Inkwell: Authors and Artists
topsy-turvy (topsy-turvy) Wed 28 Apr 04 02:53
Addendum - I'm sitting here reading parts of The Fourth Way. Q. I find that when I find a method to make me remember myself, this works for a few times and then wears off. A. You must always change these methods; they do not work for long - it is part of our state. Take it as a fact; there is no need to analyse it. Boy, that rings true for me! I noticed it before I ever heard of Gurdjieff. For many many years I delved into esoteric systems, and I began to notice something... the system would, in the beginning, give good results, but with time, the effect would taper off.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Wed 28 Apr 04 11:38
JAY: Someday I'm going to write a book called THE WAY OF THE SKEPTIC. SCICOPS etc won't like it much though as it will acknowledge the existence of the spiritual. They see no evidence for it (though in fact Martin Gardner has said he's open to it, and has acknowledged that there may be something there). It's true what you say, so far at least, there's no way to objectively prove spirituality--well, that's arguable. Some people (see the book GOD: THE EVIDENCE) claim there's some proof, like studies of efficacy of healing prayer when the prayed-for person doesn't know they're prayed for, but I don't think there's enough proof there either. But Jay, Gurdjieff said believe only whatyou can confirm for yourself. And he didn't mean with an scientific experiment per se, but with personal experience, objectivity within yourself, skepticism about what might be your imagination, and just trying the same thing over and over. He was constantly finding ways to test the effects on people of vibratory phenomena; looking for objective means of getting to the truth. Like a good scientist he was willing to revise his conclusions upon obtaining new information. But for the most part spiritual (or let's say esoteric) realities are substantiated subjectively. And that's limited. Within the Work--this is very important I think--there's an emphasis on being sort of skeptical (people will say 'negative' because they don't like how unflattering it can be) about spiritual experiences that people bring to groups because they're so often the product of imagination or some neurological surge within the brain. The real thing is subtle... JEFFREY/TOPSY: PRobably some of the methods they're talking about for self remembering are just simple devices for prodding yourself into being more present, but that's not the Work. Ouspensky by the time he was doing the lectures included in that book had left Gurdjieff and gone his own way. It's not a book I'd recommend. I'd recommend In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky, as the real workhorse of workbooks. I'd also recommend the works of Jacob Needleman. A nice short one for starters is TIME AND THE SOUL. SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY: I don't see too much relevance in discussing it here, but I will just say that last time, at a message board, when I and some other people criticized it, the Scientologists found out and BOMBARDED the board with bizarre harrassment posts, until we promised to stop talking about it. That series of events perhaps speaks for itself...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Wed 28 Apr 04 11:41
PS to Jay - I agree conventional skeptics (I'm an unconventional one) would ridicule Gurdjieff--and I am glad they're there to do that. Why? Just as I think it's good that our government includes both conservatives and liberals. I think that progress in spirituality needs the constant pressure, the filter, of doubt; it needs the *dialectic* that arises from it. Furthermore those people are contrary, too, to fundamentalists of any kind, and religious fundamentalists are dangerous people. Hardcore skeptics do a lot of good. And I think they're more 'awake'--or arguably they are--than the average religious person. More alert anyway! If they really read deeply into Gurdjieff, though, many of them might be given pause...
