Agreed

There is no Ouspensky tradition.

Who told you that "Gurdjieff asked the question: "When you remember yourself, which self do you remember?" "?It's complete bollocks

Ron van der Horst 🙏Welcome to you my friend.

Ron van der Horst beautiful poem!!!

🔥🔥🔥

Sir could you tell me how silence is same as aweeness ???? Plllzzzzz Pllzzzzz

There are not really "things" there inherently which we may or may not be identified with. The appearance of things co-arises with the appearance of the one who is aware of them. Subject and object are mutually dependent - some"thing" must be known by some"one", etc. That which embraces both subject and object is the true Reality and is all that is and all that I am.

You can not identify with something that you already are , you already are... The identification is not needed

Interesting point. I tend to agree with the later. You can only identify with what you are not, but no matter what you current believe of yourself is, you can only be what always and already are. 😘

Those that understand never explain; those that don't understand can't help explaining.

@@vhawk1951kl They get tired of trying to explain and no one can understand, due to a dimensional shift eventually ill just give up , I can sense it coming fast everyone seems to get really upset when as you start to break them as well and just run away

@@gratefulkm If you can, if you wish. I cannot and have no such wish The following can be found on the Gurdjieff international review "I am going to tell you of a scene at the table with Mr. Gurdjieff. He sat down, we were all there together, he turned and asked me: “You understand what self-remembering means?” I answered him, I said: “Maybe I don’t understand.” “Ah!” said Mr. Gurdjieff, “Repeat so the others can hear.” I repeated, “Maybe I don’t understand.” He said: “From today, you are my brother.” I share that with you." - George Adie. Oddly enough on one view the opposite of remember is dismember. Perhaps more practical to have direct immediate personal experience of being a being, or two-natured.

​@@vhawk1951kl yea I'm noticing this literal thing happening a lot, When trying to guide someone to look for a needle in a haystack, you must always help them realise that when they find the needle, it may not be the needle they need to find, Gurdjeff means never stop looking for the needle in the haystack, because haystacks full of needles are funny things and when you go ouch that hurt, you may find that's not the hurt your looking for That what I have revealed is completely inline with what a Kundabuffer is

@@gratefulkm You cannot guide someone, you cannot even guide yourself so say nothing; least said sinister mended best say nothing at all

How does one know, really, what that guy needed or does not need? It seems that teaching appropriately is a very personal interaction that takes place within a context that is present and emergent. How does one experience only Rupert and "that guy" only as dualistic rather than an all-inclusive, self arising, emergence which so happens to contain an observable dialog relating what we give meaning to in retrospect? I still don't know who or what "most people" are in fact, so it is difficult to speak to such vague, general abstraction in a provisional sense, let alone in the light of a definitive one. Without being difficult here, words like never and always do have some gravity and punch to them, but one tends to find them to be rather extremist to the point of losing or negating the point being made, sometimes. It has not occurred to me that being in the silence before thoughts cannot include anything, everything and nothing with thoughts arising, abiding, and returning on their own within the spaciousness of mind as it is. Consider that the true nature may, for some, involve various types of experiences and techniques, (which may prove to be the emergence of it naturally) in order to recognize it, possibly in short glimpses where one simply relaxes and rests with heightened awareness. The rest, for those so inclined, is a deepening and discovery of continuity in all aspects of daily life. That could be called making the pathless path a path. Those with the capacity and proclivities to do so can then use secondary practices and methods as a means to assist those who suffer, which pertains to the manifest essence, nature and compassion of our natural condition. I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. In some sense, there may be no "adequate" preparation when we consider the question, what is it that prepares? We do like to think there is one and that goes along with your idea of the "false self", which does cling to notions like that for comfort and which is why the skillful means are used compassionately to address the fear that is the very core of the illusory contraction of a separate self, rather than to deride it. In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing. The terror on the threshold is a metaphor used for that abstract fear felt so strongly in the imagination. And it is fear as long as we are motivated by it to avoid it or ponder it conceptually in vivid detail. It is very possible that some will reach it, recognize it for what it is and pass "through" it into a realization that the response was to inculcated mirage. People can have different ways to approach that and there are numerous ways to address it, encounter it, and "transcend" it. Yet, it proves to be nothing that needed transcending. Others may not even need to encounter it in such an intense and dramatic way. There are literally thousands of ways and an adept teacher recognizes that and works skilfully with dialog in a dynamic encounter with knowledge and from the place that there is no student, no teacher and no teaching. This is not contradictory. One can consider that the mind is "vast" and awareness is a non-physical luminosity, wherein reality opens infinitely from absence and reveals a spontaneous unity in the here and now as direct experience. In that case, it can be called the Universal approach and is known to be all inclusive. Nothing is left out. It is perfection on its own revealing perfection as all experience including without bias what is called imperfection, which is quite a challenging issue for the intellect from the start because the intellect cannot recognize itself as duality and as the source of confused wandering and suffering. That is useful to contemplate. So, I don't know what most people need to know. I do know that there is an open minded context that is without the constraints of bias and dogmatic or doctrinal thinking which allows for what is in a given situation and responds appropriately as the situation requires. Simply being only seems complex and difficult because it is ultimately so simple. And so, the intellect is utilized in its mode of keen and constant investigation into the heart of the matter and reverts to the natural mode of deconstruction in order to rediscover the sole holistic seed of knowing.

