J.W.:
Okay we talked about the vocation of the essential value. Is what one
discovers through the exercise the understanding of one's purpose?
W.B.:
Yes, that's it.
Can this purpose be verbalized?
Yes, it has to be verbalized in the exercise. Then, when it unfolds during
the months and years, it can not be verbalized anymore (too complex). But it
is clear what it is.
Can you give me an example?
I remember "being". mine was: ...something like "being present for the other
Oh. That is very nice. Can you give me another example of one of your
friends?
I'll check up in my book. ... hang on... love - peace - being one with the
whole.
That is a purpose?
Well, it has to be lived, not experienced. But it cannot be lived as long as
beliefs are there. And when it is lived, it is no more these words.
Ah... That makes sense. It is also not achievable. Is that true?
Well, the breakthrough is achievable, and then it unfolds by itself if you
do correct work on yourself. This is nearly impossible without guidance of
someone who lives it. There are so many traps and shadows and one doesn't
see them, but someone else can point to them.
Yes. On one hand that makes sense. On the other hand I am reminded of the
words of Krishnamurti who said that a teacher is not necessary. Funny that
(Jiddu) should say that after the many teachers he had. What is your
opinion on this?
On Jiddhu?
On the un-necessity of a teacher.
Jiddhu said that but he's not (to me) someone who I consider to really
having "made it". Did UG Krishnamurti also said this?
Kind of. I remember reading something like there is nothing you can do to
get "it." Don't bother learning from any Guru's or anything. You are
wasting your time. He said something like that.
That's also true. You cannot get "it" because you are with someone who
"knows". There's another paradox: UG says this to persons who come to see
him. It depends on what they want. It's right that most of the people
interested in liberation expect much more from their teacher than what is
realistic. I'm not into doing public conferences, I'm choosing the ones that
are talented enough to be able to do what has to be done. These "chosen"
ones know already that my help is very little compared to the work they have
to do on their own.
Yes. Thanks. That clears things up. I think that the work that needs to
be done is so tremendous that I can only focus on the small pieces one at a
time.
Did UG have a teacher(s) as far as you know?
Yes, but he rarely talks about it. My guess is that his essential value is
expressing itself in a way that people who read or hear him get a kind of
"healthy" choc. In a way, and there is a zen saying also, you have to kill
your teachers at some time to be completely free.
Is 'choc' short for chocolate?
Yes, nice way of saying it. Isn't 'choc' what happens when two cars bump
into each other?
Choc? No, two cars crash together. Chocolate is candy. Did you mean a
crash?
There's a word like shock or something?
I'm not sure. BANG or something. Boom, smash, crash, or something...
I just looked it up in the dictionary. It's shock, yes, a shock to the
nervous system for example.
Oh. Okay. So when one uncovers one's essential value I guess one would
pursue that direction. Has that been your observation?
No. I did it with people who are not into the existential quest and most of
them just either resisted or they forgot a few hours later.
How is that possible?
I have the same question but no answer.
I can't imagine me uncovering something so personally significant and not
pursuing it to the best of my abilities.
You, yes. But most of humans have other things to do in their lives. It's a
question of priority. But maybe it's like putting seeds and much later they
remember. Maybe. This happened to a friend of mine. He got into contact (by
other means) with his essential value when he was young. Then he forgot and
eventually became an alcoholic. Things became really bad, he lost everything
and was on the road. Suddenly he remembered his essential value and did
everything to get back to the message. Then he became sick and he went to
hospital so as not to die in the road. He felt it was over. But instead of
dying, he woke up the next day, and he realized that his essential value was
present and that he was liberated. Some years later we met and he told me
this story.
Oh wow. What does he do today?
He died some weeks ago.
I'm sorry to hear that. How long did you know him for?
I think we met for the first time three years ago. Then we met several
times, and the last time we met three months ago, and I felt that he was
going to die soon. He felt it, too.
How old was he?
My age, I've never asked him, but he's my age.
Oh. I guess being an alcoholic will age the body much faster.
