Sie sind auf Seite 1von 123


~From ‘Hassein’s Handbook’- (The Seal Of



1: Two Bits 39: Okidanokh

6: Character Projection 44: Accumulate
8: Personality 46: Propulsion
11: Tescooarno 48: Aim
14: Freedom 51: Dig for Dog
16: Idiot 53: Boolmarshano Tales
18: Will 61: Gist
22: Identification 62: Essence
24: Feeling 69: Harnel Miatznel
26: Inner Life 71: Mentation Coating
29: Self Remember 84: Sensing
32: Sheep Shears 87: Moon Help
35: First Contact 89: Levers
37: Consciousness 91: Super Effort
94: The Additional

Two bits to rub together on Karma, Causality, and Essence perception.

In terms of the work, karma can be seen as a certain set of laws that one is under, and
that dominate so long as one is under those laws. There is the idea of the laws of

accident, fate, and destiny/will. Under the law of karma there is no real change,
things happen but they do so according to 'cause and effect' in which everything that
happens is a result of prior happenings. For there to be real change there must be an
action of something beyond the constraints of cause and effect. The idea of the 'I'
and the real man is related to this, such that he can be a means for 'fresh causes' or
'creative' influences to enter the world, to enter the realm of causality and change it.

In my view, and in my take on the work and Christianity, our role as Humans
involves work with the world of cause and effect, such that self transformation does
not involve the cancellation of cause and effect, it simply involves the realization that
there is more than cause and effect at work. I see the world of cause and effect as a
real world or dimension, one of many, and not simply something that is the result of
'illusion' etc. In Christianity there is the idea of ''Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in
Heaven', of course this can have many relevant meanings and interpretations, one of
which may involve seeing the human as a kind of middle-man for higher forces and
energies so that they can come into contact and blend with lower forces and energies
etc, just like the sun is considered as a source of 'information' or more highly
ordered/organised energy/matter upon which the earth and organic life feed, a
higher pattern is unfolded at a lower level etc.

In my view cause and effect is not to be cancelled out and has its role to play as
everything else. In saying that our human nature is one which embraces multiple
'worlds/dimensions' then there is the idea that we should not be 'biased' or 'bound'
to one or other of these but instead seek the harmony that is a potential of the
totality of what we are. We may spend much time caught up in lower states and
under more laws than necessary, we may live in only one room of our mansion, but
even this room is a real one with a value and in expanding ourselves to come to know
and occupy the other rooms we do not need to get rid of any, they simply find their

Many of the ancient teachings contain the idea that man has a role to perform 'in the
world' even though his nature is not completely 'worldly'. Being a means for

unconditioned influences, or creative influences unconstrained by the laws of

causality, may only be one of man’s roles or one of the areas to which the results of
his work is directed.

Part of the Gnostic idea that Christ, or the incarnation of Christ, is the alpha and
omega point of time, and that time proceeds both 'forwards and backwards' from
the point of incarnation, involves the notion that the temporal stream is worked
upon and transformed, both past and future are changing and evolving in order to
realize the cosmic purpose. This means that though the Christ is 'situated' 'outside'
of time and space, and that all time and space are encompassed by his 'body' or
present moment, nevertheless the work of the Christ involves work within the
temporal stream. Part of the 'fruits' of the 'kingdom of Heaven' are situated in the
temporal world. This attitude towards the world of time and space is one that can at
least appear to differentiate Christianity from certain other traditions in which the
temporal is either illusory or real but is seen as being something which one must
'escape' from to reach the goal that is beyond it etc. The 'end of times' may not be the
end of causality or the end of the illusion of causality, but it may be the end of a
certain form of relationship with causality which is a product of the general
functioning of our consciousness.

In these terms, another way of speaking of the ideas implied in karma, would be to
say that when we are operating through the personality as our 'center of gravity' we
only 'perceive' 'temporally', meaning that we only 'see' 'one thing at a time' and our
'perception' is limited to the 'present'. We are then tied into the way things appear at
the given moment and our actions are only informed by the data that is presented in
the given moment.

We could also speak of this in different terms by talking of the difference in 'time-
span' capacity between people. The general functioning is like a short exposure
camera working from one frame at a time, whereas there is the possibility of 'long
exposure' and 'time-lapse' photography. As is shown through photography and film,
a different 'exposure rate' etc can produce a quite different picture of the same

phenomena. In the work, the 'long exposure' is a feature of the Essence which can
perceive in 'extra dimensions' as compared to the personality. If the personality
perceives along the 'line' of 'time', the Essence perceives along the 'plane' of 'eternity'.

This perception of Essence is no magical void etc, it is a mode of perception just as

the personality is a mode of perception with its related phenomena and limits etc.
The value of Essence-perception is that things which appear separated by 'time and
space' for the personality are 'co-present' for the essence, and hence the Essence isn't
limited to one time-frame or even one 'line of time' in its actions, it can act with
'information' coming from the perception of 'multiple' 'time-lines'. There is an extra
degree of freedom here that is not afforded by the perception of the personality

One potential 'problem' with how the idea of 'being present', 'mind-full', or 'self
remembering' is interpreted and practiced is that it can lead to, or exaggerate, the
perception of the personality, meaning that it can keep the 'perception' tied to the
'actuality' of the 'present moment'. This then means that the relatively 'higher
dimensional' perception of the Essence is stifled. Again, in the terms of the work, the
general form of 'mind-fullness' or 'self remembering' or how they are practiced has
benefits in that it can give some relative order and stability to the 'mind', 'emotions',
and 'body' such that the person is not so 'lost' in 'daydreams' or 'caught up' in
thoughts, feelings and sensations etc. This is like operating in world 48 rather than
96, but the world of essence, world 24, is another step again with its own kind of
related effort and work etc.

The 'present' is all we have to work with, but the 'content' and 'reach' of this present
moment can be radically different. What is 'present' or 'now' for us is relative to the
kind of consciousness operating.

I brought in the idea that Essence has a different kind of 'perception' than the
personality, and one of the differences is that the Essence is aware of what is
'potential' as well as what is 'actual'. So, for the Essence, multiple time lines are

perceived as equally present and real, whereas the personality is only tied into one
given time line and what is 'outside' of this is 'non existent' for it.

The metaphor or analogy using different exposure rates or time-lapse photography is

just a metaphor/analogy and is not an exact representation of the difference in
perception between Essence and personality that I am trying put across. For instance,
the perception of the Essence is not simply the same as the personality but 'longer',
which is how we see the difference between exposure rates of cameras etc. I used the
analogy/metaphor to show that the same phenomena can appear very differently
depending on how they are perceived, in terms of different rates of exposure a
moving point could appear as a line etc.

Of course, when we use a camera with a different exposure rate the phenomena we
see is 'translated' into our normal rate of perception, so what we see is a
representation of what it is that the camera 'sees' at its rate of perception. The same is
so when we use different light waves, such as x-ray etc, and take pictures, the pictures
are translated into visible light in order for us to see them, and thereby what we see is
an altered representation, and if we had 'x-ray vision' what we would see would be
quite different to our translated photographs etc.