Ernest Weber Thanks for that comment, Ernest. You've given me a lot to contemplate.

Ernest Weber "I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. ........ .......In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing." Ernest, this is confusing to me- how is it 'simple and easy to see the identity for what it is' in what you say? I can see my body for what it is but not the identity with all its baggage of 'achievements' and related history. 'I am not that' is at the core of my effort of searching for what I really am. This ego/identity must go away in order to create the empty space for God's grace to fill it in with the awareness of universal consciousness. Can you have an ego and at the same time be no-thing?

+James Brown He can only teach us in the finite state, because words are objects, and he and all of us are in the finite state while we are on this planet. He couldn't have a lecture in the infinite state, because there are no words there, and we wouldn't remember the lecture, anyway, because anything we remember, is an activity of the finite mind. We don't remember where we came from because, remembering is a mind tool. Memory is not needed in that dimension because supposedly, everything is simultaneous.

hhhstar I feel that all these words can only hold back real seeing/ understanding. To say that he can only teach us in the finite state is to imply that a "he" exists along with an "I" that is separate and that there's "something" to teach to "someone." It's all duality speak to a mind that stays alive by clinging to duality. Reality is empty to the mind, there's nothing there for it to grab, nothing to "bring back", no "experiencer" separate from an experience, just the "what is", underneath, outside of, and entwined within the projected world of a mind in constant movement. Infinity made to appear finite. Nothingness and timelessness made into space and time. Everything held together by thought and memory, with no way or no one to see beyond it. The words and concepts that we hold onto superimpose the silence, which is the source of existence and only reality; thus, the more attached we are to "our" ideas/ thoughts, the more "distance" and "separateness" we sense, the more lost we feel. Unity comes with total surrender, which is to accept absolutely everything internally, spontaneously. Thoughts arise and subside, energy emerges and dissipates, images appear and fade away, all types of sensations occur, but there's nobody there doing it, it just happens when there's a sense of someone here to experience, and there's no "happening" at all when that "experiencer" also merges with reality. But this can only be seen if no "you" or "else" is gripped, out of resistance (non-acceptance) to the unknowable Self/ Reality. Thinking is the opposite of spontaneity. The "thinker" is a thought that separates from and labels other thoughts. "I" is the bridge from thinking to accepting thoughts to seeing beyond the illusion of thinker/ effort/ choice (being). Spontaneity emerges. Therefore, thinking is not the answer. Words only help the one who thinks, who himself is a thought. This must be seen. And it can only be seen by somehow reaching a point of spontaneous acceptance of what is. This means that the appearance of effort to seek the real "I" must also be absolutely allowed, and the appearance of a person that is allowing must also be seen, and the seer of these things will eventually merge into the unknowable Self, after the illusion fades by a deepening of awareness in this way. There's an "I-thought" and "I". One awakens when only "I" is. Words speak to the I-thought. This is my take...but they are only words, after all :)

that is a term from Gurdjieff. Burton being a student of G.

