Medhavi

This is great. I wanted to sign up for the last London workshop(which sadly got cancelled)and it's great to hear that you're coming to Europe again Mr. Lomax! Are you planning for another London trip later this year? Or somewhere more to the south within Europe? That would be great.

I'd like to take this moment of relative silence in terms of drama and mention that Christopher Matsuo's Kwan Yin's Magnetic Qi Gong contains a third eye breathing technique that may be similar to "Red Phoenix". If it is the same, I cannot say because I have not been introduced to Kunlun. However, I believe that Trunk knows whether or not they are the same.

Jeanne de Salzmann is exceptional, indeed. Correct me if I am wrong, but she probably was around Gurdjieff longer than the other disciples? I mean, it is rather obvious that Ouspensky was a highly intellectual man. de Salzmann was much more of a "being". You can feel that. But it is likely that she was also more evenly developed. So, in order for the Fourth Way idea of developing all centers harmoniously to occur, you'd have to be very clever and observant. Which is probably why I don't see this idea fulfilled in most Fourth Way groups which are much more in line with Ouspensky, I think. To conclude, I very much think that these yogas of India and China have a much faster effect on the development of men, especially considering how they take you out of your intellectual mind for a while. But if you can truly realise the Great Work as outlined by Gurdjieff, that's even better. But how many can do that?

You see, that's what I don't understand about Gurdjieff's system. The Fourth Way claims to develop all three centers(moving, emotional and intellectual) in their lower and higher form whereas in Search of the Miraculous, the "Way of the Fakir", "Way of the Monk" and "Way of the Yogi" are said to concentrate on one centre only, respectively the moving, emotional and intellectual centre. Personally, I've never come across anyone who would fit into any of these three categories. When I put Gurdjieff into a historical perspective, I noticed that it was quite common to see these "Eastern Schools" like that because it fits western thinking(Or mainly British Orientalism) The moment you stop reading popular literature(especially from the 1900-1950 period) and look into what specific schools are actually doing(like various schools of Shaivism and Neidan schools in Qing Dynasty China) Gurdjieff's generalisations fall apart. Another problem is that I know that practitioners in any of those "Ways"(let's go with G.'s definitions here) are devoted to their practice full-time, whereas the Fourth Way miraculously does all the work of the so-called Fakir, Monk and Yogi at the same time! By all laws of the universe I know, that can't work too well. What I actually do know is that nearly all Fourth Way schools out there(I am myself part of one) are very much focused on intellectual study...systematic reading of his works(Beelzebub included...note also how it often said that you should read it aloud to get its meaning, similar to chanting traditions found in all religions that have lost their meaning). I would also be highly careful about Gurdjieff because he just was so similar to many of the "mystical messengers" of his time like Helena Blavatsky and her "Ascended Masters". We never got to know where exactly he pulled his teachings from. All we got were some mysterious hints at some Sufi order nobody has found in their own home country. I am not saying that anything he taught is wrong, but that these people from the so-called "Ways" can at least name their masters and the schools they represent. And well, am I the only one in thinking that both Indian and Chinese yogic schools explain the actually practical stuff in much more lucid terms that are easy to grasp? I don't know about you, but without heck of a lot of study of these "Eastern Ways"(that are allegedly "not practical for the West"), not much of Gurdjieff's writings actually make any sense. I did never understand his awkward terms like "Law of Octaves" and "hydrogen 6 and 12" until I studied Taoist Yoga and read drew's interpretation of how it might correlate. Because seriously, reading Gurdjieff has given me the impression that he overcomplicates lots of things and shrouds things in such made up intellectual terms that most Fourth Way Groups are stuck with the philosophy, and that's that. As you can see with Ouspensky and the lot, Gurdjieff wasn't all that successful with even giving other people, who actually trained with him, a comprehensible intellectual understanding that wouldn't get instantly distorted the moment he passed on. So nobody could carry on his "legacy". And I seriously want to know where this legacy is from. Because I really suspect that he just repackaged diverse Eastern teachings and made something out of it which might appeal to the Westerners(who needs to be highly intellectual to even read his books). If that is the case, it would be kind of ironic, considering how each of the "categorised" ways seems to be more effective at what they do than what you can see in modern Fourth Way Groups(it hasn't transitioned all too well) I can certainly say that one session of Full Lotus MCO does heck of a lot more to my mind and body than years of intellectual study and self-observation.

I N F J Strength of the preferences % 67 38 62 22 Introverted Intuition, Extraverted Feeling, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Sensing

Thank you! I went with my mind's eye's first prediction, even though I was uneasy about the the last two numbers... Tactile, I must say that this was an impressive guess! PM sent.

