[Vajrahridaya]

Are you suggesting that in your Lineage the Four Noble Truths are not true? Or that there is no, "the True Bodhi Path" Buddha

 

This dialogue is beginning to remind me of a Progessive attempting to converse with a Conservative. Why are you holding onto such Rigid fear and closed-mindedness?

 

This is why I know you are not a Mahasiddha, you assume way too much from my posts. I am not that personally invested here. I'd much rather talk in person. I've seen so many people come on here and other boards over the years say, "I've seen the light, I know the truth... your lineage is crap, I know what I'm talking about, you don't need your lineage of guru's, but you should listen to me... which is really just like listening to yourself." blah, blah, blah.

 

I'm sorry buddy, I'm not wrapped up in what you are saying here. You do have some great quotes, but I bet we see them differently. That's just life, we have our own contexts for these quotes... for me I see dependent origination/emptiness in all of them.

 

Above, when I stated, "There is no path." I was merely talking about emptiness via Heart Sutra... because you seem to hold onto this dualistic demarcation between YOUR idea of a short path and YOUR idea of a long path with such stern assuredness.

 

Again... what I find happens on these boards, is people read their own projections into things stated without objective viewing... they are so invested in their subjective projections that they cannot really see a persons intended meaning, but rather see the meaning that they wish to see.

 

This shows me you still have plenty of self clinging.

 

Which is what I find as well when people just read sutras without any formal training from enlightened lineage... which does exist, today, right now!!

 

Chao!

Edited August 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

There is no path Vmarco. Your understanding is erroneous, a subjective idealism. You think your comprehension and view, your interpretation and vision is an absolute truth which if we don't agree with, classifies us as idiots.

 

That's ralis' line. You're not allowed to use it.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's ralis' line. You're not allowed to use it.

 

Yes, while saying that I realize that I've come across in just the same way.

[Aaron]

No,...that wouldn't even make sense for fully ignorant person,...because if there actually were no Ultimate Truth, than the Ultimate Truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an Ultimate Truth.

 

However, as I already mentioned several absolute truths, such as 'There is no Present in Time',...or Buddha suggesting that the skandhas are a truth of duality (albeit a somewhat relative truth), I'll be kind, and pretend that neither you or Vajrahridaya could comprehend more than 1% of the thread due to pre-conditioning.

 

Hence,...as the quote in question is, "Very, very few people are interested in Ultimate Truth,...most merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible"....my question, in regards to both responses, would be WHY are you at this forum at all? Thus, what I really should add to the oxymoron list would be:

 

Twinner-Vajrahridaya Tao Bum members.

 

V

 

 

Hello VMarco,

 

You already know all about this, so there's no way I'll be able to convince you otherwise. I'll just leave you with a little statement and allow you to come to your own conclusion.

 

Every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth.

 

If you can understand that, you'll understand why I believe it is an oxymoron.

 

Your enlightened awareness shines through most when you express the compassion that arises from your Buddha nature thus...

 

I hope you guys learn from these debates, rather than just stroke your egos til they're ready to explode and make a mess.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello VMarco,

 

You already know all about this, so there's no way I'll be able to convince you otherwise. I'll just leave you with a little statement and allow you to come to your own conclusion.

 

Every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth.

 

If you can understand that, you'll understand why I believe it is an oxymoron.

 

Your enlightened awareness shines through most when you express the compassion that arises from your Buddha nature thus...

 

I hope you guys learn from these debates, rather than just stroke your egos til they're ready to explode and make a mess.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

Hello VMarco,

 

You already know all about this, so there's no way I'll be able to convince you otherwise. I'll just leave you with a little statement and allow you to come to your own conclusion.

 

Every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth.

 

If you can understand that, you'll understand why I believe it is an oxymoron.

 

Your enlightened awareness shines through most when you express the compassion that arises from your Buddha nature thus...

 

Aaron

 

From a dualisic framework, yes, "every truth is a lie". All personal, relative, empirical truths are lies. An absolute truth is not a lie,...and would understand this if you were aware of a single absolute truth.

 

Let's be honest,...you are verbalizing an ego fear, which arises from the belief that absolute truth will destroy ego, and thys must deny the existence of any absolute truth (even an absolute that there is no absolute truth).

 

As I mentioned, an absolute truth is that There is no Present in Time,...prove it wrong. No, you do not want to prove, for one thing, your ego realizes it can't, and on the other hand, you're already convinced of your madness that no truth exists just because you haven't uncovered one.