This is still a little misunderstanding off from pure awareness. Real self remembering comes prior to the individual's separate existence. It is prior to the creation of either the objects of perception or the Subject that perceived them. Recognizing that there is no individual you and that awareness cannot be damaged or hurt is what allows for tranquility, equanimity, peace, and feelings of Unity and Love with All, the Absolute. Abiding in Awareness Being Aware of itself is what Gurdjieff meant by Self Remembering. The split attention exercises are just a step along the way. As are the self observation exercises before them.

That is not what he said. Listen again. Keep trying and you will find that it is not possible to control your attention to the degree you suggest. But give it a try and see what you learn by doing. Then listen again to what Spira says here. And read Gurdjieff again. It is worth it.

Yes this is common at first. Perhaps try a few years of meditation upon a single object. Vipassana is an option. Later it will be easier once you have trained your attention to rest on one thing.

There is a well-worn zen koan that asks, "What is my original face?" and this description of self-remembering closely aligns with where that question can lead us. I am very interested in the commonalities between Buddhism and the Fourth Way.

What is Witnessing? And What is it witnessing? We are not our thoughts, emotions, imaginations, sensations, not even the perceiver of these objects. The act of perceiving simultaneously creates both the perceiver object and the perceived object. But in what is the subject and object created? In awareness. And what are the subject and object created out of? Awareness. What you call the witness and the objects that are witnessed are totally and only consolidations in and of awareness by filtering down from the infinity and totality of Pure Awareness. Recognizing that all objects and subjects arise and fall away allows us to recognize that they are not our essential self. Our essential self is that which never changes, cannot be hurt or destroyed or even be born. We are Being itself, Pure Awareness able to remember to be aware of being aware.

try nectAr, not nectOr, not that spelling matters.

Allright gurdjieff brung it but ouspensky made it his own and kind of deviated from gurdjieff but still calling it the gurdjieff tradition

This guy is just tweaking G's teachings, because he doesn't 'understand' them and to suit his own agenda...He's also adding in a few methods that G never mentioned...i.e Self Witnessing. This is an old trick these self appointed gurus do, to give the impression that they are better thinkers than the originators..All this guys teachings are tweaked Gurdjieffs teachings...who himself admitted that they weren''t his own..

If you looked deeper you would learn that Spira literally grew up in a Gurdjieff school in England and that his mother was a long-time student. He understands.

There are no nouns in this world. No objects. Because there are no subjects. Therefore there cannot be 'a result'. There are only processes in ultimate reality which is what Rupert teaches. One process leads to the arising of another process. Every'thing' is a process, ever changing and transforming. There is nothing solid and static. Rupert's other videos go deep into this. Namaste x

No, el "cubo de hielo" que es tu compañero(a) tiene que derretirse también en el agua que realmente somos. El OCEANO, no un riacho.. El OCEANO tiene su corriente propria, natural, somos olas y el OCEANO es indivisible, como el silencio, puro. Solo hay UNO(A). Saludos.

Yeah i so think this too

I understand this. I was researching for hours for my project and when I went outside, I was able to simply "see" whatever was before me. the sky was blue, sunny, stunning, I was not separated from it. my research is very meaningful, and my mind, being satisfied with my work, rewarded itself with the pure "seeing" and feeling and sensing of the pure beauty of the sky. my trick, then is to dedicate all my attention on the meaningful purpose (the book art and music) and the spontaneous reward always seems to be this splendid delicious experiencing of the natural world. when I get tangled in nonsense such a junk entertainment or drama, the sky is dull, bland, no matter how blue. engage purposefully and the "breaks" will follow suit. in other words, the satisfied mind, once satisfied will automatically pause for beauty. when the pausing has sufficed for the experience of beauty, sensuality, this beauty will then inspire once again the meaningful work. ah!