Peter Meuleners (pjm) Wed 28 Apr 04 11:54
John, do you have any opinions about Eckhart Tolle? His Power of Now stuff seems to be a hodgepodge of various thoughts but there seems to be some Gurdjieff, along with a lot of stuff from the Upanishads.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Wed 28 Apr 04 15:21
I don't know the guy. Is that really his first name? One of the great mystics was Meister Eckhart...Anyway, I suspect "hodgepodge" is probably what you have there, but who knows. I'm not saying he's wrong or whatever. So many people, however, have taken bits from Gurdjieff...Best imo to go tothe source...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Wed 28 Apr 04 15:25
From my book, Gurdjieff: An Introduction to his Life and Ideas: ...And thus we waste our lives away, letting ourselves be carried along on a conveyor belt of automatic reactionsand at the end of the conveyor belt, is a furnace. During a talk to students, Gurdjieff put it this way: Next to awareness, the most important thing is Time. The flow of time through us gives us our chance to extract what we can. Time is a three-fold stream, passing through our three centers. We fish in this stream, if we catch enough we have enough to create the three bodies, and become enduring. Time is the sum of our potential experience, the totality of our possible experiences. One day, not so long ago, I was walking in my yard on some household errand, thinking of my career, and generally free-associating. Then suddenly something recalled me to myself-this recollection to myself was the product of past attempts at such remembrance-and I made an effort, forcing myself to step back from my free association; to stop dreaming, and look around. As I did this, I tried to see my sleep-walking state of a moment before, and did indeed glimpse it. So there was a moment of contrast between my earlier state and this fresher, slightly more awake state: my previous state seemed like a tunnel, to me, now. It was like a dim burrow, with only a few blurs of color, and twined in the shadow walls the people Id been thinking about; the desires Id been anxious to satisfy: these had been a kind of shifting, nauseating wallpaper for my perceptual tunnel. As if Id been, up till that moment, what the Tibetans call a hungry ghost in my own personal bardo statefor surely Id not been truly alive. I had been sleepwalking through this tunnel--now I was out of the tunnel and able to look aroundand simply see where I was. I was in my yard, on a fine early autumn day, its details springing at me with a new three-dimensionality: with dappled sunlight and vivid oleander blossoms and ribbon-shaped crackling leaves underfoot, an astonishingly-engineered spider web to one side catching the light; bees drumming the air, birds calling with intricate repetitiveness, the vigorous shapes of oleander branches and tree-trunks setting off the vivid blue of the sky, the fragrance and gentle pressure of the air, the feel of my body, sensations alive in the midst of all thisand a great deal more. All of this was around me, within me-and Id been completely unaware of...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Wed 28 Apr 04 15:30
correction: Typo in that bit I just quoted, the word 'of' not supposed to be there at end.
gary (ggg) Wed 28 Apr 04 19:07
fascinating!). re <42>: there was a movie that reminded me of ouspensky's novella, ' the strange life of ivan osakin ' made by harold ( ' five-minute buddhist ' ) ramis and starring bill murray (who i heard someone say was into the Work). yea, ' ground hog day ' - a film about how to wake up, and get it right. my own encounters came while i was in l.a., thru some friends that were heavy into mr. G, and a little later thru someone up here in 'frisco that studied with a gentleman named nyland, i believe. i'd also read, at the time, a book called 'the teachers of gurdjieff' which, whether true or not, was interesting. then translating rene daumal: another perspective. (this is still bac k in the '60s ... ) i gravitated more towards the teachings of the buddha, but reading your accounts here makes me interested to re-view. (i think daniel goleman's first book, on meditation, included the Work) anyway, to continue the buddha thread, what's the requisites for being a teacher of the Work? lineage, training, transmission, ceremony, etc. ? p.s. when in san francisco, check out fields bookstore, which always has the most complete stock of books and periodicals regarding mr. g, as well as everything and everybody else
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Thu 29 Apr 04 00:12
Mrs. Ruth Cook used to run Field's bookstore. I haven't been in there much since she passed on, but it may as well be a shrine for anyone interested in these ideas. I second John's recommendation of Needleman's 'Time and the Soul'. I recently finished reading it and have acquired several additional copies to give as gifts. So far, those gifts have been very well received. John, did you have a particular reader or kind of reader in mind as you wrote the book? While the book is generally chronological, it is not stringently so. Was there a prinicpal or plan you were following for laying out the material? For instance, did you make an effort employ your understanding of the Work ideas in the execution of the book?
