I’m pretty sure he was saying that your construct is the only form in which the myth exists. In other words, it exists, but only because you made it up. Don’t worry, sometimes those surface meanings are the hardest to grasp. I’m sure on a subconscious, inner level he really meant that the one-myth of human-perfectibility through Sacred Marriage of pinial-pituitary-third ventricle complex underlies all belief-legend-wisdom that for 6000 years unites all mankind free in astronomer Israel’s great eternal All-One-God-Faith!
Dilute! Dilute!
The myth is human perfectibility based on occult anatomy.
And do you believe this myth to be true?
And . . . this is where I came in.
Either you’re being deliberately obtuse, or you don’t understand what I keep asking you. I don’t want a definition of the myth, but an explanation of how occult anatomy leads to human perfectibility. Earlier you had implied that the technique for achieving human perfectibility is based on meditation, but how does this work?
Meditation is the third stage of a three step process: Concentration - Contemplation - Meditation.
Strictly speaking ‘meditation’ is an effect, rather than an active process.
A possibly clearer way of putting it is that the three stages are Focus - Reflection - Transformation.
Generally, what is called ‘meditation’ is actually contemplation/reflection, because the realization of meditation/transformation relies on the procedure being successful.
Meditation is unconsciously employed by millions of people every day, as it is the human creative process applicable to all levels of thought, knowledge, science, and creativity.
Its’ general association with the ‘mystical’ is based on an assumption by most that it is exclusively a ‘spiritual’ discipline, which is not the case, as its ‘transformative’ aspect depends only on the object of Focus/Concentration.
If your focus is material it works just as well, which is a good thing because that is where most focus is directed.
In the Work of the myth the focus is human perfectibility.
OK. My take on maatorc is as follows:
The most generous explanation is that maatorc is one of those poor folk who have had an experience that has left them quite convinced of some underlying truth, and quite unable to explain it. Gurdjieff is my prototypical example — he obviously had something important happen to him, but he spun it into the most intricate and improbable web of explanations and numbers you could ever want.
I think that what maatorc is saying is something like this:
Since time immemorial there have existed several interconnected beliefs.
- The belief that there are “energy centres” within and/or on the surface of (and in some traditions also surrounding) the human body. They are said to have energy in them, and also that energy flows between them.
These centres are said to have various and different characteristics. Meditating on these centres, or stimulating them in various ways, is said to have particular and predictable results. Examples of these belief systems are the “chakras” of the beliefs of the Indian subcontinent, the “acupuncture points and meridians” of the Asian subcontinent, the practice of “moxibustion” and the “spots of mystery” of various shamanistic beliefs. The energy in question is variously called “ki” or “prana” or “vital energy” or various other names.
-
The belief that in addition to having a physical body, we have an “energy body”. This energy body is often believed to look like the physical body but slightly larger, with ill defined boundaries, and comprised of brilliant, even blinding energy. Like the physical body, it has “energy centres” with energy in them and flowing between them.
-
The belief that for unknown reasons, in humans the physical body and the energy body have become physically separated. However, it is possible to re-unite them, and various people have done so (either temporarily in their lives or permanently) throughout history.
Now, I think that what maaloc is calling “occult anatomy” is mostly points one and two above.
I also think that his concept of “sacred marriage” and “the Grail” refers to the point three above.
Finally, he is making the claim that these beliefs underlie what we usually call “religion”.
(All the “X” associated with all past and present “Y” are all “Z”? I don’t know any X, Y, and Z in the human realm for which that is true … but I digress.)
However, his insistence on mystery and “ahh, grasshopper, meditate on the being of nothingness” is meaningless. Yes, as maatorc says, people do have to figure things out for themselves.
So, maatorc, my first and only question for you is …
… should we assist others in the difficult process of figuring things out for themselves, or make it harder for people to figure things out for themselves?
Because as you point out (or pointedly don’t point out, grasshopper), the greatest truth is meaningless unless you figure out what it means for yourself. And of course, the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.
But that should not stop us from pointing to the location of some clear statement of some aspect of that truth in the most detailed, most unambiguous way possible and saying *“There it is! Page 3, at the bottom, starting with ‘occult anatomy is …’. Now, you have to figure out what it means for yourself!”.
*
Anything else is just pretending to be wise. If you know the truth and keep it to yourself, if you obfuscate and say “just think for yourself” and “it’s in that book … somewhere”, to me that’s proof right there that you don’t know the truth.
w.
[tangent]
What I gathered from reading Gurdjieff’s work was not anything along those lines. If I had to sum it up, I’d say that Gurdjieff came to the realization that language very often gets in the way of accurate perception, rather than enabling it. And his books endeavored to ‘break down’ habitual assumptions and pattens of language in order to allow his readers to realign their perceptions.
[/tangent]
FinnAgain, I agree with you … it’s just when he goes off into “there’s four of these levels and three of those levels” my eyes glaze over.
Thanks,
w.
What intention said. He said it better than I could have anyway.
The only distinction between the myth as I see it and the myth as I see it laid out by you is that in your construct the myth underlies traditions. This makes no sense to me as the traditions are the basis of the myth in the first place. Without the traditions the myth would not exist (at least not in it’s current form). There would be no Golden Dawn without Christ, there would be no Martinism without Abraham and Issac. Without the classical interpretations the neo does not exist. Therefore it is a fallacy to say that the myth as you lay it out underlies religion, in fact it is the original religions that underlie the myth.