It wasn't that. Unfortunately he had been diagnosed a cancer and had
accepted the hard chemical treatment. To me, he wasn't in a bad state, it's
the therapy that killed him.
I remember when we were chatting and you pointed out the belief that has
been operating full time. It was amazing. I can't believe that I accepted
the statement, "There should be harmony" so fully. I can't even say that
was a core belief, it was more pervasive than what I think of as "core." It
was always there. I can't think of when it wasn't. It was kind of
mind-blowing when I was made aware of it. Thank you.
Thank God!
The last few days have been different than most of the days that I am used
to. There is more uptime. But not the uptime of what I think of as being
the 'peak awareness' uptime. More like playing and forgetting myself. At
work today, for example, time passes without me being aware of it, I
remember looking at my watch and it meant nothing to "me". I knew what it
meant but it was external understanding. There isn't ecstasy or anything
like that but I keep "losing" myself. The internal dialogue is there but it
is less believable, it is more in the background.
That's very good.
small snip]...Open. Present.
Aware. Awake. Not controlling. Not resisting. Not believing. Holding
onto nothing. Pushing nothing away. No 'betterThe other night I read something which made things fall into place....it was
from a zen book. I hope you don't mind if I share it here... "Centering..
Center is where there is experience but no identification with an aspect of
the self who is having the experience....[ ideas' about how it should
be. ....."
Very nice.
That struck me deeply. I have been taking time to let my new awareness
settle in. The gap wants to be filled. Things like "There is no need for
harmony.." try to fit in. But that statement makes no sense either. It is
a careful practice to keep the space open. What is the phrase?... oh yes..
"Nature abhors a vacuum."
The nature of mind is that it abhors vacuum. To keep the space open is the
best thing to do when such a revelation happens.
I want to ask you a question... Is it helpful to listen to tapes of Zen
lectures and that type of stuff? I have been listening to the audio book of
"Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind." It is very good. My question is, is it good to
pour into one's mind this kind of knowledge?
Yes. Listening without the project to remember what has been said.
The other day we were chatting and you mentioned that in order to be
effective one doesn't need to feel resourceful.. Usually when I am in a
"good" state, I can perform activities much better. I would like to be just
as good even when I am not so "happy" but how to go about this?
Whatever state is there, first one has to accept it. If it's a good state,
then all is okay. If it's not such a good state, then act as if you were in
a good state. It's not that you fell better but the results of what you do
would be the same. This is possible only when you know that "intentional
suffering" (Gurdjieff) is necessary sometimes. To do a good job when not in
a good state is part of "intentional suffering". By and by you get
habituated to "transcend" the importance of inner states when doing this.
Oh.. yes.. that would totally sabotage any secondary gains that one may
have had in "feeling bad" can that cause any problems?
Absolutely right.
But, what about the problems that arise from that?
What problems?
Well, I don't know. I guess there is no way to know until it happens. But
I bet that this "intentional suffering" would cause irritability later on.
No, not if you do it and at the same time you know that you do it. The only
"problems" that can arise are physical. Of course, one should not
exaggerate, especially in the beginning.
Oh... okay.. I understand more now. So there is no using physiology to
produce "feeling changes" but to use one's body in a way that one is
habituated to be effective in when the "good feelings" are not there is
okay. Is this right?
The body does it's job whatever is the feeling, yes. But it's harder for the
body if the good state is not there.
Yes. That is my experience. What if one were to "act as if" and after a
few minutes one started to feel good again. (This usually happens.) What
then?
When you feel good it's fine. But this is not always the case, especially
when you "work on yourself". And the periods where you "do as if" might get
longer without getting to a good state.
The same with motivation when it fades. Then you act as if motivation were
still there. It's the same kind of thing: intentional suffering.
Oh. Well, what does this lead to?
This is necessary so that you can crystallize the non-ego. It habituates you
to being able to survive physically when identity is no more present.
Oh....... But about the suffering, I read somewhere that the "big mind"
or who I really am does not suffer. Do you agree?
