Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758741

---

There is never a "dumb" question if you must ask it.

First of all, esoteric knowledge is generally presented to the novice, and is commonly available to most everyone, through myth, symbol and metaphor. There are many reasons why this is necessary but like so many things having to do with this subject, the reasons aren't always obvious. In fact they seldom are obvious to us. But perhaps it will help if we begin with at least a partial awareness that the function of esoteric knowledge is the transformation of the human being from one state (our 'ordinary' state) to another state. One common metaphor that is used to express this idea is sleep vs awakening. So it can be said, the purpose of esoteric knowledge is to "awaken" the human being from his his ordinary state of "sleep". "Sleep" is a metaphor not to be taken too literally but, at the same time, it is a far more 'apt' metaphor than we can commonly admit. Those of us who have gone through the 9/11 looking glass see "sleeping" people everywhere all around us, people who are "hypnotized" by government, media, and so on -- and we know we were once one of them (and may suspect that to some degree we still are).

From the point of view of esotericism, the human being is "asleep" to his higher potential. That is, "asleep" to -- or unaware of -- his potential to be far more conscious than he ordinarily is. However, there is a fundamental problem. The man does not know that he is "asleep," does not experience himself as "asleep". Usually if you tell a man he is "asleep" he will get quite irritated and find various means of proving you are wrong. He is an adult with adult responsibilities, perhaps he is quite well educated, maybe even a man of some importance with a lot of money -- or not. In any case, he is quite certain that if he were "asleep" he would know it -- just as many who haven't gone through the 9/11 looking glass assume that it is too big a lie to be kept secret (or whatever excuse you wish). Or, worse, the man told that he is "asleep" may "believe" you just enough that he then takes this idea and turns it into some fantastical "dream" about what it would mean to "awaken". He begins to fantasize about himself and about the history and future of humanity and read all sorts of books, attending lectures and workshops led by authoritative crack-pot sycophants eager to fleece him to his grave.

sh*t happens.

As regards your questions, I think I've said this elsewhere on this forum in some context or other but we can construct a hierarchy that looks something like this:



This hierarchy is not only quantitative but qualitative -- becoming increasingly qualitative as it progresses. Regardless of your data set or range of samples, no amount of data can become "information" until it is perceived and organized, sorted and stored in some way. Similarly, a large quantity of information will not produce "knowledge" until it is somehow put to use.

I hesitate to say anything beyond the mid-point of this schematic, "knowledge," because to go further up this 'ladder' requires qualities that are very difficult to define. Still, I think you can 'get it' at least that even a very knowledgeable man may not be a very "understanding" man. He may be very powerful but he may not "understand" the world, the other people around him, or even himself -- and never quite manages to no matter how many books he reads or authorities he consults. Something qualitative is missing.

But, so far, all that I've been describing with this little flow chart is ordinary knowledge such as you and I possess as we are. We're not yet talking about the kind of great knowledge that Gurdjieff says is "material" and for which he uses "gold" to represent symbolically. To even begin to understand this requires that 'something qualitative' that is missing from mere knowledge in the ordinary sense.

At another place in the book quoted above, Gurdjieff says a man's understanding is equal to his level of being. This word "being" is a bit hairy but suffice it to say that although a rock, a flower, a dog and a man may all "exist", they do not have the same "being". What is being proposed, here, is that men, too, can have different levels of "being" (which, in esoteric terms, can range almost as much as the examples I've used). According to this idea, a man can not understand anything beyond his level of being. Perhaps we could just as well say that a man's understanding is his level of being. If you want to know what a man is as opposed to what he believes himself to be or pretends to be, look at his level of understanding -- of himself, the world, others, etc. You and I and almost any man or woman we come in contact with are on the same level of being (more or less). Therefore, to understand something greater than we do -- and humanity in general does -- requires not only an increase in knowledge but also an increase in being.

The question you are asking (if I've understood you) is, in what sense of the word is this knowledge, esoteric knowledge, "material" in nature. Chances are this is a "new" idea, not one you've ever come across before and, indeed, it seems counter-intuitive -- which is to say, contradicted by everything you know or think you know already. Most everyone would agree with you, I'm sure. In what sense can "knowledge" be "matter"?