John Shirley (john-shirley) Thu 29 Apr 04 00:22
Gary - I'm in the San Francisco area and have been to Fields. My book is there, someone told me today. In said book I mention analogies between what I think of as essential Buddhism and Gurdjieff. Also Zen. Groundhog Day was also mentioned in the book as being apparently a parable of Ouspenskyan recurrence (or Nietzchean?) and Gurdjieffian self observation. I like that movie just as a movie too. Requisites for being a leader, I'm no expert on that, not on much of anything--my book is an *introductory* wor. And I'm not one of the leaders. ANd in fact it's sort of both hierarchal and democratic at the same time--it's run by councils. But my impression is that in the Gurdjieff Foundation (which I think is probably still the most reliable source of the teaching, though in fact I have every reason to believe that the smaller school started by Nyland is good too, and he was a good teacher; but be aware there are schools that call themselves 'fourth way' or the one with that Burton character which are just silly cults) leadership is determined by having been extensively taught by Gurdjieff's primary students, or by having been one of his students, combined with sheer seniority and a quality of respect earned when people sense you have created a kind of integrity, Being, a completeness that makes you stand out...But I'm sure since these are human beings there are politics that happen, and jockeying, and factioning and bad blood and so on. Still, the main leaders seem very solid...And elderly. Rene Daumal's MOUNT ANALOGUE is a really useful allegorical tale for understanding Gurdjieff's thinking... Nonidentification (in a healthy way,not in the sense of disassociation) is very buddhistm it seems to me, and very Gurdjieffian...In esoteric buddhism I believe there's talk of the development of a body of light, no? Mrs Cook had a close connection to the Gurdjieff Work as I understand it though I'm not sure she was in the Foundation or anything... Chrys-- what reader in mind--well I hoped to appeal to young people, as the work needs them and I wanted to reach them for several reasons but the book is for anyone with the requisite questions about life... I just tried to write the book as lucidly as I could, and I used the general course of Gurdjieff's life plus events in the lives of people around him (just the tip of the iceberg) to set up discussion of the ideas, sort of letting events in those lives prompt particular subjects. I did actually have a kind of 'octave' in mind in the book but don'tknow if I achieved that. Notice the number of chapters. I tried to sort of let Gurdjieff and followers speak for themselves but if I had an insight I felt was valid I put it in. I got a few things off my chest! Like the stuff about the misuse of the enneagram, and my ideas about the way to approach Beelzebub's Tales. I took the risk of being pretentious--a book is terribly lifeless if one takes no such risks.
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Thu 29 Apr 04 00:41
<Like the stuff about the misuse of the enneagram> Yes. I have been mystified by some of the applications of this. And Yes, I sensed a structure - which is why I asked about it. I also - at times - found myself wondering about why you brought up a paricular idea in the midst of the history. (My copy of teh bok is in my hotel room right now, so I can't offer a specific example.) Mrs. Cook: There is a small booklet published of a conversation Dr. Needleman had with her. It is full of gems. A favorite of mine comes up when she is speaking about her life with her husband. She remarks on doing without 'all the necessities' which is a wonderful way of redefining a necessity - and how it made luxuries available.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Thu 29 Apr 04 12:34
I brought up particular ideas in the midst of the history because it was a strategy to discuss ideas more or less comfortably, without having too much bland discussion--sort of to embed it in story. Perhaps that's my science-fiction writer background. I wanted to show also how Gurdjieff's history --especially when it was from Meetings with Remarkable Men--was integrated with his ideas.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Thu 29 Apr 04 12:37
Two quotes from Gurdjieff's greatest student, Jeanne de Salzmann: "You will see that in life you get back exactly what you put in. Your life is the mirror of what you are, it is your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without ever feeling indebted. Your attitude towards the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to demand and take. Of one who doesn't need to pay for gain. You believe that all things are due to you, only because it's you! All your blindness is there According to Gurdjieff, the truth can be approached only if all the parts which make up the human being, the thought the feeling and the body, are touched with the same force and in the particular way appropriate to each of themfailing which, development will inevitably be one-sided and sooner or later come to a stop..."
gary (ggg) Thu 29 Apr 04 18:12
embedding ideas in story is certainly the strategy too w/ beelzebub's tales, eh? nonidentifying isn't a bad way of approaching buddha's 'anatman' (non-self), lingo-wise. and, yup, development of body of light is definitely part of esoteric buddehism (e.g., vajrayana/tibetan): we're all bodies of light on a nth-dimensional holographic mandala of light ... fields is in my 'hood so i'll look up your new tome there. ( (the new owners are starting to do 'events,' by the way.)) ask 'em about my books and you'll get smile, i'll bet. ... i'll see if i can find one of my unpublished daumal translations and post it here, if you like ... (faScinating!