So in talking of the perception of Essence I am talking of a direct mode of perception

itself, rather than something that is just the 'same' as the perception of the
personality but 'more', more of the same or the same extended in some way etc.

Another way of highlighting the difference in perception between Essence and

personality could be to say that when the personality sees a flower it only sees it as it
'actually' is at that moment, the personality can reason about the flower and bring up
images of it as a seed, or other stages in its development etc, but these remain as only

For the Essence, the multiple stages of the flower are 'co-present' as an 'actual'
perception, and so the Essence does not only see the current appearance of the flower
but sees the flower as a whole, and this seeing is not like the reasoning of the

personality, where the other stages are inferred and are engaged with only as images,
the Essence actually perceives the flower as a whole. What is a series of separate
perceptions for the personality, only joined via linear time-space experiences and a
reason that can bridge these separate occasions 'virtually' to an extent, is a singular
present perception for the Essence.

Obviously the singular perception of the Essence is not simply a collection of

separate perceptions of the flower, like a collection of pictures of the flower at its
varying stages of development, it is a direct perception and hence it is 'extra
dimensional' as compared to the mode of perception of the personality.

In terms of objects we could ask what would it be like to see an object from all angles
at once? The usual perception of objects is only from one angle at a time and hence
only certain sides are seen in one viewing etc. If we tried to imagine what it would be
like to see an object from all angles at once, we would usually try to combine separate
views of the object into one 'image', but again this is like an attempt at translating
the perception of essence into the perception of personality.

On seeing characters from one's own life 'projected' or 'superimposed' on to others,

whether these others are people in 'real life' or characters in films/books etc.

'' I was watching a film and I began to see people from my own life actually
'superimposed' onto the different characters in the film.''

There is the idea that this 'projection' or 'super-imposition' is going on all the time,
but that we are rarely aware of it. We say that what we see is generally determined by
our conditioning and all our previous experience, all this experience is 'projected'
onto what is there so that what we see is a 'reflection' of us. We can appreciate this in
a theoretical way and say that our beliefs and interpretations about things are based

upon our conditioning, but it is another thing to see that what we actually see is
itself a kind of 'collage' of our acquired experiential data or impressions. Arjuna
mentions something like this when he looks upon the face of Krishna in the
Baghavad Gita, seeing that the face is made up of everything, which proves to be too
unbearable. There is the similar suggestion about our subconsciousness, which is said
to contain all our experience as one whole. When we register a conscious impression
this is the residue left over from a flash of the subconsciousness in which all
experience is present, kind of like a collapse of wave to particle. ( See the importance
of being ''conscious at the moment of the reception of an impression'' and also the
particular relation of forces and totalities/brains in the ''Reason of Understanding'').

When we engage with a story ( or situation in 'real life' ) we have to provide the
characters ourselves, the characters in the story are just bare templates which we have
to fill from our own experience. People in our lives can serve as different characters
as they can represent different ideas or principles to us, whether we are conscious of
this or not. Generally we are not aware of the process of filling the character roles in
a story from our own data and so there is little room for developing understanding
or coming to new interpretations and insights. If we can catch sight of this process
and see the data that we are projecting/super-imposing then we can come to
understand the forms or templates contained in the story. The forms or templates
are 'behind' the particular data that we project or super-impose on top of them, the
data enables the forms or templates to be 'clothed' so that we have the chance to
come to recognize them. The projected data then both 'conceals' and 'reveals' the
forms, in itself the data covers the forms but it is only through such a covering that
we can come to uncover the form itself. The forms or templates present in stories
and in all experience are the forms or templates of 'mind', the 'structure' or
'principles' of 'mind' itself ( we could also speak here of the ''Laws of World Creation
and World Maintenance'' ). So in coming to see these forms, or coming to engage
directly with them, we come to understand 'mind' itself, which then opens the way
for the creative use of 'mind' ( the ''Real Inner World of Man'').

In the same way that we may see all our experience being projected onto something
'outside' we can also see all this experience projected onto ourselves, see that 'we' are
equally just a collage of all our experience, everybody we have met is present in us
and arises in us to play a certain role in certain situations, again usually we are not
aware of this. This is the idea behind the 'many I's' and the idea that it is our buffers
that keep us from seeing this, from seeing that there is no central self or 'us' and that
what we take to be 'us' is just a collection of acquired characters. There is the idea
that if we can come to see these characters and their nature then we may be able to
navigate their use intentionally ( to ''Play a role Consciously''). It is only because we
are 'legion' that there is the possibility for a truly creative action, the potential for a
unique 'individuality' (Alchemical Fusion of the different powders in the retort).
The essence cannot develop without the personality and in a similar sense the 'real I'
cannot express itself or manifest itself without the medium of the 'many I's' ( See
change of Autoegocrat to Trogoautoegocrat).


Perhaps personality is more than simply acquired 'data' that can become habitual
tendencies etc, but is a certain mode of 'perception', one that is tied up with the
perception of the 'physical' world of 'space-time' etc. In this sense, personality is a
means for the essence to experience 'embodiment', to have a certain kind of
'localization' in 'space-time'.

Of course, some separation and observation of personality is necessary for growth,

the affirmation of the essence is needed so that the personality may be used by it

appropriately. In other traditions the personality, or its equivalent, is seen as a

product of the physical world, or the world of objects separated in space and time, so
it is just one vessel or medium of our 'Being' etc. Seeing the personality as mode of
perception rather than just a set of acquired data may open inquiry.

On a similar note, Gurdjieff's 'kesdjan body', which is seen as a development of the

essence, has been called a 'time body', in that events which are experienced in
succession by/through the personality, and are thereby separated in time and space,
are co-present for the Kesdjan body. The kesdjan body is then like the 'vessel' that
holds all our temporal experience together, all the temporal experience forms one
whole or body, or is 'contained' by/in such. In some teachings this is what
consciousness is, it being a 'body', 'vehicle', or 'vessel' that contains all our temporal
experience, whether of this life or multiple lives etc. All this is co-present for this
consciousness as a whole and it is only through the personality that it is experienced
or unfolded in a linear succession etc.

In terms of the different laws of the work, it is only through the essence, coming
under the laws of the essence, that it is possible for there to be real change. Under the
laws of the personality the only change is that determined by 'cause and effect', in
which what happens is determined by prior happenings etc. Coming into the essence
is then like stepping outside of the temporal stream into that which is relatively 'non
temporal' and which is not conditioned by the laws of 'cause and effect' etc. In doing
this the possibilities of our particular essence have the chance to be actualized,
thereby informing the temporal stream such that it reflects our essence and its needs.
In the work this is coming out from the law of accident to the law of fate, fate being
the pattern of our individual essence as unfolded in the temporal stream.

In terms of the ideas of parallel lives etc, the essence has the ability to change time-
lines and its perception is not limited to one time-line, like that of the personality
which is limited to one time-line and also limited to what is considered as the
'present moment' of that time-line.