Perhaps it will help if we both agree that matter is energy of a certain density, having certain properties that can be analyzed and comprehended. You've seen before where I've said that living beings are transformers of energy. We take in the matter of food and air into our bodies and they, in turn, through various autonomic processes extract the elements and nutrients that are then transformed into all the functional properties of our organism. However, what is not commonly understood is that air and physical food (including water) are not the only materials that enter our bodies. Right now as I sit here typing this and as you sit there reading, our senses are being bombarded with a flood of energetic stimuli. We are being "fed" constantly through our nervous system, "stimulated" we call it, far more so than we commonly realize. And we can prove this to ourselves through intentionally shifting our attention. If I suggest, for example, that while reading these words you shift a part of your attention to sensing your left foot, you may find that, although it isn't easy, it can be done. Wiggle your toes if you need to and sense what that feels like. Perhaps now you can also sense your socks (if you're wearing any) or the pressure of your shoes at specific points on your foot. All that energy of sensation was already there stimulating your brain but it did not rise to the level of your 'conscious attention' because you were not paying attention to it. You should be able to verify this directly for yourself. But I'll go a bit further because if your experience of this is at all like mine as you continue to read these words within a relatively short time you will once again forget to pay attention to your foot and this stimulation, though still there, will no longer be available to your awareness. This is a fundamental model of the entirety of the human condition: We are but we do not continuously and directly know that we are. This is our "level of being." We have learned and been conditioned to focus our attention in specific ways in order to accomplish given tasks. For example, all of us here know how to "read" in the conventional, 'reading comprehension' sense and it isn't necessary to have a sensation of one's left foot (or, indeed, much of any sensation of the body what ever) to do so. Whether it is reading or writing or talking or walking or screwing or driving a car or taking a sh*t or performing brain surgery or plotting the overthrow of the American Republic and the institution of a New World Order -- it is all the same. All these things are done by men and women who are operating out of a certain very restricted level of being, completely unaware that something more might be possible for us if we could only learn to pay attention in a new way.

Gurdjieff speaks of the "matter of knowledge" because he's speaking of the possibility of receiving more directly, consciously and intentionally, the "energy of impressions," -- the "food" necessary for our transformation -- trough a simultaneous growth of both knowledge and being. The whole esoteric proposal is actually quite simple: We will change as the center of gravity of our attention changes. But to read these words is one thing, to engage in the activity is quite another and not without certain risks. Mostly these 'risks' are of no particular consequence. For one thing, most people, even when they come across this idea, and even if they find it momentarily a little bit interesting, soon forget all about it and, like having taken the blue pill instead of the red one, they wake up the next morning believing whatever they want to believe, brush themselves off, and go about their lives as though nothing had happened. It is, indeed, extremely rare that someone becomes sufficiently interested in this proposal to begin to make efforts and experiments coupled with researching the necessary texts that may, in time, lead them to encounter "one who knows". Well, at least someone who honestly knows they don't know enough but may have a clue. Perhaps even someone who has begun to learn how to digest and transform the energies of impressions such that they have begun to develop within themselves a new being.

IMO: painter

---

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758781

---

Your sense of humor will be a help when it doesn't work against you, as well as the quality of "memory" you speak of.

The answer to your question has to be found for yourself. That is part of the beauty of it. But, in brief, how do we learn to do anything we want to learn? In most respects this is no different. We have to want to enough to overcome the inner and outer obstacles that inevitably come up, we have want to do the necessary preliminary work and research and then we have to want to enough to take the step beyond "theorizing" or "dreaming about" it to actually make the effort to try something, to practice and observe and learn directly from these observations. This is where the "matter of knowledge" comes into play because when we actually learn something, a certain amount of material has been digested and incorporated into our being. Something gets "deposited" and is not so easily lost or taken away. If this progresses, the center of gravity of our attention becomes more even, more stable, more consistent and possibly deepens.