Yes, the "big mind" does not suffer anymore FROM SUFFERING. Basically this
kind of suffering is the suffering from no more allowing oneself secondary
gains from "psychological" suffering. Psychological suffering is completely
useless and most of the time a kind of self-pity. When you cut yourself from
this, then only you know what "intentional suffering" means. By and by you
get other "gains" that validate that this is okay. The "intentional
suffering" leads to freedom from suffering from suffering, the psychological
suffering leads to more or less psychological suffering, but not to not
suffering anymore.
Okay.. That makes sense... But I get hung up on this: what if I am in a
situation were I used to suffer psychologically, but now I accept it and it
is not really suffering anymore. Then what?
That's fine. No need to go back. There's always enough other situations
where you can practice "intentional suffering".
And also, it is fine to bite off only what I feel I can chew... Yes?
Yes, of course. Be careful and use ecology. That is very important.
So then the suffering is only as bad as I allow for and as I get used to it,
it isn't really suffering anymore...
It's still suffering, but it's chunked down to what you can handle. Not more
than is necessary to remain functional.
Oh.. And in between this suffering, it is okay to feel good states?
Yes, of course. Know that whatever good states there may be, it cannot be
eternal. States change. So whenever you feel good it's perfectly okay but be
aware that it can not last forever.
Right. Okay..
And partly to learn how to act appropriately when not
feeling so good..
Okay..I am now confused on two ideas that are very opposite looking...
1) self-remembering
2) forgetting yourself
How can you do both!
Let's assume that you use "self" in the same way. Then whenever you forget
yourself you do not remember yourself, and vice versa.
But are you saying that the word 'self' means something different in each?
No.
But I thought the practice was to do both 'self remembering' and to lose
or 'forget oneself' Is this incorrect?
Yes, if you give the same meaning to 'self' then what you usually and
automatically do is forgetting your 'self'. And work on yourself means to
remember your 'self'. No need to practice 'forget oneself'. This already
happens anyway.
Oh... So forgetting oneself is automatic.. Yes?
Yes.
Okay.. But self-remembering is not automatic... This is the practice.
Yes?
Yes.
We were discussing suffering and stuff.. So this suffering is quite
different than 'regular' suffering. So then it is good to avoid 'regular'
suffering?
Yes, once you know what "conscious suffering" means you may try to avoid
"useless suffering".
Ah.. This is very pleasing to read. This useless suffering is the pits.
haha.. Yes, useless suffering is such a waste. Ummm... So when one learns
how to distinguish the difference and one learns how to do "conscious
suffering" it doesn't have to be done all the time?
No, it should be done when necessary. When all is fine, no need. But when
there are tendencies to complain, to self-pity, to blame the other or the
circumstances etc. then conscious suffering = acceptance is the solution.
Oh... Strange... Acceptance, when one really accepts what is happening
seems to make the pain less painful. But not always, I mean if there is
pain and I accept it (fully) there is a sense that all is okay and that is
much better than being in a "good state". Is that similar to what you are
getting at?
Accepting does not mean that one doesn't do what can be done to make it
better. But this would be a second step. First, take the situation as it is.
Accepting the situation as it is means also to take responsibility ,
completely, for the given situation. No blame on others or circumstances. I
wouldn't say it's "better" than being in a good state. It's part of life
(difficult situations) as well as "good states". Basically, on the
existential level, there is no difference between good states and conscious
suffering.
What I should have said that this "acceptance" is better than fighting
oneself to get into a good state. Okay... I used to do that and that is
not a healthy pursuit. But when you say conscious suffering that sounds so
painful. Like being crucified like Jesus or something. So conscious
suffering is to be done when those things that you mentioned come up and
only then?
It is to be done whenever there is a negative reaction coming up in oneself.
A negative reaction against someone else or the circumstances.
Ah.. This can be very tricky. To accept fully and at the same time
function appropriately for one's own needs. If a salesman "rips me off"
and my initial reaction is to get very angry and stuff.. That also serves a
functional purpose to get my money back. Do you agree?
First accept fully and take full responsibility for the situation. Then, of
course, it's okay on the functional level to do what can be done to get your
money back (and as a secondary benefit you are not "clouded" by negative
emotions when doing this - which does not mean that you don't shout at him
if you consider this being appropriate).
