Creation of the Soul

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:40 am

Maestro wrote:I would say that if you make a firm determination to fight suffering, that determination itself is a permanent self

What are your reasons for believing such a thing? Your belief in a permanent self seems entirely arbitrary. Is it arbitrary? If so, I'd say your being a bit of a dupe. If not, then please explain further.

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:41 am

Then it is impossible people will suffer for their own lack of harmony, and some of my actions will inevitably cause them to suffer.

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:42 am

Cory Duchesne wrote: What are your reasons for believing such a thing? Your belief in a permanent self seems entirely arbitrary. Is it arbitrary?

It is a mere definition and not a belief. A self is something around which the being works or acts. In an ordinary person blown hither and thither by circumstances and containing conflicting values no such center exists.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:11 am

maestro wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote: What are your reasons for believing such a thing? Your belief in a permanent self seems entirely arbitrary. Is it arbitrary?
It is a mere definition and not a belief.

Ok, so you define the self as permanent. What are your reasons for defining it that way? Such a definition seems entirely arbitrary. Is it arbitrary? Or do you have good reasons?

A self is something around which the being works or acts.

Can you define 'the being'? I'm honestly not at all sure what you're trying to say there.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:22 am

Cory,

You are not sure what maestro is trying to say because you are unfamiliar with the ideas of Gurdjieff.

Man such as we know him, the ‘man-machine,’ the man who cannot ‘do,’ and with whom and through whom everything ‘happens,’ cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says ‘I.’ And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatsoever for this assumption. Man’s every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I’s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, ‘I.’ And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. ~ IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS, p. 59

In other words, because of the natural state of man having many "I's" it behooves the one who seeks higher being (enlightenment, if you will) to unify himself by coalescing or crystallizing in himself a central, permanent I. This is the same "I AM" spoken of by Jesus when he said "I AM (is) The Way.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:03 am

clyde wrote:maestro;

Vague? You wrote that you understood suffering and had achieved the end of suffering. To live harmlessly means not to cause others to suffer. OK?

Clyde, your every post to this forum is creating suffering.

-

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:15 am

What maestro is talking about is definitely a form of egotism. It may be a better form of egotism as far as doing some types of inner work is concerned, but it is still egotism nonetheless.

One is creating a slipstream of egotistical purpose and desire, and identifying with it.

Clarity of mind is no indicator that the ego is absent. When the ego is confident and purposeful, the worries and fears that usually overwhelm people can subside, which can lead to a relatively clear mind.

Top businessmen, for example, enjoy a clarity of mind which is generated from having a strong egotistical purpose.

-

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:21 am

David Quinn wrote:
clyde wrote:maestro;

Vague? You wrote that you understood suffering and had achieved the end of suffering. To live harmlessly means not to cause others to suffer. OK?
Clyde, your every post to this forum is creating suffering.

-

David;

Are you harmed by my posts? If so, please, do not read my posts.

clyde

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:31 am

Carl G wrote: In other words, because of the natural state of man having many "I's" it behooves the one who seeks higher being (enlightenment, if you will) to unify himself by coalescing or crystallizing in himself a central, permanent I.

In my view, what you, maestro and Gurdjieff are talking about is transforming a being with hundreds or thousands of contradictory, lustful and unconscious desires into a being comprised of one single-minded desire.

Is that the gist of it?

Where we part ways Carl, is that I see no reason why this one desire should be permanent. It seems entirely arbitrary and irrational to attribute permanency to what essentially is merely single-mindedness.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:35 am

clyde wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
clyde wrote:maestro;

Vague? You wrote that you understood suffering and had achieved the end of suffering. To live harmlessly means not to cause others to suffer. OK?
Clyde, your every post to this forum is creating suffering.
Are you harmed by my posts? If so, please, do not read my posts.

Ah, I see. The fault lies not in your creating harmful behaviour in the first place, but with others for getting in the way of it.

An interesting take on the principle of doing no harm.

-

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:16 am

The clarity I spoke of is not the one created due to a abeyance of conflict but a clear vision into the internals of the mind, which also operates when there is conflict. This clear vision does not allow ego to remain.

However even without this clear vision a self may be created (around a firm determination) which overpowers all the other I's. I think some examples can be pointed out through history where people built all their lives around one idea. They can be said to have created a soul without clarity.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:30 am

If the spell of gain and loss isn't broken, the ego is necessarily involved.

Simply looking into your own mind and not seeing the ego doesn't mean much. Mental blocks can exist even in a relatively clear mind.

A scientist, for example, can have great clarity of mind when it comes to his specialized subject, but have mental blocks about his own motives and about the world at large.

-

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:33 am

Cory Duchesne wrote: In my view, what you, maestro and Gurdjieff are talking about is transforming a being with hundreds or thousands of contradictory, lustful and unconscious desires into a being comprised of one single-minded desire.

