Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am reading a book by Ouspensky, who had been a student of Gurdjieff. I only read about a third of it so far, and I realize I should probably read the whole thing before posting. But, I don't know. I have read other things by or about Ouspensky in the past, but long ago and not a lot, and I guess I have a different perspective now.
I have been into spirituality, mysticism, whatever you want to call it, all my life.
Anyway, here is my question or what I want to bring up, for anyone here who is familiar with this kind of teaching. Ouspensky says humans are not really conscious, and we do not know that we are not really conscious. If we want to become conscious we would need to get special training.
But, after reading the first 30 out of 100 pages, he has not explained what is wrong with our not being really conscious. He has not said what the benefits to us would be if we went through training and became really conscious. He has said that we would know "truth," whatever he means by that.
If someone is happy living in the sleeping dream state that Ouspensky says we all live in, then is something wrong with it? Well, I suppose we could say that no one is actually happy in that state, even if they think they are.
I am assuming that Ouspenky's goal of "objective" consciousness is similar to the Buddhist goal of enlightenment, or the Christian goal of salvation. But I am not sure.
So, anyway, just struggling my way through the book trying to understand what he means exactly. I always strive for higher awareness or mindfulness, but that probably is not enough. And Ouspensky says you cannot do this on your own, because we don't even know what it is that we are trying to attain.
So far, he does not say there is a danger in remaining unawake. But I remember reading somewhere, long ago, that Gurdjieff said if humans realized the danger we are in from not being awake, then waking up would be as important to us as escaping a burning building. Something like that.
of course we can do it on our own.
no one else can do it for us.
the only one who can bring us to an aware state, is our own self.
it is awareness.
Well I don't know. I am sort of skeptical of Ouspensky's ideas, from what I read so far. However, I think it does contain some interesting ideas, along with the kind of spiritual wisdom many of us are probably familiar with already. He does insist that special training is needed and you can't learn this system on your own. Now, that might be just that he is trying to get paying students.
One thing he mentions a lot is self observation. I think that is obviously useful, for me anyway. But is it useful for everyone?
Is it true that some humans are more highly evolved than others? I like to think it is NOT true, but I don't know.
If Ouspensky is correct, and if there are higher levels of consciousness we should strive for, what does that say about other animals? I always assumed other animals were superior to us with respect to spiritual consciousness, but who knows. And what about primitive people? I assume they are probably spiritually superior to us, at least some of them. But they didn't have the Gurdjieff method or schools.
Well I am trying to get something or other out of the book.
I am reading a book by Ouspensky, who had been a student of Gurdjieff. I only read about a third of it so far, and I realize I should probably read the whole thing before posting. But, I don't know. I have read other things by or about Ouspensky in the past, but long ago and not a lot, and I guess I have a different perspective now.
I have been into spirituality, mysticism, whatever you want to call it, all my life.
Anyway, here is my question or what I want to bring up, for anyone here who is familiar with this kind of teaching. Ouspensky says humans are not really conscious, and we do not know that we are not really conscious. If we want to become conscious we would need to get special training.
But, after reading the first 30 out of 100 pages, he has not explained what is wrong with our not being really conscious. He has not said what the benefits to us would be if we went through training and became really conscious. He has said that we would know "truth," whatever he means by that.
If someone is happy living in the sleeping dream state that Ouspensky says we all live in, then is something wrong with it? Well, I suppose we could say that no one is actually happy in that state, even if they think they are.
I am assuming that Ouspenky's goal of "objective" consciousness is similar to the Buddhist goal of enlightenment, or the Christian goal of salvation. But I am not sure.
So, anyway, just struggling my way through the book trying to understand what he means exactly. I always strive for higher awareness or mindfulness, but that probably is not enough. And Ouspensky says you cannot do this on your own, because we don't even know what it is that we are trying to attain.
So far, he does not say there is a danger in remaining unawake. But I remember reading somewhere, long ago, that Gurdjieff said if humans realized the danger we are in from not being awake, then waking up would be as important to us as escaping a burning building. Something like that.
I am reading a book by Ouspensky, who had been a student of Gurdjieff. I only read about a third of it so far, and I realize I should probably read the whole thing before posting. But, I don't know. I have read other things by or about Ouspensky in the past, but long ago and not a lot, and I guess I have a different perspective now.
I have been into spirituality, mysticism, whatever you want to call it, all my life.
Anyway, here is my question or what I want to bring up, for anyone here who is familiar with this kind of teaching. Ouspensky says humans are not really conscious, and we do not know that we are not really conscious. If we want to become conscious we would need to get special training.
But, after reading the first 30 out of 100 pages, he has not explained what is wrong with our not being really conscious. He has not said what the benefits to us would be if we went through training and became really conscious. He has said that we would know "truth," whatever he means by that.