However, there are also "differences". For one thing, it may be helpful to understand that this "drifting into distraction" is lawful (cosmic law). This is the human condition as we are at our current level of being. I'm always a little reluctant to say things like that because it creates in the mind of the reader that I "understand" what these laws are and how they work but the truth is my "understanding" and "knowledge" of these things is limited. What one must be cautious of here is "believing" anything that has not been confirmed by one's own experiential observation. I certainly have confirmed for myself that achieving the aim of maintaining an more or less continuous awareness of the moment is almost impossible. It seems like it should be the simplest, easiest thing imaginable but the fact is it isn't. The question, then, becomes something like "why?" and "what can I do about it?" Esoteric writings indicate that the "reason" is "lawful" (as everything that happens is lawful, however much we may not understand this). "Laws" are "forces" at work. In this instance we are speaking of forces in exactly the same way that certain physical principals of the universe are "lawful". As an analogy, if I toss a rock into the air it will come back down according to the "law of gravity" and when and where it will come down can be predicted provided I understand the principals of "law" that are at work. Moreover, if I can toss the rock at the correct trajectory and with sufficient velocity, the rock can break free of Earth's gravity. But all this, too, is "lawful". It isn't that the "law" has been broken but that it has been understood and compensated for. The rock is not free from "the law of gravity" or any other physical constraint but has moved beyond the influence of the Earth's gravity. Perhaps it will become an orbiting satellite or perhaps it will continue onward out into space. All this, too, is "lawfully" determined.

So, I have to study this phenomena in myself. It may be helpful to also study what has been written by others about this but it will be of no use to study what others have written or said if I do not simultaneously make the effort to try. There are practices and experiments which may also be a help. I might discover that certain conditions are also helpful. The closest I can come to giving you any specific suggestions at this point is to say that I find it helpful to consider that it is somewhat like breathing. I can not only breath in or only breath out, there is a natural rhythm to my breathing that changes with changing conditions. I can observe this for myself. Perhaps in certain quiet conditions when my attention isn't demanded by external influences, I can study this 'rhythm' and movement of attention.

Finally I'll only say that nothing is possible outside the laws which govern our existence. This simple thing that interests us would be impossible were it not for the fact that it is lawfully possible for us to pay attention to our attention itself -- at least now and then, at least a little bit, at least under certain conditions or at least when we remember to try. You began your post above with an analogy and a moment of self-awareness. You are not literally "swimming underneath the thick primordial muck." But there is a truth there, an awareness of something. You've presented it to yourself and to us with an analogy coupled with an "inkling of a memory that there is a less viscous atmosphere above". Just as a stone can be catapulted into orbit or further out and free from the influence of Earth's gravity, intuitively you sense that there is a possibility to be differently than you are. This intuition is a signpost to the path. We only need to be careful not to become too fixated on how our minds articulate these impressions of what may be possible such that they become further distractions. (This is why religions, lawfully, always fail, by the way; and this is the source of the admonitions against "idolatry", which themselves, in turn, have become 'idols' of a sort.) The ordinary mind that has been conditioned by life may not understand any of this very well and yet something within us that the ordinary mind blinds us to (the way the sun blinds us to the constant shining of the stars) is capable of knowing -- and capable of growing. But it is very subtle and easily lost or distorted. Even saying anything in words about it is two-edged for, on the one hand, it may need to be said because it resonates with what is lawfully and truly possible but, on the other hand, if it simply is recorded by the ordinary mind or some portion of it and becomes a matter for "belief" or "disbelief," its transformative potential is lost. This, too, is lawful.

Read again what I wrote in the OP of my "Learning How to Read/Be Free" thread and we'll take it from there.

---

has any body read 'disappearance of the universe' or 'a course in miracles'?

that whole gurdjieff/ouspensky thing grabbed me for a bit some years back. it doesn't really resonate w/ me anymore.

did like the bhagavad gita, seem to grok it better today.

your soul/spirit (pick a word) is the real you....

my two cents

Painter, great series of posts - offers me an opportunity to temporarily break out of my normal patterns of thought. Thank you.