John Shirley (john-shirley) Thu 29 Apr 04 23:18
Attributed to the Buddha: When walking, the practitioner is aware, 'I am walking'; when standing is aware, 'I am standing'; when sitting, is aware, 'I am sitting'; when lying down, is aware, 'I am lying down.' In whatever position one's body happens to be, one is aware of the position of the body. When one is going forward or backward, one applies one's full awareness to one's going forward or backward. When one looks in front or looks behind, bends down or stands up, one also applies full awareness to what one is doing. One applies full awareness to wearing the robe or carrying the alms bowl. When one eats or drinks, chews or savors the food, one applies full awareness to all this. When passing excrement or urinating, one applies full awareness to this. When one walks, stands, lies down, sleeps or wakes up, speaks or is silent, one shines his awareness on all this." Something I wrote in a kind of Gurdjieff work journal once: Sometimes I get tired or depressed. It's amazing how subjective our evaluation of our lives are - how when one wakes up depressed, the situation will look bleak; when one wakes up cheerful the same set of conditions will seem hopeful. It's instructive. I've found that I can step back and look at the physical feelings of discouragement or depression as things-in-themselves; it's as if I stand behind myself, slightly, or inhabit a place that's almost in my spine, where there is a kind of current that is always the same, in some sense, no matter what one's emotional condition is. The Work seems sort of weighted against trying to fix oneself, trying to change and improve oneself, as that sort of gets in the way...of, ultimately, changing and improving oneself! That is, trying to change per se seems to get in the way of self transformation, which is paradoxical - but paradox is so much a part of esoteric work I sometimes think it is one hallmark of the authentic. Still, there's no doubt that the Work changes people, over time, and that some part of it involves saying "no" to oneself, as for example when one has a clear choice between reacting negatively or "letting something go" and one makes that choice and suffers the consequence consciously. But this isn't something one undertakes all the time, but only at the right times. Generally one doesn't try to change oneself, one simply sees, and fully senses what the reality of one's condition is from this moment to the next, as openly and with as fine an attention as possible. And that is somehow transformative, by slow degrees. And yet I find that stepping actively into that state alleviates my depression. So once more - contradiction, paradox.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Thu 29 Apr 04 23:23
We are flatteringly called three-centered beings, but we have no future because we have two centers filled only with our past habits. Our centers are empty because we havent filled them consciously. Everything we have is passive. Life becomes always a discussion between three centers: like or dislike, yes or no. All our time and energy is wasted by this discussion . The best way to remember what we are is sincerely to stop inventing those things we are not. We invent to hide ourselves We are 1 per cent ourselves, 99 per cent sociological. --Margaret Anderson paraphrasing remarks by GI Gurdjieff Remember the man who came, who shattered everything, who took you with his bare hands, who drew you out of your dreams and set you down on thorns in the full light of day; and remember that you do not know how to remember. Rene Daumal
gary (ggg) Fri 30 Apr 04 08:53
Someone was walking along a path, in what is now ancient India, and came onto a grove where some disciples of the Buddha were working. He noticed them and stopped to chat. When they explained that they were a gathering of disciples of the Buddha, he asked what that entailed. One replied: We chop wood and carry water. But, said the man, I chop wood and carry water: does that make me a disciple of the Buddha too? The monk smiled and replied: "When we chop wood we know we are chopping wood; when we carry water we know we are carrying water." Mindfulness is available to us, as meditation, every moment. Breath, for example: being aware we're breathing in, being aware we're breathing out. Your notebook has a very powerful moment for me: the recognition that this is not about self-improvement, as so many often misconstrue, certainly easily given the society's tendency to categorize and color with its own ideology. Indeed, how could the Work be considered self-improvement without by that very word, "self-improvement," enforcing a dualism that enchants us with myriad delightful delusion ... ... change of course is essential to life. But trying to change, when the change we wish to become is already available to us, innately ... ? Thus techniques for change can become fetishes and further traps. To open up the Daumal channel a little more ... "The great transmutation which changes the face of the world: man dances in his prison, the best he can. To dance better, he measures himself against his prison. He dances by numbers, dances well. He realizes it is not on account of measures that he dances better: he bawls. He gets tired, he laughs. But he cannot stay there. He pulps everything, and dances. He plays the part of the prison and his body, and realizes that his dance is entirely determined by them. But the dance? It is himself. He is no longer in prison. (The prison appears: the face of the world, one believes it changes, it only seems better.)