That is the self without clarity based on one desire (see my previous post). This of course need not be permanent, but suppose it stays for say 10 years, then it deserves the title of self as opposed to the various ever changing personas which claim the title for themselves, and have momentary existence.

But do you agree that a clear vision apparatus with a logical mind, can be very much permanent, and deserve the title in earnest?

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:35 am

David you have not replied to my posts in the other thread.

The clarity I have referred to above is not a conventional usage but a clear vision into mental phenomenon itself. If a scientist had this vision it would reveal to him his motives and vanities besides other things.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:38 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Carl G wrote: In other words, because of the natural state of man having many "I's" it behooves the one who seeks higher being (enlightenment, if you will) to unify himself by coalescing or crystallizing in himself a central, permanent I.
In my view, what you, maestro and Gurdjieff are talking about is transforming a being with hundreds or thousands of contradictory, lustful and unconscious desires into a being comprised of one single-minded desire.

Is that the gist of it?

No. The crystallized I AM is more than "a being comprised of one single-minded desire." It is a unified, centered and conscious self, capable of seeing, being, and doing.

Where we part ways Carl, is that I see no reason why this one desire should be permanent. It seems entirely arbitrary and irrational to attribute permanency to what essentially is merely single-mindedness.

Cory, you don't see value in permanentizing a desire for truth, for consciousness, for being, for doing?

And, you do not see a reason for it, and yet this is what happens, or can happen if conditions are right. Do you think a flower blossoming is arbitrary and irrational, also?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:54 am

maestro wrote:David you have not replied to my posts in the other thread.

What thread is that?

-

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:07 pm

Enlightenment finally.

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:09 pm

Carl G wrote:The crystallized I AM is more than "a being comprised of one single-minded desire." It is a unified, centered and conscious self, capable of seeing, being, and doing.

Indeed the Yoga ideal of a unified self. I used to think Buddhist nirvana was a step beyond the Yogic self, but it seems it is the other way round.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:13 pm

maestro wrote:do you agree that a clear vision apparatus with a logical mind, can be very much permanent, and deserve the title in earnest?

Why should it be? Please give your reasons for why you think any thing should be permanent.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:15 pm

David Quinn wrote:
clyde wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Clyde, your every post to this forum is creating suffering.
Are you harmed by my posts? If so, please, do not read my posts.
Ah, I see. The fault lies not in your creating harmful behaviour in the first place, but with others for getting in the way of it.

An interesting take on the principle of doing no harm.

-

David;

What is your point? I was not assigning fault, but seeking a solution that did not require me to leave.

Do you experience suffering from my posts? Is it my posts or do all posts, in your view, create suffering?

This is your forum. I am not here to cause you or others suffering. Do you want me to leave?

clyde

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:16 pm

Cory:
It could be once it has control of the mind. What can dislodge it?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:18 pm

Carl G wrote:
Where we part ways Carl, is that I see no reason why this one desire should be permanent. It seems entirely arbitrary and irrational to attribute permanency to what essentially is merely single-mindedness.
Cory, you don't see value in permanentizing a desire for truth, for consciousness, for being, for doing?

I can see value in striving to survive indefinitely - but what reasons do I have for believing in the permanency of my consciousness?

And, you do not see a reason for it, and yet this is what happens, or can happen if conditions are right. Do you think a flower blossoming is arbitrary and irrational, also?

A flower is not permanent, Carl. It withers and dies.

maestro · Post by **maestro** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:22 pm

clyde wrote: Do you experience suffering from my posts? Is it my posts or do all posts, in your view, create suffering?

This is your forum. I am not here to cause you or others suffering. Do you want me to leave?

If you do not agree with people's views and argue it may create suffering in them. Similarly suppose you buy a new car and you neighbor gets jealous you have been responsible for his suffering. If a telemarketer calls you and you refuse, it creates suffering in him. If your friend wants you to become a member of Amway and you refuse then you create major suffering in him. The point is will you go to any length to please people or do the right and proper thing.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:28 pm

Maestro,

Maestro: do you agree that a clear vision apparatus with a logical mind, can be very much permanent?

Cory: Why should it be? Please give your reasons for why you think any thing should be permanent.

Maestro: [consciousness] could be [permanent] once it has control of the mind. What can dislodge it?

Do you agree the body is the lamp from which our consciousness burns?

The lamp will eventually run out of oil. The body will eventually wither and pass away.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:32 pm

clyde wrote:This is your forum. I am not here to cause you or others suffering. Do you want me to leave?

I think he wants you to think, Clyde. e.g. if you are changing people (or attempting to) in any way you are necessarily causing suffering.

GENIUS FORUMS

Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul

Re: Creation of the Soul