 

Now, if this was about spewing something from a book, or arguing a religious or empirical truth, I'd say you're post was worthy of the effort, albeit misinformation. Sort of like saying "I contend that we are both freethinkers. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

However, on a deeper level, where you currently do not wish to go, you're clinging to falsity for your identity.

 

As Eckhart Tolle, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

V

[Vmarco]

This is why I know you are not a Mahasiddha.... I am not that personally invested here. I'd much rather talk in person. I've seen so many people come on here and other boards over the years say, "I've seen the light, I know the truth... your lineage is crap, I know what I'm talking about, you don't need your lineage of guru's, but you should listen to me... which is really just like listening to yourself." blah, blah, blah.

 

I'm sorry buddy, I'm not wrapped up in what you are saying here. You do have some great quotes, but I bet we see them differently. That's just life, we have our own contexts for these quotes... for me I see dependent origination/emptiness in all of them.

 

Above, when I stated, "There is no path." I was merely talking about emptiness via Heart Sutra... because you seem to hold onto this dualistic demarcation between YOUR idea of a short path and YOUR idea of a long path with such stern assuredness.

 

Again... what I find happens on these boards, is people read their own projections into things stated without objective viewing... they are so invested in their subjective projections that they cannot really see a persons intended meaning, but rather see the meaning that they wish to see.

 

This shows me you still have plenty of self clinging.

 

Which is what I find as well when people just read sutras without any formal training from enlightened lineage... which does exist, today, right now!!

 

Chao!

 

Did I say I'm a Mahasiddha? No,...but I did mention that you are like a Tea Party fanatic who comes up with the strangest as hominem so to evade what was said.

 

Perhaps you don't feel more than 5600 posts as being personally invested,...others might see it differently. And not only are you invested here, you mention other boards where you champion the cause of knocking down those who claim to have had a direct experience, because it doesn't match your Lineage and "the plenty of Sakyamuni's, Tilopa's, Saraha's, Padmasambhava's, Quan Yin's and other enlightened people in your Lineage."

 

A non-competitive or cooperative way of dialoguing with someone who may have claimed to have had a direct experience (outside your Lineage) would be to inquire about it. Of course, if one has no understanding of any absolute truths, and rely soley on what they are media-ted by their Lineage, then two questions arise,...WHY are they inquiring, and two, WHY are they not content with the admireable fellowship of so many Sakyamuni's, Tilopa's, Saraha's, Padmasambhava's, Quan Yin's and other enlightened people in their Lineage?

 

WHY,...would one who is a member of such an "enlightened Lineage, which exists today, right now" spend so much time typing diatribe?

 

Go figure!

 

V

[Green Tiger]

Intelligent conversation

[Vmarco]

[Aaron]

From a dualisic framework, yes, "every truth is a lie". All personal, relative, empirical truths are lies. An absolute truth is not a lie,...and would understand this if you were aware of a single absolute truth.

 

Let's be honest,...you are verbalizing an ego fear, which arises from the belief that absolute truth will destroy ego, and thys must deny the existence of any absolute truth (even an absolute that there is no absolute truth).

 

As I mentioned, an absolute truth is that There is no Present in Time,...prove it wrong. No, you do not want to prove, for one thing, your ego realizes it can't, and on the other hand, you're already convinced of your madness that no truth exists just because you haven't uncovered one.

 

Now, if this was about spewing something from a book, or arguing a religious or empirical truth, I'd say you're post was worthy of the effort, albeit misinformation. Sort of like saying "I contend that we are both freethinkers. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

However, on a deeper level, where you currently do not wish to go, you're clinging to falsity for your identity.

 

As Eckhart Tolle, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

V

 

I don't mean to be offensive or diminish you (well maybe I do, who can be completely certain of the ego's motives,) but from the way you present your arguments, I'm not so sure I want to go to the same places you've been. I really don't want to be right to the point that I'm sure everyone else is wrong, even if, I'm certain, that it does give someone in that position a degree of pride in their own accomplishments.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you come off as pompous in many of your posts and I can't see how someone who claims to have achieved the enlightened awareness that you have, could operate on such a callous level? I've met monks who have achieved "enlightenment" and none of them seem to behave like you do. Perhaps, though, their enlightenment was absent of blinding light of truth yours seems to be.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

I don't mean to be offensive or diminish you (well maybe I do, who can be completely certain of the ego's motives,) but from the way you present your arguments, I'm not so sure I want to go to the same places you've been. I really don't want to be right to the point that I'm sure everyone else is wrong, even if, I'm certain, that it does give someone in that position a degree of pride in their own accomplishments.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you come off as pompous in many of your posts and I can't see how someone who claims to have achieved the enlightened awareness that you have, could operate on such a callous level? I've met monks who have achieved "enlightenment" and none of them seem to behave like you do. Perhaps, though, their enlightenment was absent of blinding light of truth yours seems to be.