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Fri 30 Apr 04 11:29
A note to those of you who are reading this discussion as it occurs but are not members of the WELL: you can participate by sending your questions or comments to email@example.com. We'll post 'em pretty quickly as they roll in.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Fri 30 Apr 04 11:41
Another entry from my work journal: Someone once asked the writer Evelyn Waugh how he reconciled being a devout Catholic and being also a misanthropic, sour acid-tongued irritable S.O.B.. He said (I'm paraphrasing): Sir were it not for the influence of God in my life I'd be scarcely recognizable as human. In the Work I'm more stable. I'm more freed than I use to be. I'm a little more conscious and that is its own reward. Life also seems more meaningful; this too is its own reward. One's problems and the dark aspects of one's personality do not go away; but everything becomes grist for the mill: even when I screw up, if I observe myself in the way I was taught, if I take a real impression of it then I derive benefit from even my mistakes, at least in a certain precious part of myself...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Fri 30 Apr 04 11:45
Gary: As I hint in the post above, aiming at changing oneself per se is, as you suggest, a way to get lost. I mean, if you're beating your spouse or you're a drug addict, find a way to quit. But in spiritual work you instead just do the work, stands apart, in its own light somehow, and this has a healing effect, but the main thing is the work itself...a longer-term goal... I resonate with Daumal's piece, aboutthe prison. I once told a guy long in the work that I feel that although I'm still in prison, I've gotten to a point where I am sort of able to climb to the window and look out and confirm that freedom is out there...Before now I wasn't sure there was anything but the prison. Now I can work to escape. He said: Same for me.
Jay Kinney (jay-kinney) Fri 30 Apr 04 14:43
You know, one of the challenges I've had in reading your book - and I should interject that this isn't the book's fault as the book is admirably readable and lucid - is in forcing myself to read about Gurdjieff's working concepts. No doubt it is a function of my asleepness, but there is something about his thinking that my mind just bounces off of....BOING! It's kind of the opposite of those instances of inner recognition where one comes upon an idea or way of thinking about life that just "feels" right and true. Instead with Gurdjieff I tend to get instances of inner non-recognition...a sort of gut level "what the f*ck?" Now, it may be that all the emphasis on "Work" and "Will" gets my inner Lazy Duffer in a tizzie and my brain just shuts down. I won't rule that out, by any means. But another possible explanation is that his concepts and ideas are sufficiently "stand alone," (i.e., enclosed within their own conceptual universe) that I've always sensed that they resist a casual familiarity. Either one seriously engages with them and accepts them and works with them, or one might as well leave them alone. So, I've always chosen to leave them alone and go elsewhere for my spiritual inspiration. I can see the usefulness of things like the Law of Three and Law of Seven, but something like the Ray of Creation begins to overload my system and I think "egad, this is no better than Blavatsky or Steiner's jabberings about Root Races and Cycles and Planetary Hierarchies. I suppose it could be true (whatever that means) but I don't feel like taking his word for it." As you note from time to time in your book, there are some parallels between G's ideas and, oh, a Hermetic concept or a Taoist one or a Christian one. But, by and large, he seems to have concocted his own unique teaching...his own tradition, as it were. So, my question for you is: hmm, I don't even think I have a question here. I'll just say that I admire your engagement with the Work and the introduction to it that you've provided with this book. Has this book whetted your appetite to do more writing of this sort?