681

The problem with this line of inquiry is that our history is clouded. We simply cannot immediately know what is natural and what is not. What we are "meant" to do and what not. If there are foreign forces that interfere with our learning process, or not. I can see how New Age interpreters can find such quotes, as stated by the OP, appealing. But for me, there are too many esoteric and lesser known schools around to not take notice of the pattern that most of them warn of many "accidental" processes going on in our daily mechanical behaviour that do not help us at all, but might benefit "others". I speak in indirect terms but let me just bring up another line of thought: Has it occured to you that, by nature of the "ages"(if you believe in Yuga theory), it might be a problem for you if you find yourself in the last one; which, by nature, is confused and clouded, meaning that nothing could be taken at face value and nearly everything is, quite naturally, a lie to be seen through, if you want to advance. If there exist Yugas or not, is actually not even necessary for this line of thought because, if you care to take a look around, "natural" modes of behaviour and thinking are highly subjective and usually defined by someone else. Further than that, we can't even define "natural" by what is pleasant or what seems to lead us down a certain road, because we always lack enough foresight to clearly see where such a road is heading. If you have investigated fragments of yogic systems, you may notice that all of them work so hard on manipulating your consciousness until...objective knowledge is attained? If this is the case, I can only fathom based on my experiential and conceptual understanding so far but it is clear that nobody would undertake the rigors of yogic training or the alchemical route(from the western perspective) if it wasn't for something wrong to begin with. Which is the state that you find yourself in when you come to this world. Most traditionally defined as eventual suffering or lack of understanding of why suffering takes place. No matter what, it is clear that we lack so much knowledge that is quite hard, if not impossible, to define what "natural" is. And that is why I would be careful if you want to go down this line of inquiry.

Well, there is no proof that anything we have floating around now corresponds to anything Shakyamuni Buddha might have said/taught. In fact, if you compare this to how other systems got corrupted(usually within the first two generations), it is highly unlikely. As such, we indeed have "Buddhisms" now, which are interpretations of various sources. How to judge such interpretations? By their efficacy. And, based on my subjective testing, Ingram's work can save you many unneeded headaches and financial adventures by presenting you with the bare bones that are necessary to get you pretty far. That's what is so commendable about it.

I can completely vouch for Ingram's work. When I first picked this up, I was slightly turned off by the seemingly pretentious title. But it does exactly what it claims to do. If you're already versed in theory, the real treasure are the maps of spiritual progression(which you can also download from the same website) Practise.

An advanced perception of reality that may exist. Similar to the concept of God, it is an illusion until you are it(self-evident knowing) As a conceptual framework, it may be useful but leads, all too easily, down the road of the complacent New-Age tendency that you see among people who are only informed by popular literature and hear-say(what I like to call the Kumbaya mentality)

What is considered as a "disorder" now, may have been unrecognised in the past and may become a "talent" in the future. All it indicates is an altered brain chemistry. Now this may lead to all kinds of things; in extreme cases you have the savant phenomenon. You may get a huge boost in one area and incompetence in another. Now the question is: Is there such a thing as the "spiritual brain"? I suspect that interest in spiritual paths comes naturally as most people recognised as autists lead introverted lives. They are not as distracted as others in "normal" society. Combine that with heightened concentration and tunnel vision(often found among the same group of people) focused on, let's say, Buddhist scriptures, and you have someone who quickly becomes an expert in scripture and may even have the corresponding jhanas/spiritual states.

I did some experiments as well. I can congratulate you on experimenting on your own and not blindly adhering to beliefs presented in the written word. You see, I always wondered about where the "sexual centre" actually is located. I didn't feel that energy actually emanated from the lower chakras at all. That's roughly where the physical organs for reproduction are located but doesn't seem to have to do with sexual energy in its inception. Then I noticed that, whenever I felt suddenly aroused, there would be a sharp puncturing pain in my solar plexus(actually, it is hard to pinpoint. It could also have its origin between the solar plexus and the lower dan tien) It feels like a huge mass of energy is transforming into something. For some reason, I had the intuition that if you are really on a path of internal cultivation you would have to avoid this kind of sharp arousal. I suspect it is chi devolving into jing so that it helps you get ready to emit semen for reproduction. At least this is the only explanation I can find for this. It is of note that this only happens after I have abstained from release of any kind for quite a while. So basically you have raw sexual energy situated in the solar plexus. It can go two ways. Either it devolves into a lower form of energy which helps you to reproduce and is therefore biologically useful but spiritually harmful(if you set your goal that way, that is). Or it can get cultivated into a higher form of energy(ojas?) but in order for that to happen, you would have to practise a lot and avoid sudden arousal. There might be a way around this issue with proper cultivation and technique. But it either rises or falls. Is this the true reason for celibacy? I had this sudden thought that knowledge of the "true" sexual chakra might have resulted in what became belly dancing with its emphasis on the middle section of the body. Crazy thought but it might be an idea?

That is not an established fact. Here is an interesting article outlining how opinions are still divided over the origin of chess. Also, may I ask what Hinduism is?

The Count of Monte Cristo with Richard Chamberlain and Kate Nelligan in their timeless performance. The tale of the avenging angel bent on finding his revenge to ultimately miss out on the one thing he truly desired.