How do you separate the self that is being threatened from the purely
functional purpose to be treated fairly?
If you go into "conscious suffering" then the self is not threatened
anymore.
Right. It would already have been wounded and so, from this level you could
choose how to respond. Wow, I imagine that "conscious suffering" to be
walking the tightrope inside of oneself. Not to fall one way or the other.
Yes. And from now on you may refer to your own situations in daily life and
observe and practice it. Did you start already?
I have done this in the past. Sometimes I do. To me this is what "managing
one's state" was. It also means to do what is "right." (This is what I
have thought since I have been into NLP.) But this "walking the tightrope"
takes a lot of attention and self awareness. I think it will help me to
know that it doesn't have to be done all the time.
It needs a lot of vigilance. And the aim is not to become an expert in this
but to "produce" consciously a certain amount of energy to be able to become
even more vigilant. Each time you do it you "grow" more and more and next
time you're able to do even more or better. Conscious suffering enhances the
vigilance that is necessary to be really present.
Yes..
A quite different way of saying the same thing would be: it opens your
heart.
Oh.. Okay. let me think.. Ah.. yes. Okay, here is my question,
sometimes I am aware of the thin line that I must walk and it is not that I
am successful but to keep myself from straying less and less each time I
notice myself going to one side or another.... That is okay for when I can
"see" it. What about times when I am so lost and confused that I couldn't
even pretend to know how to walk it?
The first thing to do is to be as much vigilant as to not allow yourself
anymore to be lost to that degree. This is a major objective because when
you're in this "lostness", there is nothing you can do but wait.
Yes. That is what I was hoping you wouldn't say. hahahaah
Okay.
This is very good to understand this because this is what I thought
managing one's state was. To stay on the line. This is not what you meant
by state management?
Yes, the way I teach "state management" is like this. But I doubt that other
NLP trainers would teach it this way.
This is very funny!!! I first learned NLP by listening to Tony Robbins
tapes. And the way you teach self remembering is the way I taught it to
myself listening to his tapes.
That's really funny. So you understood it according to your understanding
that you had had already?
Yes. I never even considered just a "feeling" state I naturally assumed a
deeper level to it. But now that I have some of your understandings, this
will make it even more clear.
Can you explain to me the difference between necessary and unnecessary
suffering.
Unnecessary suffering is all what can be called "psychological" suffering.
Basically it comes out of an interpretation of "what is". Instead of
accepting completely the actual situation as being like it is, there's all
kinds of : maybe it could be better, or maybe I could feel better, or have
more money or have a nicer girlfriend etc. The moment you always just state
what is, completely, then useful suffering is there. Unnecessary suffering
refers to past or future, Necessary suffering accepts the situation as it
is.
Okay. But, sometimes, for me it is not so easy to distinguish the
difference. Maybe something starts off as unnecessary stuff. Then if I
stay with it, I can't tell what it is anymore.
Necessary suffering is more physical and neurological. You feel it in your
muscles. No dreams of better times.
Oh... Okay, that is a great indicator. What is the difference between
neurological and psychological?
Psychological is all the different aspects of identity. Neurological is
purely physical and hormonal. There's no images or sounds, just kinesthetics
and no interpretation of it. No models of explaining things, just stating
what is. It's a very important aspect of good work on oneself. Difficult to
stand up to in the beginning, as there's nothingness. No meaning, no sense.
But very good, basic.
Good. There is some things I want to mention about that. One is that I
can't remember it. Just bits and pieces when I was very surprised at what I
was seeing and made a mental note. But also, in a way, I remember the
feeling to be somewhat umm.. comforting. Is that unusual?
It can even be very blissful. Very very blissful. The thing is not to become
attached to it. Because if you become attached to it, then it might fade
right away.
Yes... But now we have maybe hit a point where the word "suffering" is also
used to describe "bliss" ... wait.. how does this suffering also feel
blissful?
