Creation of the Soul

[maestro]

Reading the work of Gurdjieff, I came upon an interesting idea.

By now almost every philosopher/scientist of the mind knows that the I (ego) is a false construct. In fact it can also be seen clearly that there is no such center but various habitual patterns which seize control of the mind/body in succession. Once it is seen clearly there is no choice but to drop this artificial conception of a center.

What next after this realization: allow the mental/body habits to continue as before with the succession of patterns continuing to seize control of the organism one after the other?
(Note that the uncovering of ego is not sufficient to kill these habits.)

Here he offers an interesting idea. Create a permanent I which kills all these useless patterns and assumes control of the mind/body for real. In effect create a soul where none existed in the first place.

[clyde]

maestro;

Yes, it is an "interesting idea" and reminds me of the traditional saying of "using a thorn to remove a thorn". Still, one is creating a construct to eliminate a construct, and then you will need to create another construct to eliminate that construct, and . . .

Better to rest and cease creating constructs.

clyde

[maestro]

This time it is not a construct.

[Dan Rowden]

I can't but wonder if Gurdjieff ripped that notion off from Nietzsche - "will a self".

[clyde]

Create a permanent I which kills all these useless patterns and assumes control of the mind/body for real. In effect create a soul where none existed in the first place.

maestro;

How does one create something, anything, and it NOT be a construct?

clyde

[maestro]

How does one create something, anything, and it NOT be a construct?

If I build a car, is it a mere construct?

The idea is of great importance, it bridges the gap between vedantic and buddhist meditation. In Vedantic meditation the seeker is told that he is observer beyond the body/mind phenomena, while in Buddhist meditation the seeker is told that everything is transient (no self). From what Gurdjieff says it seems the Vedantic guys were shooting for creation of a permanent self. Only this self is aware and intelligent and not imaginary and pathological.

If you want to know this in my context see my first post on enlightenment finally. The observing process I describe there, informed by the logical mind appears to be the same soul as the Vedantists were aiming for.

[PeterL]

maestro,

If I build a car, is it a mere construct?

Yes.

Puzzling, isn't it.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs]

[clyde]

maestro;

Peter has answered your question (& Leyla has laughted): Yes, it is a construct.

I read your first post on "enlightenment finally" and congratulate you for having "acquired the end of suffering."

clyde


p.s: Buddha taught the Three Marks of Existence: dukkha (suffering), anatta (not-self), and anicca (impermanence). So what is this "permanent self" you found?

[Leyla Shen]

Man, that's the funniest dialogue I've read on the forum in such a long while...

[maestro]

Funny indeed, I should have clarified that it not an imaginary or mere verbal construct.

Buddha taught the Three Marks of Existence: dukkha (suffering), anatta (not-self), and anicca (impermanence). So what is this "permanent self" you found?

What after the realization of no self and impermanence? If this realization is nirvana, then the permanent self is a post nirvanic path.

[divine focus]

At the heart of impermanence, there is permanence.

[clyde]

maestro;

You did not address my question: What is the "permanent self"? If it is created (as you wrote), than its existence is dependent on causes and conditions, and if those causes and conditions cease, then the "permanent self" will cease to exist. If its existence is not dependent on causes and conditions, then it must have always existed, so you did not create it and it is not yours.

And my answer to your question: "What after the realization of no self and impermanence?" Live harmlessly.

clyde

[maestro]

f it is created (as you wrote), than its existence is dependent on causes and conditions, and if those causes and conditions cease, then the "permanent self" will cease to exist. If its existence is not dependent on causes and conditions, then it must have always existed, so you did not create it and it is not yours.

Indeed it depends on the effort to create it and being a human, thus it is not permanent in an absolute sense. It is permanent enough, to take care of suffering and intelligent living.

I would say that if you make a firm determination to fight suffering, that determination itself is a permanent self, unlike the changing mind/body conditions. It is a center around which your whole being can act.

And is that not true for any determination. One idea which dominates all else and the whole being works towards it.

[samadhi]

maestro,

How do you know you are not simply re-creating the ego in another guise? After all, the guise you are positing is a familiar ego pose, killing habits to take control. Isn't that what egos do all the time?

[Carl G]

I would say that if you make a firm determination to fight suffering, that determination itself is a permanent self, unlike the changing mind/body conditions. It is a center around which your whole being can act.

I think this is pretty well said.