Just as Gurdjieff, or Beelzebub, said that the only thing which may save man from
his egoism would be the constant realization of his own death and the inevitable
death of all who his eyes landed upon, J.G. Bennett said the same thing in relation to
the kesdjan body, such that if everyone could have but a glimpse of their kesdjan
body this could radically alter their attitude towards life, particularly their attitude
towards time and what is called the 'present moment'. Such glimpses are possible to
everyone, regardless of whether they have a kesdjan body or regardless of what state
this body is in, and this is because the 'higher centers' are present and active
in/through everyone and connections can be made at any time, or said another way,
the 'higher hydrogens' are present all around us all the time. It is possible for us to
enter any state at any time, though a change of station or 'center of gravity' takes
persistent work. Glimpses are 'tainted' to a greater or lesser degree, as is said of the
connection with higher centers, but it remains a fact that it is possible for such
glimpses to influence our lives in a significant and beneficial way, as is said about
impressions touching the essence or managing to reach the subconscious and
conscience etc.

If it is considered that the essence is not strictly temporal, or at least not in the same
way as the personality, then it may be seen that development of the essence, its
growth and unfoldment, is not a strictly temporal affair. The idea that the
development of essence consists of efforts repeated over a long period of time, such
as is how some take the idea of 'coating' or 'accumulation', may be mistaken. The
ideas or mental pictures connected with 'coating' and 'accumulation' are based upon
metaphors and analogies involving the physical world and processes operating under
the laws of 'space-time' etc. Essentially they are attempts at translating something of
a higher order into something of a lower order, attempts at translating essence into
the language of personality. Only one part or aspect of the growth and development
of essence is temporal, or concerns what is called the world of 'space-time' etc. If we
are only working in the temporal stream or the 'line of time', then we are only
working in one cosmos or world, whereas it is said we need to work in three
cosmoses or worlds etc.

People often quote Gurdjieff as saying that ''Everything is material'', but they often
leave out the other part of the quote which is ''The concept of materiality is as
relative as anything else''.

Beelzebub on the degeneration of Sight and the varying constructions of


In my take, much of what Beelzebub says about the degeneration of sight etc, refers
to the general degeneration in our state of being. Yes, when I am not 'present', the
data of the senses passes through me mostly undigested and is not connected to the
other centers/brains. Of course, when I am 'present', the data of the senses appears
much more 'vivid' etc. But of what value is more vivid sense perception, outside of
perhaps noticing more of what is in front of my face and around me, which, of
course, may have some general benefits?
But, because everything is interconnected, if my sense perception is more vivid, due
to me being more 'present', then there is also the possibility for this data to be more
readily digested/assimilated by the other brains. If I look to my environment whilst I
am more 'present', then I am more 'informed' by it, I can assimilate more of the
meaning around me, penetrate further into the direct understanding and direct
participation in the 'Laws of World Creation and World Maintenance'. This informs
me of my place in the general scheme of things and highlights what is required/asked
of me. So this greater insight into the laws does not simply provide 'mental' data, but
also provides a value system (there is the stimulation of Conscience).

The general transformation of the three foods provides development of the second
body, which has its own related 'organs/modes of perception'. This second body
does not have the same limitations as the physical body. Such things as 'remote
viewing' and 'astral projection' can be seen as aspects relating to the 'organs' of the
second body. The perception and reason of the second body can 'see further' into the
nature of things, the physical environment included.
Along with added abilities in 'perception', the second body enables a degree of
stability in the face of the flux of the physical world. The second body has a degree of
ability to actualize its values in the face of physical/sensory resistance. The 'light' of
the physical world does not impede the second body in its work of
actualizing/realizing its values. The second body, or its 'vision', can hold its 'gaze'
upon the 'image' of its aim regardless of the degree of physical light present. The
second body can still see 'the stars' even when the Sun is out, the 'atmosphere' of the
Earth does not interfere with its activity.
The different observatories, their different constructions and different principles of
construction, reflect the different kinds of relation of 'subject-object' that are present
in the different states and stations of Being/Understanding. Just as Gurdjieff said,
there is a different relation of Brains, a different form of interaction, that is present
in the 'Reason of Understanding' as opposed to the 'Reason of Knowing'. This is also
reflected in the different relation of forces present in a Being depending on the
number of bodies they have, the different bodies taking on different roles in relation
of the triad forces.
Seeing what is necessary (in a given situation/context) as necessary liberates
consciousness/conscious energy. Part of the work of consciousness involves the
'ordering' of the physical environment into higher levels of 'organization'. The
ploughing of a field transforms the field into a higher level of organisation, and this
is expressed by the potential of the ploughed field to be sown with seed. A ploughed
field has potential that an un-ploughed field does not have etc. External
consideration is the practiced movement towards this nature of consciousness.

External consideration is geared to need, to be sensitive and responsive to the needs

present in a given situation/context.
Conscience turns the seeing of what is necessary as necessary into the doing of such.
When a 'centre of consciousness' acts in accordance with a need, this centre of
consciousness is then 'assimilated' into this need and the process of its
actualization/realization. This centre of consciousness is incorporated into a 'higher
world'; the world of the given need and its actualization/realization. A higher world
has a much greater 'present moment' than a lower world, and when a centre of
consciousness is incorporated into a higher world it participates in this greater
present moment. Thereby, the centre of consciousness can acquire a greater
perception, such as is expressed in being able to see the wood rather than the trees.
Such a perception can, possibly, inform the whole course of a being's life, showing
them a need ( or work) that may require many many years to realize. A being may be
informed of a line of work that may be on a 'cosmic scale' and thereby on a 'cosmic
timescale'. A being may be informed of a line of work that they can engage in that
serves a remote future, and in serving this future, in serving this actual need, there is
the possibility for 'self transformation', and 'accelerated transformation' at that.
Conscience can give the required direction and regular 're-adjustment' that enables a
line of work to be maintained over the course of a lifetime. Of course, this is serious
work to actualize such Conscience, and we can see that it is, in general, rare for a line
of work to be maintained for more than minutes or hours without 'deviation' or
distraction etc. And, of course, most of our aims are determined by observable
benefit to us in terms of short term or (relatively) long term gain. The serving of the
future is something quite different. I may have an aim to become a doctor, and I may
be prepared to study for five years to become a practicing Doctor because I firmly
believe that at the end of the five years I will receive a qualification that will actually
enable/allow me to practice. My desire to become a Doctor, and my belief in the real
potential of this through the five year work/study, enable me to order/organize my
life (or significant part of it) for five years. My aim becomes my 'God', and my belief
in my 'God' enables me (or my 'God') to structure my life accordingly.