 

Aaron

 

Gee Aaron,...that's alot of worry about ego motives, worry that someone is right or wrong, or that this has anything to do with pride (or its opposite, humility).

 

Although I have not claimed to be enlightened (I even mentioned somewhere a day or two ago, that I don't see myself as enlightened) your predispositions see me as pompous, and callous. I see myself as compassionate.

 

Chögyam Trungpa said, “Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces.”

 

I would question your ability to recognize an enlightened person. From your posts, you appear to resonate more towards mediocrity.

 

 

Ken Wilber said (in case you missed it):

"To dare to even speak about radical transformation, let alone call other people to a higher level, is against the unstated rules. And of course, one's definitely going to be put in one's place for doing something like that. But unless the possibility of genuine transformation is actually declared, unless one is willing to demonstrate it publicallyand to call other people to the same, no one is even going to know that it's possible. And than unknowingly, everybody's going to be participating in the conspiracy of mediocrity.

 

The conspiracy of mediocrity is basically the conspiracy to express your own ego instead of transcending it or letting go of it. The idea has become "if I can really emote and express my self-contriction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual". Actually, people who are involved in this boomeritis even deny the importance of Enlightenment or Awakening, because that's saying some states are higher than others - and we shouldn't be so judgemental. But guess what? Some states are higher. And so the entire raison d'etre gets tossed out because it offends the pluralistist ego.

 

The spiritual experience, which ideally should be a stepping stone to less ego and greater transparency, has become a victim of our therapeutic culture, where we don't make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and so all we do is embrace, console, and celebrate the personal self. Spiritual practice has become nothing more than a form of therapy where self-acceptance rather than ego-transcendence is the goal. And the problem is that therapists are basically pimps for samsara. They want to hold onto the egoic self-contraction and make it feel good about itself.

 

This conspiracy of mediocrity is very unfortunate. The great promise of the human potential movement was very straightforward - there are higher human potentials. Now, from the therapeutic culture, people say, "wait a minute. you're saying there are higher potentials, so does that mean I'm lower? because that can't be right". All of a sudden it implied a judgement, and nobody's allowed to be higher because that means someone else is going to be lower. And you're not allowed to call anybody lower; therefore nobody's allowed to be higher.

 

So the Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement, which catastrophically prevents higher transformation and mystical breakthroughs. What is missing in the New Age Community is real intellectual vigor. Under the therapeutic culture, if you feel good, you're enlightened. That is mediocrity, and a conspiracy toward mediocrity."

 

In our current therapeutic society people don't want to see that what they thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

 

V

[Aaron]

[Vmarco]

Hello VMarco,

 

You've mastered the circular argument,....

 

In the end the simplest way to prove that you are enlightened, is not through your words, but through your actions

 

Aaron

 

Do you know what a circular agrument is?

 

Muslims, for example, unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. To understand the dynamics of that, simply ask a Muslim why he believes in the Qur’an, and he will say, “Because the Qur’an is the infallible words of Allah written by his prophet Muhammad.” If you continue the inquiry and request that he divulge how he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, the Muslim will, without the slightest pondering, respond that he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet because it says so right in the Qur’an. This is a circular reasoning common to all three Abrahamic religions and their hundreds of denominations. They believe that their Holy Book is the correct Holy Book, and only their Holy Book correctly describes god.

 

My responses to you are not circular,...although I won't deny you see them as such. However I repeat my previous response,...no where have I advanced myself as enlightenment,...but you are advocating the idea that you can recognize enlightened beings,...which, besides saying you can,...you have not shared why you believe that.

 

When I use the term enlightenment, I'm referrng to an Awareness of Bodhi,...sort of a Buddhist definition. Of course I understand that their are many views besides the Buddhist one. For example, to Kant, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” To a pediphile, enlightenment maybe your victim seeing you as a lovely, devoted person. For Priests and Monks, I suppose enlightenment is about appeasing, avoiding, and tolerance of all defilements.