There are a couple things I would like to comment on and ask about.

The first is intuition. In a post above you respond to Lunk: "intuitively you sense that there is a possibility to be differently than you are. This intuition is a signpost to the path."

This reminds me of the struggle I have with this and in fact any online forum: it engages my rational faculty, usually at the expense of my intuitive faculty. (Because of a phenomenon analogous to physical exercise: the muscle I exercise grows and strengthens, while the one I ignore atrophies.)

I find that my intuition is a source of "knowing" (I put that in quotes to highlight the fact that I am not qualified to speak on the term) that may otherwise be unavailable to me. My sense of Western Culture is that it tends to raise up the Holy Rational Mind as the be-all, end-all of existence. I refer to it mockingly as my "brilliant, calculating mind" à la the Coyote in the Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons familiar to Americans. In other words, I find my mind can fool me. I relate to the bumper sticker that reads: "Don't believe everything you think." I felt this way before I came into contact with traditional Native American cultures, but my experiences among traditional people have reinforced this perspective within me. I really feel we in Western Culture are out of balance between the more active Rational faculty and the receptive Intuitive faculty.

For me, what I call "intuition" can take various forms. Perhaps they are not all the same phenomenon. At a simple level, when the phone rings, I may "know" who is calling. (Okay, now in the age of caller ID we all know who's calling. But- do we really?) Another manifestation may be guidance on the intentions of another person. Occasionally after making a choice I may have a "bad feeling" about it. I have been paying attention to my intuition for a number of years and one thing I've learned is that when I have a bad feeling about something, I had better take another look at that choice. A few times, I acted to my benefit based solely on an intuition in the complete absence of objective facts. I am no expert, though. Often I have trouble discerning whether I've just experienced genuine intuition, or some stray fart of imagination.

I don't believe nor mean to suggest that the rational mind is not useful, but I regard it as a tool, rather than something worthy of near-worship. (And I'm not at all suggesting your counsel regarding applying our attention is not needed: in fact my intuition tells me that what you are trying to teach us is important.) Neither do I believe that I could survive on intuition alone, but rather that I should develop it to the appropriate degree to work in harmony and in balance with my other faculties, including the ones I may not yet know about.

Okay, so this is my first question: does your own experience or the work you are involved with have anything to say about intuition, and if so, how does it relate to what you are trying to impart in this topic?


The second inquiry has to do with what you said about being.




I relate to this idea of being. I very quickly learned there is something available in a properly-conducted traditional ceremony that can not be gained through discussion or reading. It is a quality of energy, that somehow affects me. Somehow it raises my "understanding" (again with the quotes, and for the same reason). I notice this energy seems to develop as a result of actively participating in the ceremony. In discussing this once with an elder, she referred to the story of Jesus turning water into wine and suggested that it was through the <i>pouring</i> of the water that it became wine. Her comment stuck with me.

So I'm on board with the importance of increasing my "being", but I am unclear how this may be accomplished through the medium of an online forum. You state in your original post that:



Do you really believe there is some possibility to achieve this "online"?

That depends on all of us. In general I agree with what you are saying and appreciate your concern. As you've asked the question the obvious answer is "no"-- "being" can not be achieved "online" any more than it can be achieved from reading a book or looking at a work of art. And yet, historically, symbols, architecture, books, works of art and so on have been used for millennia to communicate ideas about being to people who were not present in either time or space with those who created them. Online communication has a lot of similarities with reading a book (and your concern regarding engaging the "rational faculty" is an important one) but is also different. It is a bit more participatory, for one thing. One gets to ask questions or state one's point of view. We're all authors and audience. Obviously (like most everything) it is both a blessing and a curse.

Something to ponder: One far wiser than myself once said, "Words do not spoil the silence for those who have ears to hear what is being left unsaid."