How much more work/study may be needed to become a 'Cosmic Doctor', and how
much 'stronger' the belief may need to be to structure the whole of a lifetime rather
than just five years. And, how different the nature of the effort that is involved in
the work of the realization of something which I will not be around to benefit from,
at least not physically.
How many people actually 'devote the whole of their life' (the whole of their Being,
inner and outer) to something?
I may not notice that, when I look at the dirty dishes in the sink and see that they
need washing, this seeing, or moment of attention, is stimulated by the need itself. I
may not see that this seeing or noticing is coming from the need, or a need, which is
at (or coming from) a higher world. In general, all this is reduced to the world of
'me'. The noticing of the dirty dishes and recognition of the need to wash them, is
simply taken as a product of 'my' 'reasoning'. 'I' notice the dirty dishes and 'I' reason
that they need washing ( at least if 'I' wish to use them again in the future etc).
The extent to which I see that this general experience of the event is completely
'bobtailed', determines the possibility of seeing and participating in this event
differently. Washing the dishes, and the like, can then come to be something
completely different, they can become a means of learning and worship, a direct
entry into a different world, and thereby, a different meaning and significance.

On Freedom potential.

There can be the experience/realization of different kinds of freedom. In the Sufi

tradition, for example, there is the notion of multiple 'fanas' and 'baqas' along the
path. 'Fana' refers to an 'annihilation' and 'baqa' to 'birth', so there are several 'births
and deaths' on the path. In terms of the work, it is the 'higher' aspect in a given triad

that is relatively free in relation to the other terms. The 'higher' aspect in a given
triad can be seen as a relative 'God' of that triad; within a certain domain the higher
aspect has relative freedom and dominion. The higher aspect in a given triad will also
thereby appear as relatively 'non material', being both 'something/everything' and
'nothing', it can thereby appear as the 'framework' of/for what one is experiencing,
or the enabler of such experience.

In relation/comparison to the senses, or world of objects, the mind can appear as

relative freedom, in that it is not under the same constraints as physical objects in
connection to time and space etc. The 'dimensionality' of the mind is 'extra
dimensional' as compared to the dimensions of the world of objects. This extra
dimensionality can appear as 'infinity' to the lesser dimensionality, or in comparison
with such.

In terms of attention, there is also the relative freedom of attention in relation to the
'objects of attention'. In most experience, the 'content' of such experience is limited,
meaning that there is no 'experiential element' that dominates the whole field of
experience. This means that there is always something or some other experiential
element outside of another experiential element. If there is the experience of pain, for
example, then there is always some other element or 'part' of our experience that is
outside such pain, or not in pain etc. With the intentional use of attention, there is
always the possibility to shift the focus of attention from the current element to
some other experiential element.

In terms of experience being 'activity', or the experience of activity, then there is also
always some aspect of experience in which there is 'nothing happening'. If experience
is 'content', or the experience of 'content', then there is always some aspect of
experience in which there is 'no content'. This 'no content' or 'no activity' aspect of
experience can appear as relatively free compared to the 'content/activity' aspect.

Turning attention towards this 'no activity/content' aspect has be seen as a way of
realizing one's own relative freedom. This is usually seen as a necessary practice to
combat the sense of limitation that comes from identification with the

'activity/content' aspect of experience alone. Turning attention towards this 'non

activity/content' aspect, the recognition of this aspect, has also been related to
becoming aware of 'potential/possibility' as well as 'actuality'; this being the
'activity/content' aspect. This becoming aware of 'potential/possibility' has also been
linked with developing the Essence and 'essence perception'. Essence has been related
to the 'possible/potential' in the sense that it is the 'un-manifest' counter part of the
manifest expression. Developing essence, as is related to developing the higher bodies
etc, involves developing the 'perception' and recognition of the realm of
'possibility/potential', developing the 'organs of perception' with which to 'see' and
interact with this realm.

Becoming more conscious of the 'possible/potential' enables a greater participation

in the process of actualization or manifestation, the process of actualizing possibility.
Greater intentional participation in this process is required for 'coating' the higher
bodies, and it is said that such higher body is made from 'possible/potential energy'
itself, that there needs to be a store of energy in possible/potential form. The
'cohereing'/ 'organization' of this energy in potential/possible form enables a
communication and bridge to be built between the realm of the manifest/actualized
and the realm which is beyond that of the possible/potential. The realm of the truly
'unlimited' and the realm of the limited require some middle ground in order to
interact, in order for there to be exchange, and the realm of the potential/possible
serves this process and as such its has something of both realms about it.

Consideration of the nature of the possible/potential may give us some insight into
the nature of the second body, if it is considered that such a body is 'made out of'
possibility/potential itself. Also, consideration of the nature of 'coating' as a
'cohering' of energy in possible/potential form, may give a different understanding
into the nature of 'non expression', what it actually is and what its purpose is in
practice in relation to energy economy and transformation.

The Fool’s Quest

As far as Beelzebub is concerned, it appears that it is Conscience that can enable

Right Effort and Harmony to come into being. This Conscience, in its actualization,
is unique to each of us, thereby making each person's path their own. In order to
possibly 'hear the voice of conscience' in us, we need to 'be present', to 'remember
ourselves'. We need something in us that can withstand the 'shocks' of daily life, a
presence that can maintain itself in the flux of life, a presence that isn't overwhelmed
and swallowed up by the very functioning of our organism and the energies therein.

The establishment of such a presence involves the remembrance/recapitulation of

former perceptions/realizations of 'truth'. Gurdjieff speaks of one such realization as
the 'realization of our Nothingness'. This can also be related to the realization of our
general state/condition being one of 'sleep' and identification etc. The remembrance
of the realization of one's nothingness, and the remembrance of one's state of
sleep/identification, can inform our work, changing how we relate to ourselves and
our organic functioning. In remembering my sleep and identification, by affirming
this in the moment that I receive/meet impressions, there is the chance not to
react/relate to such impressions in the general way, enabling their possible
transformation into useful 'fuel' etc.

Along with the remembrance and affirmation of one's conditioned and limited side,
it appears that it is also necessary for there to be the realization and remembrance of
that in us which is not conditioned or limited. There is something in us which is free
from the relative limitations of the organic functioning and the identification with
such. In the remembrance and affirmation of this side of our nature, there is the
realization that there is always the possible choice before us as to whether we are
more focused on the conditioned or unconditioned.

With the remembrance and affirmation of these two sides of our nature, there can
then be the beginning of a new form of interaction between these two sides.
Gurdjieff speaks of a 'tension' or 'friction' being set up between these two sides
which can provide the energy or fuel for transformation, something can be born
from their interaction. This 'tension' or 'friction' is set up by the
voluntary/intentional decision to engage both sides without the denying of one or
the other.

This 'tension' or 'friction' can only come through the exercise of our own
choice/decision; and it is this that gives the 'tension' or 'friction' is transformative
character. There are many frictions and tensions that arise in us 'automatically',
coming simply through the contact of 'us' and 'world' and the various sympathies
and antipathies therein. We can meet these tensions and frictions in varying ways.
One way may be the way of automatic identification and reaction, another way may
be the voluntary acceptance of one's identification, and another way may be the
voluntary 'escape' or 'dis-identification' from one's own general identification,
through the voluntary establishment of identification with that side of us which is

Each of these ways, or at least the latter two, could be seen as reasonable, in that they
are ways to avoid our general state of suffering and frustration/impotence, and such
avoidance can be seen as rational. However, these ways do not yield the
tension/friction that can be transformative in the direction of the realization of 'Real
I' and Soul etc. These ways can seen as partial, in that they involve the affirmation of
only one side of our nature and the denial of the other.