 

For me, bodhi is the key. You say enlightenment is seen through actions,...but I say that all sensory impressions are usually false. A Bodhisattva,...that is one with either a burning wish for enlightenment, or one who has attained bodhi, make a vow,...

 

Listen carefully,...the Bodhisattva vow is the committment to the liberation of all sentient beings.

 

How could the appeasing Priests and Monks of your idea of enlightenment ever liberate anything through their attachments to the skandhas?

 

The fact is, most ego centered persons would find Bodhisattvas quite offensive for shining light upon anything that stepped between a sentient being and their direct experience. An authentic Bodhisattva would be the most Righteously Intolerant person you ever met. And with such a person, you would be real,...you would not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist.

 

I'd doubt that more than .4% percent of the worlds population could recognize an authentic enlightened being,...not to say that they would be the same,...but there would similiar charcaterists,...as I said,...they would be intolerant of anything that stepped between a sentient being and that sentient beings direct experience.

 

As I have said,...an experience born of belief, can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.

 

V

[Todd]

 

I'd doubt that more than .4% percent of the worlds population could recognize an authentic enlightened being,...

 

How did you come up with this number?

 

 

 

[Vmarco]

[Todd]

It's sort of a number Gurdjieff used.

 

Greek-Armenian mystic Gurdjieff described human levels in the phrase, "Five of Twenty of Twenty." This saying suggested that only 20% of humanity ever consider higher realities, and of those just twenty percent or 4% of humanity consider it seriously. According to Gurdjieff only five percent of twenty of twenty of humanity makes a commitment to actually realizing higher levels of consciousness and thus human beingness.

 

V

 

 

So you were being optimistic in your appraisal? 0.4% instead of 0.2%?

 

I am also still curious how you came to have faith in this number.

 

 

[Birch]

KW has (or runs) a university which puports to train leaders.

Do you think I should take his remarks about mediocrity in isolation from his wider mission/profession/source of income (unless he's not paid, then we can get into a discussion about prestige and influence:-))

 

What I've understood so far is that it's possible to de and re-condition the ego (validated through experience) and it's possible to drop it entirely (this remains a theory for me even if I have had weird moments, but I'm quite suspicious of those at this point:-))

 

This is the gist of the long vs short path malarky.

So shouldn't it be up to people themselves to decide which and when of the paths to follow? Or not to follow any path whatsoever and just be themselves? Mediocrity n all?

 

The anti-boomer stance is IMO forgetting what that generation brought to many of our cultures. Railing against them for not being better than they are is IMO childish. It doesn't mean the following generations are going to follow their flaws either. This impression bears out both on the bums and in pockets of the wider society.

[goldisheavy]

So you were being optimistic in your appraisal? 0.4% instead of 0.2%?

 

I am also still curious how you came to have faith in this number.

 

People take things literally all the time. I am certain Gurdjieff just meant to express how rare something was and didn't mean for people to take the number as a mathematically correct truth. As for the rarity, Gurdjieff was talking about his life experience.

[Todd]

People take things literally all the time. I am certain Gurdjieff just meant to express how rare something was and didn't mean for people to take the number as a mathematically correct truth. As for the rarity, Gurdjieff was talking about his life experience.

 

If you don't mean it literally, then why use such an particular number. Why 0.4, instead of 0.5?

 

Besides, life experiences are quite questionable. You are quite aware of how experiences tend to match expectations.

 

My interest is not so much the number, or the proportion, as the basis on which one makes one's claims. Is it based on another's authority? On one's experience?

 

If it is your experience, then I would rather have the most relevant aspect of your experience, than your conclusion. You can share your conclusion too, but without the experience it doesn't really do me much good, other than to tempt me to take other's assertions as truth and adjust my life accordingly.

[Vajrahridaya]

Did I say I'm a Mahasiddha? No,...but I did mention that you are like a Tea Party fanatic who comes up with the strangest as hominem so to evade what was said.

 

Perhaps you don't feel more than 5600 posts as being personally invested,...others might see it differently. And not only are you invested here, you mention other boards where you champion the cause of knocking down those who claim to have had a direct experience, because it doesn't match your Lineage and "the plenty of Sakyamuni's, Tilopa's, Saraha's, Padmasambhava's, Quan Yin's and other enlightened people in your Lineage."

