experts', societal norms. They give up their free will in the service of forces which will only destroy them. But in his little allegory, Gurdjieff makes sure to tell us that it is not the "prostitute's" fault. It is "her" parents, guardians, husbands who have failed to teach her how to become responsible. In other words, it's not people's fault that they're machines. Machines are not responsible for their condition or their actions. They are not "sinful"; they just don't know any alternative. It's the responsibility of those who know better, and should provide guidance and education, but don't. Society makes prostitutes of us all, constantly selling our will to the highest bidder (what "feels good", what is "easy" and comfortable).
Thanks for this very important reminder that it is not our fault. I keep forgetting this.

:lol: I'm definitely a prostitute too. Most of my work situations and many life situations fit in this category.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
This is great. So another example: using your natural ("God-given") talents in the service of something which they weren't intended for. Someone might have a talent for science, and prostitute themselves to the military industrial complex in order for money, prestige, health benefits, job security, etc. Talent gets wasted and prostituted in the corporate environment.
Another way of looking at "God-given" talents could also be seen as talents that the soul has worked hard to acquire, perhaps through many lifetimes. Sometimes a person will start out with the purest intentions and later be seduced by and become addicted to the money,fame, attention "success" brings and then start to prostitute themselves. This can be seen in the music industry quite often.
Approaching Infinity said:
And another: prostituting yourself by constantly "giving". I guess that could be "pathological altruism", constantly giving to those who don't deserve it (e.g. psychopaths). So total celibacy would apply to all areas of life, not just sex!
 
Hi Stevie Argyll,

Gurdjieff said:
One must know that this divine seed, the Sperm, has another function, that of the construction of a second body in us, from whence the sentence: "Happy he who understands the function of the 'eccioeccari' for the transformation of his being. Unhappy he who uses them in a unilateral manner."

Do you understand "'Exioehary" to be directed attention? I wonder if the divine seed is allegorical?
 
go2 said:
Hi Stevie Argyll,

Gurdjieff said:
One must know that this divine seed, the Sperm, has another function, that of the construction of a second body in us, from whence the sentence: "Happy he who understands the function of the 'eccioeccari' for the transformation of his being. Unhappy he who uses them in a unilateral manner."

Do you understand "'Exioehary" to be directed attention? I wonder if the divine seed is allegorical?

I'd say so, considering it's associated with Hydrogen 12, which Gurdjieff lists as being a non-material "substance" (Keith Buzzell speculates it has to do with EM fields).
 
Back
Top Bottom