The arising of the tension/friction that can be transformative can only come through
the voluntary/intentional affirmation and valuation of both sides of our nature.
There is the decision to treat each as equal and the decision to try to live in such a
way that honors both. This requires the beginning of a new line of work, work to
reconcile the 'opposite' natures of the two sides which tends to make them 'mutually

exclusive'. The reconciliation is the birth of something new, a new relation and
meaning to the different sides rather than the dissolution of their difference.

What this reconciliation is, in practice, may be unique to each person. If this
reconciliation is considered as the birth of 'Real I', then it is in the realm of
individuality. This reconciliation may involve a truly creative act/action in which
there can be something unique. In a sense, a Man IS this reconciliation, through his
act of reconciliation he 'creates himself' and thereby 'his own world'. Gurdjieff
speaks here of the 'Real Inner World of Man' and of the possibility for man to have
three worlds rather than just two.

On Beelzebub's Will.
If Will is the very 'essence' of what 'we are', and if it is also the very 'presence of God
in us', then it is in/through Will that we are both united and separated from
anything and everything else. It is Will that both 'conditions' or 'limits' itself, as well
as 'liberating' or 'freeing' itself from such constraints.Consequently, it could be seen
that it is me myself, in Will, that determines my own relative freedom or limitation.
This brings in the question of how 'The' Will can be both 'one and many', how a
singular Will can apparently be 'divided' 'within' itself, divided into varying and/or
opposing 'Wills' etc. If I wish for freedom but experience limitation, then am I in
confrontation with my own Will, my own Will being the very 'denying force' that is
determining my present degree of limitation? If Will is what I am, then we cannot
strictly speak of 'possessing' Will, but we can speak in terms of degrees of
'consciousness' of the Will, 'self consciousness' of the Will, and we can also speak of
degrees of Unity or 'integrity of the Will'.

Gurdjieff speaks of 'Okidanokh' and the process of 'Djartklom', through which the
Will is split into three separate parts/wills and then re-blended etc. It is our part in
this process of djartklom that gives us our very 'being' and enables to play a part in
the 'cosmic' process of reciprocal maintenance. The process of the separation and
unification of the Will provides us with the means of involution and evolution, and
in the cosmic sense provides the 'Trogoautoegocrat' or ' I eat Myself to Maintain
Myself'. The process of evolution lies in not so much 'acquiring Will', though this is
a phrase Gurdjieff has used and he also spoke of development of the will etc, but lies
instead in the 'integration' of the Will in its multiple or Triadic expression.
This could be pictured as a process of becoming conscious of each of the triadic
elements/forces themselves, and as they are expressed through the 'brain system', and
then coming to 'co-ordinate' their varying/opposing natures so that they 'move as
one,' so to speak.This can, of course, raise valid questions as to 'who' or 'what' it is
that could do such 'co-ordinating' and apparently 'act upon' Will itself, or at least its
expression. Here we can only refer back to Will itself and its apparently 'mysterious'
'veiling of itself to itself'.
Something of this 'mysterious', 'miraculous', and 'paradoxical' nature of the Will,
and God, is expressed in the writings about the 'Trogoautoegocrat', which do suggest
some rather startling notions about God's relation to His Creation, and
consequently also his relation to Himself in terms of Will. This also refers to our
relationship to/with God, the nature of God eating himself and being eaten by
himself can be seen to imply that 'we' are directly involved in the 'Doing of God'. In
Will we participate in the decision of The Will, or God, to enter into the
'Trogoautoegocratic' 'mode' of 'being'. And, once in this mode of 'being', or mode of
operation of the Will, 'we' then also actually directly participate in the process
whereby the Will determines itself, and thereby, all Reality.
In this sense, we participate in process whereby God, or the Will, in its multiple
'Trogoautoegocratic' 'mode', 'chooses' or 'decides' 'what/why/how' It Actually Is. In
this sense, our participating in the 'Doing of God', is also our participation in the

'Choosing', 'determining' of 'what'/who' God Is. We are One with God in this 'act of
Will', and consequently through this we are also united with 'other wills'.
In the process of the limitation and liberation of the Will, each 'Will' or
'being/individual' is equal, in that its own relative process of liberation and
limitation is 'self-governed'; determined by its own Will and its degree of
'consciousness' and 'unity/integrity' therein. In this sense, everyone's 'salvation' or
'damnation', 'condemnation' or 'redemption/re-deeming', is their own concern, a
matter between 'them and themselves' or 'them and God' etc. The process by which a
given Will or 'being/individual' realizes its own freedom, and the factors involved in
this, comes from that which both unifies us with and separates/individualizes us
from everything else. As it is true to say my own 'salvation' or 'damnation' is a matter
purely between 'me and myself' or 'me and God', it is also true to say that my
'salvation' or 'damnation' is also a matter of concern to everyone else, every other
Will. It is through the Will that we both enter into each others reality, and the
making of it, and also stand apart from each other in the making of our own reality.
The very 'relativity' of the freedom and limitation of 'individual wills' may be the
freedom we seek, relativity itself may be a sign of the freedom of Will, a sign of the
nature of its 'self determination'. The relativity that enables an individual 'drop' to
pass from one stream to another, despite the overall prevailing motion, may be the
sign of the freedom of the Will.
The 'act' that brings God, or The Will, into the 'Trogoautoegocrat' produces a kind
of 'dependency' of God, or The Will, upon the 'Creation' or mode of multiple Wills.
This dependency can be seen as a kind of sacrifice, and it has been linked with the
notion of 'God becoming Man' and the suffering therein etc. The singular Will
becomes subject to multiplicity, and in God becoming Man, Man can also become
God. Each is significantly involved in the reality of the other. But, from this apparent
sacrifice of The Will, a new kind of freedom or self determination is
produced/enabled, one that is more 'meaningful' if not also more 'hazardous'.
The dependency of God upon the Creation, such as is talked of by Gurdjieff in terms
of the need to combat the effects of the Merciless Heropass on the Place of Being of