How do you know you are not simply re-creating the ego in another guise? After all, the guise you are positing is a familiar ego pose, killing habits to take control. Isn't that what egos do all the time?

No, egos are not in the business of killing negative habits, such as those which would cause suffering. Egos thrive on suffering.

Another hallmark of the "I AM" or permanent self is the ability and wish to see oneself as one really is. Egos thrive on self-denial, self-delusion, and self-blindness. Egos thrive on unconsciousness while the permanent self works for consciousness. They are quite different.

[clyde]

No, egos are not in the business of killing negative habits, such as those which would cause suffering. Egos thrive on suffering.

Carl;

Who is it or what is it that seeks enlightenment?

clyde

[samadhi]

Carl,

sam: How do you know you are not simply re-creating the ego in another guise? After all, the guise you are positing is a familiar ego pose, killing habits to take control. Isn't that what egos do all the time?

Carl: No, egos are not in the business of killing negative habits, such as those which would cause suffering.

Really? Egos never try to change bad habits? Are you serious?

Egos thrive on suffering.

They also thrive on trying to fix it, if you haven't noticed.

I would say that if you make a firm determination to fight suffering, that determination itself is a permanent self, unlike the changing mind/body conditions. It is a center around which your whole being can act.

I think this is pretty well said.

Is this a joke? A firm decision to fight suffering is a hallmark of the "permanent self"? Yikes, two crusaders out to fix the world at the behest of their permanent selfs! lol ...

[Carl G]

Who said anything about trying to fix the world, Sir Laughalot?

[maestro]

How do you know you are not simply re-creating the ego in another guise? After all, the guise you are positing is a familiar ego pose, killing habits to take control. Isn't that what egos do all the time?

The ego pose of killing habits to take control lacks one character, which is clarity of what is happening. Thus it is fighting against what it is creating in the first place.

Here clarity exists upfront, so what is happening is what needs to be done.

A firm determination without clarity (if it is really one pointed) is also not same as the ego fighting habits, because the so called ego being nonexistent blows with whatever external conditions bring. On the other hand the firm determination is really active in one direction. So it is a permanent self as opposed to the fictional ego.

I would say that this is true even if the determination is about anything. A permanent self has been created. The organism instead of being blown with the wind moves in a particular direction.

[clyde]

If it is created (as you wrote), than its existence is dependent on causes and conditions, and if those causes and conditions cease, then the "permanent self" will cease to exist. If its existence is not dependent on causes and conditions, then it must have always existed, so you did not create it and it is not yours.

Indeed it depends on the effort to create it and being a human, thus it is not permanent in an absolute sense. It is permanent enough, to take care of suffering and intelligent living.

I would say that if you make a firm determination to fight suffering, that determination itself is a permanent self, unlike the changing mind/body conditions. It is a center around which your whole being can act.

And is that not true for any determination. One idea which dominates all else and the whole being works towards it.

maestro;

It seems from your description that the "permanent self" is not actually permanent. So why call it permanent?

And what is the "you" that "make[s] a firm determination" that becomes the (not-so) "permanent self"? How do you know that this "firm determination" will not arise and pass away? If the firm determination falters, does your "permanent self" cease to exist? Do you have this firm determination when you sleep? When you're dead?

While such determination may have utilitarian benefit, it may become another attachment.

clyde

[maestro]

It seems from your description that the "permanent self" is not actually permanent. So why call it permanent?

Seemed to me a good idea that a logical and observant faculty become permanent till death, and that it has at least some definite goals (keeping suffering out and increasing awareness in my case).

What else do you suggest? Just do what feels good at the moment?

[clyde]

maestro;

I acknowledged that a "logical and observant faculty" may be of utilitarian benefit. I'll go further and agree with you that it IS of value.

My objection is to the reification and attachment, and to the belief that it is in any way permanent or a self.

And I answered the question of what to do: live harmlessly.

clyde

[maestro]

And I answered the question of what to do: live harmlessly.

Live harmlessly is too vague, it is like do the best in all circumstances. Sounds good, but how to do this?

My objection is to the reification and attachment, and to the belief that it is in any way permanent or a self

Also, we must all come down from our ivory towers of nonduality, nonattachement and timelessness, to actually achieve something.

It is a self because the actions of the being revolve around it. While earlier there was no such thing.

[clyde]

maestro;

Vague? You wrote that you understood suffering and had achieved the end of suffering. To live harmlessly means not to cause others to suffer. OK?

clyde