Ashcomics: You are absolutely deadly wrong and You know it. Please leave us alone. We do not need distractions. There is a format for daydreamers somewhere else. Please go away!! 🙄

The trurh is that u are not more th an a si ck s h it

Self remembering is prior to both auditory objects and visual holistic objects. Also prior to kinesthetic sensations and exterior perceptions. To become aware of awareness itself is the only awareness that is self illuminating. There is no subject / object split because awareness is aware of being aware... it is awareness being aware of being. This is abiding in pure awareness which is prior to all thoughts.

Rather stop seeking

Yes, LIFE itself, the ONE, natural way, the manifested and the unmanifested, no entity in between. All flows by "itself". No intellectual or reason, just pure clean energy moving and resting, the energy that "sees itself". LET IT BE.

Self observation is a necessary step toward abiding in pure awareness. But It is common for learners to stop learning before realizing the unification of the subject and object. Awareness of awareness is the only awareness prior to the reification of a subject and an object. Most people still think that self remembering means a subject is thinking about itself. That it is a mind is making pictures, words, or feelings about itself. These subtle objects are still objects and there is still a split that is creating a subject and is creating these objects. Gurdjieff was actually pointing prior to that subject/ object split to where awareness is aware that it is aware. He called that Self Remembering, but that name presupposes a subject and an object so that name points in the right direction but creates confusion. Just "Aware Being" might be a better name.

No. What you are describing is the Ouspenskian mis-understanding of "self-remembering", which is really a form of directed attention similar to the Witness. It's a useful intermediate state. But it's not the "self-abiding" that Gurdjieff and Spira are talking about . . .

Haroulla Fanos. absolutely wonderfully stated

The are not two in the numinous. So split attention is only possible in phenomena, not in numena. Prior to the subject/object split is unitary abiding, synonymous with symply Being (and Love and God and Beauty). Ospensky never quite got there. Gurdjieff was not very clear in his teaching and seems to have been more interested in usining the obfuscation of the mysterious to get students psychology engaged in seeking.

I think you have not understood.

@Armenias Thunk it has to be esoterically answered, or to come from your own ‘flow of consciousness’ grasp of oneness does not come easily, Nor is it always helpful in a world so defined by multiformity. Certain knowledge of what is figuratively called ‘oneness’, from what I have seen, only some will truly understand, and be able to keep. Whether that comes from great suffering of the accidental situational kind, through intentional suffering or through natural luck in seeing. So coming to understand self remembering has both common threads from people, but also has to be learned via the inner, not passed on via instruction. Your categorising me as Mahayana shows this reliance on categorising via instructional rather than experiential learning. Good luck with your own happiness! I would suggest to you the assumption you have made about my own relationship with happiness shows you might have some ‘little ego’ interfering with your meditation and the realising of the full potential of your ‘big ego’ , good luck friend!

@Armenias Thunk I have since making this comment also come back to my own comment and realised that it is esoteric, and that Spira’s definition is obviously correct in that it begins with attention, but my counter is based on my feeling that maybe his response was a little cold, and also rather than his words being meant as an introduction to the idea, that it was meant as definitive, and that seemed a little ‘instructionally learned’ rather than giving some more clue to its full potential, a little dead, or stuck in small ego , rather than sharing its full potential. But maybe this is technique, intentional or technique of the one via collective unconscious!

Warning: This critique misunderstands both Gurdjieff and Spira.

These same ideas can be found in mystic religions of all sorts. Read the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and you well see that Jesus was teaching them to the disciples. Read Rumi and you will find them in Islam. Some forms of Shamanism find them in plant medicines. They are called the perennial philosophy because they keep arising in all cultures.

Who is this "I" of whom you speak?

@@KeithFail2 The observer within me. What exactly that is-I do not know.

To Moses: I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:7-8, 13-14) Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58) Popeye: "I yam what I yam." We are!

@@KeithFail2🌅 "Be Still and Know That l AM GOD"🙏