The Holy Sun Absolute, is generally spoken of in 'spatial' terms/analogies/metaphor,

and this is mainly due to the nature of dealing with our language and general
mentation rather than being an accurate description etc. The given dependency, or
intimacy, concerns the nature of the Will rather than some 'external' relationship etc.
In the Trogoautoegocrat, the 'creator' is not separate to/from the 'creation', the
'creation' as is generally referred to, is an expression of the creation of a form/mode
of operation of The Will upon itself, a form of 'self-relation' and 'self-determination'
The 'Theomertmalogos', or 'Word of God', can be seen as the 'Rightness' or
'Righteousness' of The Will in its decision to actualize/realize the Trogoautoegocrat,
and the penetration/emanation of this 'Spirit' into the creation enabling/helping the
principle of 'evolution' to be maintained, or for 'chaos' not to rule over 'order' or
'goodness' etc. The Theomertmalogos, or the Spirit of God, is involved in the
'salvation of God'; in that entering into the Trogoautoegocratic mode has its related
hazards, God Himself appears to become subject to the threat of 'dissolution' or the
extreme 'dis-unification' of The Will through the action and nature of multiple
Wills. The Holy Spirit, and Reconciling force, is thereby connected with 'The Only
Begotten', and the nature of what it is to be Begotten rather than created. The
Reconciling force is linked with the Suffering Holy Son, and what it means to
believe in the Holy Son such that there is Salvation or Redemption/Re-deeming etc.
In considerations about the nature of the work of the unification of the Will, we
must remember that Will is, if not completely, then largely outside of consciousness,
beyond consciousness itself. So, such work largely concerns that in us, or of us,
which is beyond consciousness. This brings the question as to what role
consciousness serves in this process of liberation and limitation of the Will, and
consequently what role 'we' have in this work, at least so long as 'we' are 'identified'
with, or identify ourselves as, consciousness.

On Identification.

''As I look around me, I listen to the sounds arising. I have a sense of what is
producing each sound and of where each sound is coming from. I look to sources of
each of the sounds and have a sense that ''that is where they are coming from''.
I close my eyes and continue to listen to the sounds. I try to focus my attention
purely on the sounds themselves, and let go of any inner picturings that may arise. I
try to let go of my imagined view of the space around me. I try to cease to 'project'
any visual content connected to the sounds and their sources.
I focus purely on the sense of the sounds themselves, I focus purely on the sensation
and feeling of the 'impact' of the sounds upon me. As I do this, all visual content
connected/associated with the sounds and their sources ceases/disappears. Along
with this, all sense of the sounds and their sources having a 'location of origin'
disappears. There is no longer any sense of the sounds originating from a location
that is any distance or direction away from myself.
The sense of the 'impact' of the sound upon me remains, and I see that the 'impact'
or reception of the sound 'is' the sound itself. There is no 'source' of the sound which
is separate to the sound itself. I do not know a 'source' of a sound and the sound
itself as 'two separate things'. I know sound purely as the/its impact upon me.
'Where' I experience the impact is 'within me', the experience of the impact is a
vibration/reverberation of me. The impact itself is 'made out of'' me, my sensation
and feeling.The sounds are then seen not to be 'impacts from without', but
vibrations/reverberations 'from within'.
The sense of impact or contact becomes one of 'self-contact'. In the experience of the
sounds I am experiencing the activity of 'self-contact', a kind of 'touching myself'.
There is both the sense of contact as the interaction of two (or more) separate or

distinguished elements, and also the sense of the two elements in question both
being one/oneself. There is the physical reflection of this in, for example, the action
of washing one's hands, where 'one hand washes the other' yet both belong to the
same one body.
In the recognition of the nature of this 'self contact', I see that this form of contact is
present in all bodily experience, that each and every 'impact' of sensation and feeling
(and thought) is a 'self contact' 'from within' rather than the impact from without of
something separate to me. As I see this, I wonder why I do not experience each and
every 'impact' or arising of sensation and feeling in this way, why sometimes the
'impacts' appear just as that; as the impact from without of separate things.
I see that, in the experience and recognition of the nature of this self-contact there is
the realization of a greater degree of freedom. There is the release from a certain sense
of 'confinement' and 'tension', and there is also the marked increase in the 'intensity'
of the experience of such 'impacts' themselves; meaning that sensation and feeling
themselves become more intense in their quality and 'tangibility'. With the
realization that each impact or contact is a self-contact comes the increase in the
sense of 'intimacy' in the impact/contact itself, and with this an increase in the sense
of 'sensitivity/receptivity'.
Along with the relative sense of release there is also the greater sense of 'belonging' or
'being one with' one's 'environment'. There is a greater sense of communication and
interaction/inter-relation when the nature of all impacts/contact is realized to be one
of self-contact. The communication and interaction/inter-relation is a self
communication/communicating and self interaction/inter-relation. This form of
communication and interaction is seen to be authentic and genuine as compared to
the previous experience, which is seen to be a 'mis-communication' or 'false'
communication in which there is no real relation and interaction and only an image
of such.
I see that, in my general experience of impact/contact I turn myself into an 'object',
an object among and interacting with other objects. This brings in the sense of
certain limitations that are related to objects and their nature. My general experience

of contact affirms/re-affirms my sense that I am an object (or certain kind of object)

with its related limitation and separation. Such an object is limited in its ability and
capacity to communicate and interact/inter-relate.
My identification of myself as an object goes hand in hand with my identifying with
objects (impacts of sensation,feeling,thought). Identification itself appears as a form
of 'dis-association' or 'self dis-association' in which the apparent 'affirming' of 'the
other' (and losing of oneself in process) is really a denial of the 'true other;-' which is
oneself in the dual/multiple aspect of one hand washing the other etc.
In losing myself to an apparent affirmation of 'other' (a certain form of 'self
affirmation' that is really 'self denial') I lose myself to the true experience of 'other' in
the form of myself, the true experience of 'self relation/communication' (real
communication/relation) which is the true experience of 'knowing the other as
oneself' and 'loving one's neighbor as oneself'. I cannot 'enter Purgatory' while there
is identification/identifying.''

''Gurdjieff said I needed to ''FEEL More''!

What's up with that?

To 'feel more' I have firstly to put more attention into/towards my feelings. This can
help me to begin to discriminate between feeling and sensation, which in the general
man are mixed up.

Feeling stimulates, or is reflected in, the body as sensation, and hence different
traditions begin work on the feelings by working with somatic sensation. I firstly use
sensation in order to be aware of my feelings, I am firstly aware of my feelings
through their reflection in sensation.

Just as time spent in intentional sensing can help me to discriminate between 'self
sensing' and 'self tension' the same is so for time spent in intentional feeling, that is,

the feeling can begin to be separated from the sensation, just as the fine from the
coarse etc.

It may be news to some people that they are not aware of their feelings, at least not
directly, and that this awareness/perception needs to be developed. To be directly
aware of feelings without the mediation of sensation is quite a big thing, and it is this
direct awareness/perception of feeling that leads to the direct intentional use of
feeling; the ability to marshal the feelings as one whole, and move them as one, is the
work of the cohering of the diffuse feeling brain.

In Beelzebub's Tales, a differentiation is made between the beings of earth and the
beings of Beelzebub's kind and this differentiation lies in the feeling brain. In
Beelzebub's kind the brain is concentrated in one mass in the breast rather than
diffused throughout the body as in man. We can see here that the diffuse nature of
man's feeling brain relates to the nature of 'identification', such that in general man
his feeling brain is controlled/influenced by the impulses/fluctuations of sensation
and thought (at least the general kind of thinking which is related to the functioning
of the formatory apparatus and which Gurdjieff puts on a level with sensation.)