From the point of view of esotericism, a ceremony is a condition that is created for the purpose of increasing the possibility of something new appearing within the awareness of the participants. So, perhaps rather than thinking of this as "achieving" anything, it might help to think of this as an opportunity to engage in creating conditions for one's self and others. Obviously there are limitations to this medium and perhaps more could be achieved if we were all in the same place at the same time. As your experiences has shown you, we are energy transformers and when we gather in the same place at the same time with a common aim a certain 'charge' can build up. That said, if the participants in a ceremony bring nothing of themselves to it then nothing much is likely to occur. Doesn't matter how steeped in tradition the ceremony is, how grand the edifice in which it occurs or how sacred the symbols and rituals employed. All these things are (or were at one time) meant to be a help toward a growth of being, which is why they came into existence, but if the participants bring nothing, try nothing, observe nothing, nothing can appear and nothing will be achieved. The same is true for reading books, online forums and everything else.



Your observation is accurate and it is a good question. When dealing with subtle 'intuitions' or 'feelings' how can I know whether they are, or to what extent they are, real vs imaginary? But before we can begin to ask that question we're going to have to answer the same question in relation to most everything we assume is real for us already. Our "thoughts," for example, are not subtle but are they any more "real" than "some stray fart of imagination"? The point is, we have to observe, study, and try and see more clearly for ourselves what is going on inside us.

The work I'm involved with seldom uses the word "intuition" but does speak of "feeling" -- not to be confused with emotion. Intuition, to me, is a quality of feeling that "knows" something. From where might this felt knowledge come?

Intuition, vs, subliminally planted predictive programming.
How does one tell the difference?

I think, that intuition that is based on personal life experiences,
is real.

Where as, answers, drawn from others or media,
are the results of the predictive programming through a controlling media.

I think, for instance, that if shows on TV like the Lone Gunman, were not shown to
the public, well before 9/11, we would all have, intuitively realized, that it was false flag.

The predictive programming seeds of doubt were sown
and the result was, that we ignored our natural intuition.

imo, lunk

Finding this very interesting, having been asking myself the same question for several years now. Who, or what, am I?

I feel that I’m not my name… that’s just a label others use to refer to me.

I feel that I’m not my job, or my interests… they’re just things that whatever I am is doing.

I feel that I’m not my thoughts (though I am aware that Descartes would not agree!)… because I am having them.

The closest I’ve come so far in answering this question is that whatever I am, I am the observer of all these other things.

Maybe it’s enough simply to say, I am?
(reminds me of that ol' line: 'I'm a human being, not a human doing')

I’ve been trying similar things to some mentioned here… such as simply observing what is going on around me without judgement (not easy); observing my thoughts without following them or allowing myself (whatever that is!) to get drawn into them, and gradually learning to sometimes suspend thought altogether in an attempt to be aware of what remains.

Can’t say I’ve particularly found any answers… but I have found I seem to be much less reactive to problems and issues… a lot calmer… a more peaceful what-ever-I-am.
I’ve also found ‘myself’ feeling as if I am beginning to understand things more deeply… but in ways that cannot really be put into words…
Perhaps this relates to Painter’s idea of ‘learning to read / be free’?
Or maybe not!

If it’s any consolation, Painter, the question of ‘Who am I?’ is one explored in depth in at least one classroom every year… with some very interesting things experienced and hypotheses suggested.

A popular response is "I am life"... but my next question is... and what does that mean?!

Well, well, well. Welcome to the forum, Willow.

I'd almost given up hope!

Why, thank you

Would be more than happy to engage in the sort of discussions / experiments you suggest.

After all, where there's hope, there's life!

Been thinking about your ‘go find your question’ statement on the 'Zeitgeist' thread, Painter. Really got me puzzled. I realise you may not have meant it in this way, but your use of the singular prompted me to try and think of a most important, 'ultimate question' as it were.

What is the ‘ultimate question’? Is there an ultimate question? Can there be an ultimate question in an infinite universe? But perhaps there can be within the finite moment of me, here and now.

According to my often perplexed and humorously frustrated students, my favourite question is “Why?”

After some reflection, my current question is thus wise:

After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left?

