Petals

Member
  • Content count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Petals

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

569 profile views
  1. Make no mistake, when it comes to Consciousness/spirituality Jourdain is one of the most remarkable beings to have lived in the West.
  2. @Zigzag Idiot Thank you! I am going to have a look at AH Almaas. One other almost funny aspect is that G is about attaining some kind of individualized immortality whereas Hinduism/Vedanta is trying to avoid just that. But I get the sense that there is some kind of significance to the term 'self-remembering', that it has levels to it that are hard to understand from below a certain level of development. Maybe on a higher level it is somewhere near 'enlightenment' or 'self-realisation'. This may be a book that can give some clarity on all the different teachings and traditions.https://www.amazon.com/Womans-Gurdjieff-Maharshi-Krishnamurti-Anandamayi/dp/1879514079 but I haven't bought it yet.
  3. @Zigzag Idiot I saw you in the Ralston book thread. I often thought that Ralston is sometimes somewhat 'Gurdjieffian' if I may say so. I was just thinking - with all these other teachings around, where does one put Gurdjieff? One can't help but try to fit teachings into some scheme. So Ralston is ultimately about understanding that the self is a conceptual fabrication and thereby going beyond it and realizing your 'true nature'. But Gurdjieff is not about that. What do you think when I say that Gurdjieff is not about Ultimate Truth as is Ralston but about self-development, self-mastery, ego-development, maybe ego-transcendence (plus a lot of 'science' and cosmology)? Isn't it interesting that he contradicts the 'highest teachings'? G says we should forge our individuality while Buddhism is about 'no-self' and Hindu masters say that the individuality is due to false identification. G says we should have 'will', while Christians or bhaktas proclaim 'Thy Will be done'. G says we should be able to 'do' while Hindu sages say that taking yourself to be the doer is bondage. In short, I get the sense that G is not about the Absolute but about the relative, not about Being but about Becoming? How plausible is it that he never heard about Advaita Vedanta or didn't care about it? What to make of G and all this? What do you think about this? Maybe I am wrong in my assessment. It would be nice to read what you think. (But that's also so appealing about G. He doesn't say 'it's all illusion, get over it'. He sees a purpose to life on earth which is embedded in an overall cosmic evolution/involution.) (ps.: I am not at all an expert in G's teachings, I mostly just read Lee van Laer's blog which I like.)
  4. I have found this site if one wants to read the whole Commentaries: https://selfdefinition.org/gurdjieff/maurice-nicoll-directory/ On it there are also some of his other books.
  5. a beautiful piece of writing: https://thewordfoundation.org/hlib/early-editorials/Christ.html
  6. I heard Shinzen Young once say that he has a thyroid condition and if he doesn't take his medication he is unable to think, literally. so he tried it out to see whether the equanimity and deep happiness continue. and they did continue. now, this is not directly dementia, but it seems appropriate to mention here.
  7. https://www.jgbennett.org/chapter-4-mow/ J.G. Bennet on Divine Love and the (surprising) role of Judas.
  8. seems like Murray Stein's Jung's Map of the Soul is well liked as an intro. or if you want to read Jung himself e.g. The Essential Jung by Anthony Storr.
  9. maybe you should first ask yourself why you have written this post. whatever we tell you is basically useless. you can't devise a way to a 'place' you don't know. who is it that wants mahasamadhi?
  10. @Samuel Garcia I think Leo didn't talk about states. but I think you are right in saying that the waking state and the deep sleep state are both states and they are therefore both temporal and limited and are both seemingly limitations. but that which underlies all states is what is important. that is you. and you are indeed there in deep sleep. but not the you that arises in the morning and subsides in the evening - that you is temporal, too - but the you that is the Self. that's at least what Ramana Maharshi would say. http://ramana-talk-mailer.appspot.com/read?post_name=Talk&index=609 "For the Self is Pure Consciousness. No one can ever be away from the Self."
  11. Is anyone here familiar with the Pathwork Lectures? what do you think about them? https://pathwork.org/lecture-categories/pathwork-lectures-1996-ed/
  12. @Mafortu it makes one wonder, but messenger and message can and maybe must be distinguished. no messenger is perfect. I'm not trying to defend the Ra material, it's just sth to keep in mind.
  13. the following is (just) metaphysical speculation. Leo made clear in another thread that 'Will' is the case and that Consciousness is Will. Will seems to be the attribute of a 'person'. I have recently come across a few sources which seem to say that God is a 'Person' (of course not in the sense that we think, while our personhood might be a reflection of God's Personhood) whereas before I had the idea that it was not, just undefined and 'enlightenment' would be the 'merging' with that Undefined/Undefinable. As an example - Stephen Jourdain. He is somebody who openly says in the same book from which I quote that he is God. Quote: "My story isn't that of a fusion into a great, anonymous mass, but that of the birth of a new person. It must be well-understood: A spiritual person, an entity without either features nor contours yet definitely a person." What do you think/understand about this? especially @Leo Gura and others who have had direct experience.