 

Ok, but you can disrespect my lineage and my experience? Ok then... I see how it goes. Also, if ones experience is connected with lineage, but emptiness is seen, it is neither an experience in or out of lineage. That's an extreme view and your critic seems to always be extreme, revolving around the ideation of an eternal Self.

 

A non-competitive or cooperative way of dialoguing with someone who may have claimed to have had a direct experience (outside your Lineage) would be to inquire about it. Of course, if one has no understanding of any absolute truths, and rely soley on what they are media-ted by their Lineage, then two questions arise,...WHY are they inquiring, and two, WHY are they not content with the admireable fellowship of so many Sakyamuni's, Tilopa's, Saraha's, Padmasambhava's, Quan Yin's and other enlightened people in their Lineage?

 

WHY,...would one who is a member of such an "enlightened Lineage, which exists today, right now" spend so much time typing diatribe?

 

Go figure!

 

V

 

You really don't understand Buddhism.

 

Diatribe? Why because I criticize your critic of buddhism and lineage? Interesting.

[Aaron]

Hello VMarco,

 

I'm going to make an illustration... hopefully it comes out right.

 

 

 

Ignorant_______________________________________________________________Enlightened

 

We look at this illustration and the first thing we see is that ignorance is separated from enlightenment, the reason is that we choose to believe that the world operates along the pretense of duality. The fact of the matter is that there is no duality, except for what we choose to see. The Ignorant man is enlightened and the enlightened man is ignorant. The only difference is their view of their own level of awareness. The line is really not there, in reality the only thing that exists is

 

MAN...

 

But even then we're not happy, because simply saying Man exists isn't enough, because there has to be this duality to it all, so if man exists, then he has to not exist as well, but that's not true either, existence and non-existence, self and no-self are simply observations.

 

So man arises from emptiness and it is by becoming aware of that emptiness that we understand the true nature of man, well let me be honest with you, that's bollocks too. In fact emptiness could not exist without reality, nor could reality exist without emptiness. They are the same exact thing, only our observation of the two is different.

 

You are striving to "liberate" the human race, when it's already liberated! You are certain that you are right, when there is no such thing as right or wrong, rather it's simply your observation of what is right and wrong. So every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, because they are simply how you observe those things to be.

 

Now if all things are subjective, in other words open to our own individual interpretation of actions, then merely entering into an argument is a lost cause, because if you really understand this premise, then you also understand that having the conversation in the first place has no value, except for the value you place on it yourself.

 

So I can sit here and argue with you about this, knowing that Bodhi is silly, that Buddha is silly, that Jesus is silly, and also understand that all of it is quite serious too. I choose to discuss these things, not because I think that they will change your mind, or that you need to believe what I do, but rather simply to illustrate a point.

 

Now lets look at compassion and indifference. These two are along the same lines too, what you view to be compassionate, I could be view to be indifferent. So anything we say about the subject doesn't matter, however do our actions matter? Well of course they matter. Our actions have a definite impact on our environment. So a Sage doesn't teach through words, why? Because he understands the nature of words. A Sage chooses to rely on his actions. Actions cannot be denied.

 

So when one is seeking enlightenment or the liberation of souls, he does not go about telling those souls that they need to be liberated, rather he behaves in a way that shows that liberation is something of value and you cannot show that it has value by telling people that it is empty. Who is going to strive for emptiness when the entirety of their existence has to do with the fullness of physical and mental stimulation?

 

When you can see this, then you'll understand where all the arguing arises from, it's not that you are right or wrong, but rather that you are stripping away the duality of existence and simply stating there is no duality, that everything is simply one thing.

 

There is no man, earth, galaxy, emptiness, and ultimate truth or intolerable lie, there just is. There is no good or bad, pleasure and pain, suffering and happiness, there just is. When you've experienced what I've experienced you understand this clearly.

 

Am I enlightened, by no means, I'm as ignorant as anyone else, the only thing is that my perception of existence has changed. Am I still an asshole, well yes I am. Will I stand smiling as someone yells at me, no, normally I'll walk away. Does that mean I'm attached to this existence? Perhaps, but where you and I differ is that I see through these things and understand them for what they are. I can see through my thought and see where it arose from. I can see through to the child that was born and raised and understand the nature of its pain and suffering. I can see through the man who drank and understand the nature of his drinking. I can see through this argument and understand it for what it is, simply a perception of reality and once I see that then I can view it for what it is and remove myself from it. I can witness it as a spectator, examine it and observe it without attachment and it is from this observation that I can see that it has no meaning, nor any purpose, that in the end it is just one long string of words and that these words in no way will bring a person to enlightenment or ignorance, simply because they cannot change what is, and that is simply what is.