You know, for any Kubrick fans out there there is a documentary about him that was done titled 'Kubrick: A Life in Pictures' which I watched recently (it's on Youtube if you look). It talks a little about the widely held notion that the man was obsessive and reclusive (verging on crazy). Interviews with his wife Christiana at their home in Britain however makes it abundantly clear that he had a happy and full home life and enjoyed the freedom to strive for perfection while doing what he loved, surrounded by his family and the talented people he worked with ... nothing like the way he was portrayed by critics. Asked what was the secret to Kubrick's great success, both in his work and in his personal life, Christiana answers, simply, "attention".

"Attention" is the key to everything.

What we've yet to understand from the inside out is that there are different kinds and qualities of attention.

That's the problem.

We let our attention get cut off from its source and, thus, we loose a direct connection to our most vital re-source. Thus we wander more or less aimlessly through life, not sure why we are here or what we're supposed to be doing -- except as dictated by influences from the outer world. In this state we are forever captives, prisoners, slaves to a system that we neither understand nor control.

Pardon my technical ineptitude (haven't clue how to post a link, so this probably won't work ), but I found the Hubert Benoit document Painter directed me to: 'Acceptance - Temporal Attention and Total Attention' to be extremely useful in developing understanding of this essential concept.

Hopefully a link!

(If it doesn't work, maybe someone kind and more 'ept' will put it right for me! )

Willow, although I could turn around 180 degrees and ask you directly.... this way seems a little more interesting...

"After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left?"

Is there not a need for that which we perceive ourselves to be as well as a place for the search - i.e. we start from where we are - the need, perhaps is to recognise the incomplete nature of what that is at any given moment otherwise the baby leaves with the bath water. Or perhaps I misunderstand.

Sorry Painter - you've already been there!!

I've just learned a lesson in watching, listening and learning

On the contrary! IMHO, that's it exactly. As you are so fond of saying: 'We have to start from where we are!'

In fact, that is one of the key points the aforementioned document addresses. It is only through increasing our temporal attention... our full and total awareness and acceptance of where we are and what currently is, without prejudice, that the wider dimension can begin to be perceived.

The idea is not to leave anything behind, but to add to it.

If the writer "Carlos Castaneda" is to be believed,is this what you are alluding to.??

First I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.



I was institutionalized in an American public school. My entire childhood wasted, while I dreamed and looked out the window. I resented that “education”. I then rejected educational brainwashing for my 4 children. Coming up with the motto that, “if someone was gonna fuck up my kids…it might as well be me, since only I love them, and I have their best interest at heart”. Taking personal responsibility for doing things differently than the so called norm when it came to what I wanted my children to learn from me.
Learning is like breathing and eating, you will do it. When a woman is breastfeeding her child, their faces are about 16 inches apart, you are definitely learning on a level you have no control over. It is so primal and evolved, (we are mammals after all). From the moment of birth when baby bonds and imprints, and the baby puts faces to the voices, after listening for months, learning is taking place. Learning what is safe to learn. Learning through touch, being carried on the mothers body. Knowing every event through the physicality of the mothers movements. Survival depends on developing impulses, jump right toward the safety of the trees or left into a tigers mouth. Music and dance innate in each footstep of the mothers grace. And that is just for starters. Learning by living, using nature as a guide. Staying connected human to human, skin to skin. Is it over simplifying to say if you don’t learn naturally, you must compensate unnaturally? Propping a formula filled bottle in a baby’s mouth, and walking away, sends a message…baby reads it loud and clear. You are on your own baby. There may be a right way and a wrong way to learn. Everything else hinges on that beginning, right brain/right breast, switch sides, left brain/left breast. Breastfeeding might seem like it is off the topic of intellect, but to me its not. Breastfed babies have higher IQ’s. Yet breastfeeding is taboo. A woman being available to actually hold the baby, and feed the baby, does not fit into what society deems important. Careers are encouraged, but never a career in mothering. The breast is universal, crossing all language barriers, across time, unused and misrepresented. Talk about dumbing down, from cradle to grave. Break the bond that ties. Create neurotics, you can control. Instead of well adjusted individuals who know how to read the writing on the wall.