Once you've generated a certain amount of intentional suffering, then you're
ready to stand up to nothingness. To remain with nothingness is the ultimate
freedom. In this freedom you're ready to accept suffering on the same
logical level as bliss. And you have to have the same attitude to both of
them. Bliss and suffering are temporary phenomenon, nothingness is a
permanent one.
This nothingness, is that what you would call the spirit? or spiritual?
No, its literally nothingness. No spirit or anything like this.
Yes.. So the word spirit has never had any meaning to me because I don't
know what a spirit is. But do you have any meaning for the word spirit?
No.
Oh, this is why you say that your approach is towards the existential and
not the spiritual?
Yes, that's correct. It's not spiritual in the way the word is used these
days. It's not "new age". It's "out of age".
I was thinking about this today.. When you say that this nothingness or
'liberation' is "out of time" do you say that because time is a concept and
"it" is outside of any concept?
Yes. And if you want to go further, it's more no-time than out of time. Time
IS a concept. Purely functional.
This is something that I just kind of noticed today... I forgot that time
is equivalent to a kilometer or something like that. But it is so believed
to be a part of reality.
Yes. And it needs a lot of self-remembering not to forget that time is a
concept.
I think that also what makes it so convincing is that EVERYONE AGREES ON IT.
TIME IS EVERWHERE (so to speak..)
Right. No duality.
Hey, when I was reading Ouspensky, he was writing about Gurdjieff speaking
to him without talking. You aren't going to be doing that are you?
Oh, this is my overall way of communicating. But it's more hidden as I also
speak with my voice.
Hahaha. When you say: "No, it's me doing as if", who is the 'me' that you
are referencing?
It's my non-identity "I", my functional "I" which is subordinated to
essential value (e.v.). e.v. is the son of god in the Christian trilogy.
It's me, nothing, becoming someone. Dead in a way, and yet alive,
functioning and having the gift of joyous expression of e.v.
Oh...This is somewhat difficult to understand....So, this "I" that you are
is umm.. just a functional robot in a way?
Yes, in a way. It's the "slave" of e.v.
And what is the e.v.? Who invented it? Where does it come from?
It comes out of nothingness. Incarnation of what could be called the
"highest" or the "ultimate" value that exists in every human being from
birth on. It's like the imprint, god's imprint in everyone. It does never
suffer.
Oh... Okay... I comes out of nothing (as does everything else?)
Yes, everything else comes also out of nothing. E.v. can be lived and
expressed. It's kind of a direct link to nothingness. It can be felt.
Like an umbilical cord to the source?
Yes, that's a great way of saying it.
So everything comes out of nothing... Is this direct all the time..? Do
some things come out of nothing and then other things come from that or is
everything that exists as it is right now directly from nothing?
If you want to understand nothingness, then you have to be 100% subjective.
Your perceptions are the starting point, not your thinking. Now, all that
you perceive comes out of nothing. It pops up. Then your mind has learned
how to code, decode etc. But in the very source perception everything comes
out of nothing. There is no hierarchy.
Okay, so everything everywhere is right now and always stemming out of
nothing... So, now how do I work on my perception of this?
One more tool: reject all generalizations. In perceptions there are only
concrete items to be perceived. No things like universe, earth, people. Only
concrete, observable things right now. You can do that whenever you think of
it.
What do you mean "reject" ? Do I yell at people if they mention those
words? hahaha
Rejecting inside yourself when you start believing that the universe exists
for example. Or when you think of anything that is not present and
perceivable right now. It's a mental gesture not to believe in the real
existence of generalizations whenever your mind produces something like
this. Kill these thoughts when they come up. They have no reality.
Okay... Starting now... Am I to deal with these words on the computer
screen in front of me and no longer think that there is a person at the
other end?
No, that would be too much to begin with. It should be done in a relaxed
state of being. Just kill all the thoughts that come up right now and that
have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
So kill all the "filler" thoughts...?
In a way, there should be no questions anymore right now as long as you do
this, right?
Okay... ... ...
You got it...hahahah
hahaha
hey, bye for now, okay?
Yes... That's good.. See you soon....bye...
END