If someone is happy living in the sleeping dream state that Ouspensky says we all live in, then is something wrong with it? Well, I suppose we could say that no one is actually happy in that state, even if they think they are.
I am assuming that Ouspenky's goal of "objective" consciousness is similar to the Buddhist goal of enlightenment, or the Christian goal of salvation. But I am not sure.
So, anyway, just struggling my way through the book trying to understand what he means exactly. I always strive for higher awareness or mindfulness, but that probably is not enough. And Ouspensky says you cannot do this on your own, because we don't even know what it is that we are trying to attain.
So far, he does not say there is a danger in remaining unawake. But I remember reading somewhere, long ago, that Gurdjieff said if humans realized the danger we are in from not being awake, then waking up would be as important to us as escaping a burning building. Something like that.
So ... hmmm.
I would actually say, depending on your age, dump the book also. You have enough information at your disposal to take it from here.
Yes, "ignorance is bliss" that is truer than true.
yes, I think he is right when he says that most of us need more information. I accepted dying not knowing.
Yes, there is a danger. But, if a sleeper is just living their life and helping people the best they can, without too much of a rukus, they are fine. The problem arises when we have a sleeper and/or awake-er (whats the word for wake-er?) working on an agenda, they can be quite dangerous. Just looking at the news. CNNN and FOX profit by sleepers.
All of what I said you know already.
Secondly. Many high speed scientist understand, and would agree, that we are, in part, the universe experiencing itself. That this part of the universe is learning and evolving. "growing" is the term we all know and understand.
The universe (this part of it anyway) is quantum computing us.
Well I don't know. I am sort of skeptical of Ouspensky's ideas, from what I read so far. However, I think it does contain some interesting ideas, along with the kind of spiritual wisdom many of us are probably familiar with already. He does insist that special training is needed and you can't learn this system on your own. Now, that might be just that he is trying to get paying students.
One thing he mentions a lot is self observation. I think that is obviously useful, for me anyway. But is it useful for everyone? Is it true that some humans are more highly evolved than others? I like to think it is NOT true, but I don't know.
If Ouspensky is correct, and if there are higher levels of consciousness we should strive for, what does that say about other animals? I always assumed other animals were superior to us with respect to spiritual consciousness, but who knows. And what about primitive people? I assume they are probably spiritually superior to us, at least some of them. But they didn't have the Gurdjieff method or schools.
Well I am trying to get something or other out of the book.
is self-observation useful for everyone? yes.
is everyone willing to engage in it? no
no "school or method" offers anything that can't be reached or attained by other paths.
everyone has access to awareness. no single "school or method" is required.
regarding differences among humans, it is plain and clear that there are varying degrees of mastery, attainment, development, and aptitude from person to person. we see it in music, in art, physical prowess, intelligence, maturity, business acumen, for instance. of course people have differences in these areas, and it is the same for consciousness or awareness. is that what you mean by "some humans are more highly evolved than others" that some people are better at this or that?
is self-observation useful for everyone? yes.
is everyone willing to engage in it? no
no "school or method" offers anything that can't be reached or attained by other paths.
everyone has access to awareness. no single "school or method" is required.
regarding differences among humans, it is plain and clear that there are varying degrees of mastery, attainment, development, and aptitude from person to person. we see it in music, in art, physical prowess, intelligence, maturity, business acumen, for instance. of course people have differences in these areas, and it is the same for consciousness or awareness. is that what you mean by "some humans are more highly evolved than others" that some people are better at this or that?
is self-observation useful for everyone? yes.
is everyone willing to engage in it? no
no "school or method" offers anything that can't be reached or attained by other paths.
everyone has access to awareness. no single "school or method" is required.
regarding differences among humans, it is plain and clear that there are varying degrees of mastery, attainment, development, and aptitude from person to person. we see it in music, in art, physical prowess, intelligence, maturity, business acumen, for instance. of course people have differences in these areas, and it is the same for consciousness or awareness. is that what you mean by "some humans are more highly evolved than others" that some people are better at this or that?
Yes, of course, everyone has different abilities and talents. We are born different and we learn different things in our lives.
But in some spiritual traditions, they have the idea that some are more spiritually evolved than others. Well maybe, I don't know, but to me that idea is elitist and arrogant. But maybe it is true, don't know. My feeling is that if we are superior in some things, we are necessarily inferior in others.
I feel the book is worth reading, if only to see what spiritual ideas were around in the early 20th century. They didn't have quantum physics, pantheism, etc., their science was primitive compared to ours. I mean, our science still doesn't tell us very much about spirituality, but at least it is less mechanistic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