This is as close to a straight answer I have seen so far.
I believe he also said that the greatest pitfalls in the work were thinking about the work and talking about the work.
Kinda like a fight club.
So the first rule of the myth of occult anatomy is not to talk about the myth of occult anatomy?
That explains maatorc’s posts, I think.
Pop culture refernces not withstanding, I don’t think there is a rule that says you can’t talk about it. The point is not that it is a secret, rather that it is easy to think about something and easy to talk about something, but, in much the same way that talking about climbing a mountain won’t get your fat butt out of your easy chair, so thinking and talking about [air quotes]“The Great Work”[/air quotes] (I don’t think Gurjieff used that term) won’t get you anywhere; as this thread demonstrates.
This is a common misconception.
As you point out, talking about something is different than doing something. Talking about climbing a mountain is different from climbing a mountain.
However, we cannot conclude from that that talking about climbing a mountain is a useless thing. In fact, if we plan to climb a mountain, we damn well better talk about it, because the success or failure of the expedition likely depends on it.
So while talking about “the Great Work” is by no means the same as doing something to advance “the Great Work”, this does not mean that talking about it is useless. Yes, the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao … but that never stopped the Taoists from telling other people about it.
Nor should it stop them from talking about it — when we are on any kind of journey, all information is good information. The experiences of others are useful signposts even when they “can’t be told”, even when we know they are filtered through and distorted by the prejudices and beliefs of each individual’s life.
The reason this thread has had difficulty progressing is not that the Tao can’t be told. It is that maatorc, for whatever reasons of his own, wants to play cutesy. He thinks that the game is “hide the Tao”. For me, that’s counterproductive nonsense. The fact that the Tao can’t be spoken is all the more reason to speak about it as clearly as we can.
w.
I guess I understand what you’re saying.
The point I was trying to clarify is that the idea of thinking and talking as pitfalls is not the same as the Fight Club rule number one.
It is not a rule. It is an admonition, pointing out a blind alley.
Well said.
w.
I’d couch it a bit differently, but I’d agree that it’s not “fight club” type stuff.
First of all, the metaphor I’d use is carrying a cup of hot tea, not climbing a mountain. Of course you want to debate and discuss all you can before you load up on oxygen and start whipping the sherpas.
But when you’re carrying a cup of tea, the best thing to do is to simply walk, calmly, and let your body’s natural equilibrium take care of the rest. If you think too much about the cup, or stare at it and try to make sure it’s balanced properly, chances are you’re going to be much more likely to spill.
That is, I’d posit, the root behind some Taoists response of “not that, not that!”, no matter how you try to describe Tao. Or, for that matter, the ‘grandmotherly kindness’ of some Zen masters who’ll smack you with a stic as an answer to your questions. Or, speaking of Zen, of Zen koans.
That doesn’t mean you can’t talk about it, organize rituals about or, advise on paths of guided meditation about it, etc… In a nutshell, I’d argue that the philosophy behind (some of) the western concept of the Great Work is based on gnosticism and hermetic traditions, and a belief that humanity and divinity are not actually separate. Crowley called the path ‘following one’s True Will’. Gurdjieff described it as ‘holding an idea so closely that not even a thought stands between you and it’. The Great Work is, at its heart (I believe and would argue), about realigning perception in such a way that the self-created bits of reality get changed around: the difference between walking into a party and being sure that you’re ugly and nobody likes you, and walking into a party being sure that you’ve got something to offer to someone there if you can chat them up.
And that gets back to my opening lines here. That is, past a certain point, continuing to ‘open the door’ is simply masturbatory. Showing someone that there is a door, or “passing through a gateless gate”, is the best way to do that. After that, the best route is almost definitely self directed and guided by healthy doses of intuition. And healthy levels of doubt. I don’t claim to be an enlightened being, or anything, but on that subject I’ve had a little aphorism that’s stood me the test of time so far: “Enlightenment: If you’re sure you got it, you sure didn’t get it.”
I’d even go as far as to argue that folks who are ‘high verbals’ are at something of a disadvantage here, just as bodybuilers are at a disadvantage to little girls when learning Aikido. Both the smarties and the body builders will try to ‘muscle through’ a problem with an ever greater application of raw force. But when finesse and flow are required, they run smack into their own efforts.
So, no. Illumination or enlightenment aren’t sold, and can’t simply be told to you. And their basis is almost definitely nested in being able to reevaluate and discard certain patterns of perception/thought.
But the OP’s arguments come across of game playing and a pretension to depth, similar to stirring up a shallow muddy puddle. His claims about the history of Western mysticism/religion are simply wrong, and a retroactive gloss applied to history that already exists fine on its own. His argument’s inability to differentiate between any babble someone actually happens to relate (a “true myth” or an ‘actual myth’) and structures of learning which have an isomorphism with reality… is the pitfall that a healthy dose of skepticism would help avoid.
(Raise your hand if you’re felt like yelling at your monitor: “I don’t give a fuck if it’s an actual myth that people have created, I want to know if it’s an accurate claim!”)
And, after all is said and done, if at any point in your personal/emotional/cognitive/etc… development, you believe that you’re in possession of secret, transcendent knowledge? That you’re one of the Secret Chiefs of the A.’.A.’. or an Illuminatus?
Well… probably time to take a nap.
Just circularly self referencing pseudo intellectual grass, hopper!