 

If everything just is, then how can we presume that anything we do will change that? No one needs to be liberated, nor is anyone a captive within their soul. They just are. It is when they realize that they just are that they can begin to see suffering and pleasure for what they are, they can not be free of either, not in this lifetime, but they can understand it and in understanding it, they can begin to come to terms with it.

 

I hope that explains what I'm trying to say a bit more clearly. Remember I haven't studied Buddhism for long, I've really only spent the last several months investigating it, most of these realizations came from my own examination of myself and some wise words I read from a man who died several decades ago. Am I wrong, perhaps so, but if I'm wrong, then I also have to be right.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- As an aside, this is also how I know I am never right, nor do I have the right to say someone else is wrong, because the only thing I'm ever right about is my own perspective of reality.

[goldisheavy]

If you don't mean it literally, then why use such an particular number. Why 0.4, instead of 0.5?

 

It makes no difference. Just pick a number. It's just a matter of taste. Why did Chinese pick 10,000 to mean "countless"? It's arbitrary. They could have gone with 40,000, but 10 is probably more poetic and more beautiful. That's all there is to it.

 

Besides, life experiences are quite questionable. You are quite aware of how experiences tend to match expectations.

 

My interest is not so much the number, or the proportion, as the basis on which one makes one's claims. Is it based on another's authority? On one's experience?

 

It's his experience. In my experience Gurdjieffs proportion is way too optimistic. I think it has to do with the fact that Gurdjieff hung out with many like-minded people so he developed a perception that there are relatively many people who question reality seriously. If you hang out with a bunch of salarymen all your life, then that number might be much lower. Then we have to consider whether the estimator is optimistic or pessimistic as a rule.

 

If it is your experience, then I would rather have the most relevant aspect of your experience, than your conclusion. You can share your conclusion too, but without the experience it doesn't really do me much good, other than to tempt me to take other's assertions as truth and adjust my life accordingly.

 

Sure, I understand that. I bet if you talked to Gurdjieff in person, he'd answer you in a way that makes more sense to you.

 

Personally I have different ways of speaking. I have a less accurate way and a more accurate way. I don't bother with a more accurate way unless the person I am talking to is special. The more accurate way to talk is much more time consuming, since it lies outside the habit.

 

Now imagine if teaching becomes a routine, it's easy to slip into the "I'm talking in rough terms" mode instead of "I am talking very precisely" mode. If someone teaches 4 hours every day 365 days a year, there is almost no chance for that person to be precise all that time. There must be a considerable amount of caricaturization, fuzzy approximations, rough language, metaphors, allegories and all manner of non-literal language, embellishment, humor, etc.

 

If people only ever said things they truly knew, we would have never developed a physicalist culture or religions. Think about it. So in our realm even the best person is talking smack most of the time. That's not something bad. It's natural. It's what's convenient and fun. It's what rolls off the tongue without thinking. No use in fighting it. Just understand it for what it is and when you need precision, just ask for it. After you ask for it, assume the precision is gone after 5 minutes and assume you'll need to ask for it again if you want it again.

 

To think and speak precisely is to think and speak unconventionally. To think and speak unconventionally means to think and speak in ways that are contrary to habit. It's taxing, even if it's more correct. Our convention is built on top of bullshit and needs a good amount of that bullshit to be the way it is.

 

I think it's helpful to remind all of us how much we don't really know. But there is no point in getting miffed at our deeply engrained habits. That's just a waste of energy. At least if you think those habits can be transformed, you should have some kind of workable plan and avoid getting annoyed. 0.4 is an arbitrary number. It just represents a personal (Gurdjieff's) impression of the situation. It's good to be reminded.

[Green Tiger]

Intelligent conversation = an oxymoron that hinders awakening

[Todd]

I'm not sure that this interest is such a special quality. I think that it is more or less inherent, and that it just is not talked to very often, and so it lies dormant.

 

Potentially two people could have a deep interest in reality but never talk about it, for they both hide it to abide by convention. Scratch people and you'll find some fairly not-usual stuff.

 

 

I remember a survey where something like half of the respondents reported a non-ordinary experience of consciousness, and so something in their consciousness is interested in more than just the conventional experience, or else they would not have noted or remembered it.

[Vmarco]