There is a particular kind of working of the head brain that is involved in the
cohering of the feeling brain, or its 'substance'. The driver is connected to the horse
by means of the reins and the reins have been related to 'Hanbledzoin' or the blood
of the second body. A certain kind of contact and relation is needed between the
head/thinking and the feelings. The higher emotional center can connect and
communicate to the lower centers via 'symbolism' and 'images'. Part of the work of
cohering the feeling brain involves the intentional use and creation of 'images',
whether 'inner' or 'outer', and this requires the head brain's activity. This has a
relation to 'mentation by form'.

A 'mental' form is used to 'organ-ize' the feelings, something of a higher order (the
form) is used to bring a degree of order and unity into the lower, to enable the
feelings. This requires a certain kind of 'concentration', and also what could be called

'visualization', of the head brain. For this there has to be a division of attention
between the action of the head brain and the action of the feelings (and sensation).

Gurdjieff gives some useful exercises in ''Life is Real..'', one of which is related to the
assimilation of air (or the higher elements in air). In this exercise there is a division of
attention between the breath/chest and the head, and Gurdjieff states that both are,
or can be, a source of actualization of Individuality or Real I.

As an example of the general insensitivity towards feelings themselves, many people

would be unable to conceive of the experience of anger, for example, without the
accompanying physical sensations. Our attention is, in general, only able to 'see' the
very 'coarse' or 'dense', or said another way, we are rarely able to separate the energy
from the instrument through which it works/expresses. This ableness to separate or
discriminate/distinguish energy from instrument is also related to the development
of the Kesdjan body.

Jesus says:

(1) “This heaven will pass away, and the (heaven) above it will pass away.

(2) And the dead are not alive, and the living will not die.

(3) In the days when you consumed what was dead, you made it alive. When you are
in the light, what will you do?

(4) On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two,
what will you do?”

- Gospel of Thomas

On Gurdjieff's ''Inner Life''.


''Gurdjieff says that ''Man has little inner life''. What does this mean?

''Inner life'' has been related to that which is, or can be, separate to the automatic
functioning. The inner life is something which can stand apart from the automatic
functioning. It is considered as being built from the results of intentional/voluntary
attention, as opposed to the automatic results of involuntary attention.

My inner life in general is as a shadow, a shadow or imitation of authentic inner life.

The material of thought, feeling, and sensation is stimulated by automatic
functioning and the resulting activity of thought, feeling, and sensation is taken as
being 'living' or 'conscious' as opposed to mechanical. In taking the automatic or
mechanical as 'living' or 'conscious' I take it to be 'me', I can identify with such
activity as 'my' 'inner life' etc.

Through a lack of initiative on my part, my inner life is taken over by my automatic

functioning. Chance and habitual impulses take the initiating role in the activity and
content of my inner life. As a result, I have little presence and ableness in my own
inner life. This lack of presence means that I am firstly only very dimly aware of what
passes through my inner world, and secondly I have little ability when it comes to
directing and mobilizing my inner world and its related capacities in some specific

The inner life corresponds to that which can be made from the intentional
engagement of thought, feeling, and sensation. The energies present in thought,
feeling, and sensation can be brought together in a transformative way, developing
and 'vitalizing' (vivifying) the inner life. This has been connected to the use of
Hanbledzoin and the coating of the second body etc. It has also been said that the
inner life is made from the 'stuff' of dreams and imagination etc. Hence our general
inner life is said to be dream like, with little substantiality and coherence.

In general, the content of my inner world is given to me by my present surroundings

and the impressions that come to me through such. The content of my inner world

may then bear some 'logical' reflection to the given surroundings and activity that I
am engaged in, but it may also bear no 'logical' reflection and may simply be the
result of a chance association etc. If I am washing the dishes, for example, then the
familiar surroundings and activity will provide a corresponding inner content. The
content of thought, feeling, and sensation will be dictated by the familiar situation,
the situation becomes the initiative for the content and activity of the inner world.

The thoughts, feelings, and sensations that are stimulated will be those that
correspond to the functioning of the 'formatory apparatus'. The formatory
apparatus has a certain way of dealing with situations, with impressions. It has a
certain 'pattern' and 'logic' of functioning which influences the present relationship
and interaction between the centers/brains, and this results in a particular form, and
content, of association.

The given content of the inner life may or may not be seen to be 'habitual' and
'mechanical'. Different combinations of the same 'data' are usually taken to be
something new, and it is the mistaken sense of this 'newness' that aids the
identification with the imitation inner life, that aids in taking the mechanical for the

To develop the inner life, to realize the potential we have, it is necessary to become
actively engaged in the direction of thought, feeling, and sensation, to become a
source of initiative in oneself for the activity and content of thought, feeling, and
sensation. To do this whilst actively engaged in the world, or 'outer life', it is
necessary for there to be some independence between 'body' and 'mind', or rather, it
is necessary that the systems we have for dealing with the external world can operate
effectively whilst our intention, and attention, is directed towards and engaged in
the inner world. Attention division exercises, and exercises for the balancing and
stabilizing of the 'physical' energies, such as the Movements, have been used towards
this end.

Generally attention is swallowed by (immersed in) the activity of the systems that
engage with the external world. The inner world, or inner life, is then also immersed

in the activity of those systems and is thereby limited to reflecting the nature of the
external world with its related limitations. The inner life becomes a mere reflection
of the outer life, and a dim, distorted reflection at that. This is like saying that we
operate under more laws, greater limitation than is possible for us. The relatively
'higher principle' of the inner life ceases to operate in its proper place or on its own
level, and as a result, the relatively lower principle connected with the outer
world/outer life cannot function appropriately or be related to in a coherent way.

The systems and activity of the outer life are meant to provide a 'material support' or
foundation for the activity of the inner life. The inner life should 'stand above' or
'stand on' the outer life, using it as a vehicle of sorts. If the outer life is characterized
by actualization and by a kind of separation connected with 'objects/bodies', then
the inner life corresponds to that aspect of our nature that stands outside of
actualization and which is not constraint by the properties of 'physical
objects/bodies'. ''

Self Remember.

''What is Self Remembering? Is it just 'Awareness', or is it much more than that?''