John Shirley (john-shirley) Fri 30 Apr 04 15:28
Jay - As for the ray of creation and his cosmology, well I just barely touched on it. There are people who explain it better. "...his concepts and ideas are sufficiently 'stand alone,' (i.e., enclosed within their own conceptual universe) that I've always sensed that they resist a casual familiarity." Yes and no--I know what you mean, though. When he talks about the near impossibility of 'doing' and emphasizes how very machinelike we usually are, it's a 'hard saying', man. You know if the truth was easy to accept, there'd be a lot less mystery about our condition. Everyone would know what the problem is. But people puzzle about it and they try this and that theory...no one knows. Because seeing that truth is sort of like biting your own teeth, seeing your own eyes sans mirror. Hard to do. But he showed us a way to do it...These ideas, somewhat laid out in IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS, often puzzle people (to some extent) at first, yet something draws them--then they do the Work and they re-read them and suddenly it's *like reading a different book*. Suddenly things stand out for them. Oh THAT's what that meant. Because they had experienced it, first hand, through the Work. I will again maintain that the Work *is* the same, fundamentally, in the deepest esoteric traditions. Gurdjieff has more ways of getting results though imo than many. I will say that it's not that far from Plato, Plotinus, and Pythagoras, and some find Kabbalistic parallels. It's also not far from the theology behind "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People"--that book, that idea, that God's influence is there but is sort of indirect, and we have to work our way back to God, as God can only have limited influence on our level. That's not such a strange idea. But his cosmology is really not that central, imo, to doing the Gurdjieff work. What matters is the work toward greater consciousness. The ray of creation is talked about, it seems to me, mostly to put things in perspective; so we have a sense of where we are in the universe. We're not the center of the universe. And we can have a kind of inner orientation toward the current of the ray, or so I understand. I'd like to write about --in answer to your question at the end, Jay--the meaning of life, or anyway I'd like to do a kind of survey of explanations for the question, what is the meaning of life. My teen son is worrying at the issue now...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Fri 30 Apr 04 15:41
One of the themes of my book is that spiritually speaking, people expect too much for too little. I tend to be the same. Have to work to be otherwise. Now and then there's grace but mostly we're called to work at it to make that connection. It's as if we're in a waterless desert valley where we can't get the radio signal we need, the frequency so we can get directions for escape,until we climb tothe top of a nearby mountain. There, our equipment will pick up and we'll be told which way to go, to get to that green place of rest. But first we have to climb up to where the signal can be picked up. That climb is arduous. Onetime a student of Buddhist meditation was complaining to a Rinpoche, "I've been sitting in meditation for two years and I still have not Seen my Mind!" (Seeing your mind is an important developmental step to liberation in that kind of meditation.) The Rinpoche laughed and asked how much the man sat each day. Two hours a day, the man said. Seven days a week? No, the man said, six days a week. Okay that's 104 days out of two years you do not meditate. Subtract that from the time you said you worked. ALso you only sit two hours a day. That's 14 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. SOyou've meditated not for two years but for 52 times 14 hours times two. How much of those two hours was your mind wandering? How much were you really doing as you were told, while sitting, attentively, really working? Uhhhh....the guy admitted it was only maybe ten minutes per session. So now it's cut way, way down... The guy ends up admitting he's only really meditated for a few weeks...
Jay Kinney (jay-kinney) Fri 30 Apr 04 17:09
John, as you put it: "When he talks about the near impossibility of 'doing' and emphasizes how very machinelike we usually are, it's a 'hard saying', man." Yeah, I quite agree, and no doubt part of my resistance to Gurdjieff comes from the part of me that prefers to kick back, swig a beer and watch a ball game. Sustaining practices for extended stretches has never been my strong suit. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Gurdjieff's emphasis on people's mechanicalness is a particular "angle" or approach that fosters a certain kind of attention. Another approach altogether might be to teach people to go around and try to discern and encourage the divine spark within each living being. That is, I suspect, a different kind of attention. The G approach is saying most people are 'merde' and maybe you, if you work real hard, can wake up. The other hypothetical approach might say that all people are actually particularized manifestations of God and that the more conscious one becomes (and becoming more conscious in part involves expanding your compassion for others) the more this is obvious. Now, I suppose we could say that Gurdjieff's approach is the "glass is half empty" approach and this other hypothetical approach is the "glass is half full" approach. I think most esoteric traditions have been of the "glass is half full" school which is quite something else from the "half empty" outlook. Maybe the ultimate result for both is the same (though I'm not even sure of that) but it seems to me that the 4th Way "Work" isn't necessarily "the same" as the work in most esoteric traditions. But, then again, there's the very real possibility that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And I mean that. Caveat emptor.
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Fri 30 Apr 04 17:36
Hey, Jay, can I take a stab at formulating your unasked question>? How does one verify for oneself something like the idea of the Ray of Creation?
Members: Enter the conference to participate