J gave an example of what he tried. Do I or do I not put an extra sweetener in the drink? Do I or do I not go for exercise afterwards?
And then of course comes the question: Which is actually being kinder to myself?
T remembered the CHALLENGE after having a hot drink about half the time, and would then do something kind to herself, which was usually something to do with food, or a nice exercise that she liked doing, but she would often forget the third part, which was standing on one leg. She had managed to do the three together probably half a dozen times, which was an improvement on two the month before. In retrospect, she remembered that she had forgotten, and that felt like not getting the target.
N had succeeded in being prompted by the trigger of having a hot drink, but found it hard to think what he could do to himself which was in kindness and also directly governed by his conscience, other than sitting down and doing a meditation or something for a minute or so, so he did various things which were out of the ordinary, like reading some poetry. He sometimes he did not do the standing on one leg for three seconds, it somehow got lost along in the process.
For L, it had highlighted the question even more about What is kindness? If you were being kind to somebody else, you might possibly be doing them some harm, because you were taking away some empowerment. If you were being kind to yourself after a hot drink, you might think, Ah, I am going to have a slice of cake, and be kind to myself! - but that cake will contain the poisonous substance sugar, so are you being kind to yourself? This kindness concept was elusive, and he was not sure how meaningful it was. The final part of the Challenge was that it should be directed by conscience, so being kind to yourself, and then doing some physical exercise which you knew would be good for the body, and was pleasurable - he thought that qualified, and he had done that a few times, and if it was not physical, he generally remembered the standing on one leg, which brought back attention to the physical. In these Meetings, because we did not do things like the Gurdjieff Movements, we did tend to get lost in intellectual diversion. He had found it more interesting than useful, because it made him reconsider what kindness was, and what he was doing to help himself.
During the time allocated for responses, there was much discussion on Hermann Hesse, James Joyce, and Popeye, the extent to which hypnosis could control pain, and the influence of violent computer games on children nowadays. However nobody said anything which pertained to instances of doing the challenge.
The reading continued from Chapter 27 of Beelzebub's Tales.
In consequence of this, every three-centered being of our Great Universe, and also we men existing on the Earth, must, owing to the presence in us also of the factors for engendering the Divine impulse of "Objective Conscience", always inevitably struggle with the arising and the proceeding within our common presences of two quite opposite functionings giving results always sensed by us either as "desires” or as "nondesires".
And so, only he, who consciously assists the process of this inner struggle and consciously assists the "nondesires" to predominate over the desires, behaves just in accordance with the essence of our COMMON FATHER CREATOR HIMSELF; whereas he who with his consciousness assists the contrary, only increases HIS sorrow.
Owing to all I have just said, my boy, at that period scarcely three years had passed when, on the one hand, all the ordinary beings of the town Djoolfapal and its environs and also of many other countries of the continent Asia, not only already knew that this Divine being-impulse of ‘genuine conscience’ was in them, ... but furthermore, nearly everybody even began to strive and to exert himself to become priests of the brotherhood Heechtvori ...
L said it all hinged on the concept of genuine conscience, and whether there is such a thing or not, and Gurdjieff, or Ashiata Shiemash, was saying there is. "R" asked if nondesire was the same as suffering. J said it was about mistrusting urges, it was not so much suffering. L said that if you saw a slice of chocolate cheese cake which looked really nice, that might engender a desire to eat it, but genuine conscience - if there is such a thing, or your knowledge of what was in it, might tell you not to. J said that you should have the nondesire to have it in the first place, that was the point. O asked if he was saying that the less pleasure you had, the better off you were. L thought that that might be what he was saying - the more you gave in to that desire, the more you would suffer.
N said that genuine conscience and objective knowledge were very related. One was just the counterpart of the other. L said it should be remembered that it was the character in the book, Ashiata Shiemash, who was saying all this, rather than Gurdjieff. We could take it as gospel, but it would be the gospel according to Ashiata Shiemash.
| Once a day, after having a hot drink, do something kind to yourself, governed directly by conscience, and then stand on one leg for three seconds. |
T remembered the CHALLENGE after having a hot drink about half the time, and would then do something kind to herself, which was usually something to do with food, or a nice exercise that she liked doing, but she would often forget the third part, which was standing on one leg. She had managed to do the three together probably half a dozen times, which was an improvement on two the month before. In retrospect, she remembered that she had forgotten, and that felt like not getting the target.
N had succeeded in being prompted by the trigger of having a hot drink, but found it hard to think what he could do to himself which was in kindness and also directly governed by his conscience, other than sitting down and doing a meditation or something for a minute or so, so he did various things which were out of the ordinary, like reading some poetry. He sometimes he did not do the standing on one leg for three seconds, it somehow got lost along in the process.
For L, it had highlighted the question even more about What is kindness? If you were being kind to somebody else, you might possibly be doing them some harm, because you were taking away some empowerment. If you were being kind to yourself after a hot drink, you might think, Ah, I am going to have a slice of cake, and be kind to myself! - but that cake will contain the poisonous substance sugar, so are you being kind to yourself? This kindness concept was elusive, and he was not sure how meaningful it was. The final part of the Challenge was that it should be directed by conscience, so being kind to yourself, and then doing some physical exercise which you knew would be good for the body, and was pleasurable - he thought that qualified, and he had done that a few times, and if it was not physical, he generally remembered the standing on one leg, which brought back attention to the physical. In these Meetings, because we did not do things like the Gurdjieff Movements, we did tend to get lost in intellectual diversion. He had found it more interesting than useful, because it made him reconsider what kindness was, and what he was doing to help himself.
During the time allocated for responses, there was much discussion on Hermann Hesse, James Joyce, and Popeye, the extent to which hypnosis could control pain, and the influence of violent computer games on children nowadays. However nobody said anything which pertained to instances of doing the challenge.
The reading continued from Chapter 27 of Beelzebub's Tales.
Owing to all I have just said, my boy, at that period scarcely three years had passed when, on the one hand, all the ordinary beings of the town Djoolfapal and its environs and also of many other countries of the continent Asia, not only already knew that this Divine being-impulse of ‘genuine conscience’ was in them, ... but furthermore, nearly everybody even began to strive and to exert himself to become priests of the brotherhood Heechtvori ...
L said it all hinged on the concept of genuine conscience, and whether there is such a thing or not, and Gurdjieff, or Ashiata Shiemash, was saying there is. "R" asked if nondesire was the same as suffering. J said it was about mistrusting urges, it was not so much suffering. L said that if you saw a slice of chocolate cheese cake which looked really nice, that might engender a desire to eat it, but genuine conscience - if there is such a thing, or your knowledge of what was in it, might tell you not to. J said that you should have the nondesire to have it in the first place, that was the point. O asked if he was saying that the less pleasure you had, the better off you were. L thought that that might be what he was saying - the more you gave in to that desire, the more you would suffer.
N said that genuine conscience and objective knowledge were very related. One was just the counterpart of the other. L said it should be remembered that it was the character in the book, Ashiata Shiemash, who was saying all this, rather than Gurdjieff. We could take it as gospel, but it would be the gospel according to Ashiata Shiemash.