I wouldn't worry too much about the question '' Is this self remembering''? or ''Am I
self remembering''? Of course, this is a good question to spend some time in
pondering, but if it becomes too much of a pressing concern there is the danger that
it can become just another distraction from the present moment. Such is the nature
of the mis-working of the centers, where an intention is 'inverted' in its process of
actualization/manifestation and results in its 'opposite', although this usually goes

There is the idea that if we do what we can with what we have, however little this
may be, self remembering will 'take care of itself', which is to say that if we make the
efforts we can we will receive 'help' and connect with the 'finer' energies/foods that
will nourish us.
Gurdjieff did emphasize the idea of making small intentional efforts, the creation of
small aims for oneself to achieve and struggle with. There can be the tendency to
'aim too big' which can result in the mis-direction of our efforts and energy. Perhaps
I make the aim to ''remember myself for the whole day'', whereas in reality the aim of
trying to ''remember myself each time I go to the toilet'', for example, may be one
which would provide me with much more useful material.
There is the question of how we define 'self remembering' itself. If I am asking the
question ''Is this self remembering''? Does this mean that I do not know what self
remembering is, and if I don't know what it is then how am I to recognize it?
If the term 'Self remembering'' is something 'vague' for me, with little 'concrete'
inner content or meaning, then how am I to come to a more concrete meaning and
use of the term?
Can I actually come to the real understanding of another's use of the term 'self
remembering'? The definition and experience of 'self remembering' may have
something about it that is unique to each individual. This is to say that 'self
remembering' may involve 'creativity' or 'creative energy', and as such each 'moment'
of 'self remembering' is a 'moment of creation' in which something 'new' is created.
There is the connection between the Third Force and 'Creativity', between 'Spirit'
and 'new-ness' or 'uniqueness' etc. Part of the 'immortality' that is related to the
Spirit is connected with its ever 'self creating' and 'self renewing' nature.
If self remembering involves creativity, then it would make sense that this creativity
or creative energy manifests through Man in the form of his Real I. The exercise of
Real I in Man has been expressed as the exercise of Will, the exercising of a Man's
united Will wherein the Triadic aspects are unified as one and whereby Man 'is made

in the Image of God' etc. Part of the exercise of a Man's Real I and Will involves the
actualization of the ability to choose, the exercise of decision.
Each Man may have a degree of freedom in the decision and creation of his own self
remembering, a degree of participation in the creation of the meaning and
experience of his own self remembering, participation in the creation of what self
remembering means, and is, to him.
Far from being apparently mere 'subjectivity', the exercising of the Man's Will and
decision would involve participation in the creation of 'Objective Reality',
participation in the self-creation and self-re-deeming, or self redemption, of Reality.
Going back to the question itself of ''Is this self remembering''?, some might say that,
in its essence, this question itself is self remembering. This may bring into question
what exactly is the nature of a question, or questioning, itself.
Having an open-ended question, or searching for something undefined so to speak, is
something different to the searching for something known. The latter may, in some
cases, be seen to be something like 'problem solving' where the problem is solved by
the strict application of a known 'formula' which yields the correct result each time,
the only issue being that the problem is recognized as being one which requires the
given formula to solve etc.
Each of these different actions can have a different relevant value and application. In
Beelzebub's Tales, and in Gurdjieff's own teachings, much is made of these two
different kinds of action and approach towards self development.
In 'Views From the Real World' Gurdjieff gives a talk on what it means to 'separate
oneself from oneself', and this may be relevant to your experience and questions.
Gurdjieff speaks of the necessity to have a separation between the 'mind' and the
'feelings' so that the mind does not become identified with the activity of the
feelings. It is said that work must begin by being able to keep the mind in a certain
direction regardless of the present feeling activity. Generally, mind reflects and
amplifies the present feeling activity, reinforcing it. If there are 'negative' feelings
then there will be 'negative' thoughts etc.

The first effort of separating oneself from oneself is the effort to keep the mind in
the direction one wishes, regardless of the direction and activity of the feelings.
Gurdjieff speaks of this in the context of developing the place for wish itself to be
present. The general identification with thought, such as the experience of being
'overwhelmed by an inner torrent of thought', is the experience of the identification
of thought with feeling. The energy of feeling that is involved in the arousing and
sustaining of interest, and which in the extreme is the energy of such things as
'obsessive compulsive behaviors' etc, gets taken by thought, or said another way,
thoughts gets lured by the present energy of feeling etc. Thought then reflects and
reinforces the present feeling activity or condition such that thought can then appear
chaotic or disruptive etc.
This is another example of the mis-working of the centers where they take each
others foods/energy and role instead of their own, and it has also been expressed in
terms of the Octave and Enneagram where there is the in-completion and deviation
of octaves, involution instead of evolution etc.

On the Beating of Sheep.

''The ''little beating'' that the Magician gives to the sheep each day, in order for the
hypnosis not to wear off, has been related to our daily emotional reactions of like and
dislike etc. The energy and material of the particular reactions must be used in order
to begin to ''wake up'' from the hypnosis. The use and transformation of these
reactions would correspond to the development of the 'reins' between the 'coach
driver' and the 'horse'. The material of the reins has been called 'Handbledzoin' and
Gurdjieff talks a bit about this in Beelzebub's Tales in the Hypnosis chapter.

The property of the 'psyche' of man, which results in the ''little beating'' actually
aiding to maintain his hypnosis, has been related to the fact that, in man's general
condition, any experience, whether 'pleasurable' or 'un-pleasurable', can come to be
'sought after' through its repetition. In a sense, man can 'transform' any experience,
whether 'positive' or 'negative', into a 'positive', meaning that he can change his
relationship (or interpretation) to the given experience in a way that can appear to
'satisfy' him. Gurdjieff says that through this property a man can become 'content'
with anything.
This property, which has also been said to be linked with 'suggestibility', can be seen
as a ''double-edged sword'', in the sense that it could be maintained that it is also
through this very property in man that he has the potential to transform and evolve.
The process whereby man becomes 'content' or 'conditioned' by the repetition of
experience and emotional reaction could be seen as a 'negative' or 'involutionary' way
of transforming the present experience. It could be seen as an 'inverted'
transformation of the experience and reactions, an 'inverted' 'reconciliation' which
could also be deemed a 'self cancellation'.
In relation to the enneagram and octave, this situation has been connected with the
potential 'deviation' and 'degeneration' in the process of completion, the situation
where the 'shocks' aren't actualized and in which the process merely 'repeats' in an
incomplete way. This is situation isn't generally noticed and there is thereby present
a 'phony' 'image' of completion which enables the the process to continue or repeat
in the same fashion. The 'phony image' of completion enables the individual to be, or
appear to be, 'content' with the given experience. It enables the present capacity of
man to transform his experience according to his 'three-fold' nature, to be a bearer of
the 'Holy Affirming', 'Holy Denying', and 'Holy Reconciling' forces, to appear to be
actualized (which it is, just in an 'inverted' way ). This situation has also been
expressed by Gurdjieff by him saying that, in general, man only operates through his
'denying brain', or that this is the general 'dominant' brain and force in man.
If a man in the general condition came to realize this situation he may be
'overwhelmed' by it and as result seek some form of 'self destruction'. Gurdjieff

mentions this nature of the general human psyche where he speaks of the possibility
that if men were to come to realize that they were in effect machines for the
transformation an energy which was to be used for a purpose to which they would
not benefit from, they would most likely revolt at this situation and seek to 'rebel' in
some fashion or merely to end their existence etc. This reaction of man is put in the
context of his situation and limitation as being one that is imposed from without
and which has the aspect of 'non consent', this latter aspect being connected with the
idea that man wasn't 'asked' so to speak whether he would participate in such a
situation, and also the idea that once in this situation there was an effort to keep it
hidden from him etc.
So there can appear to be a strange situation where there is something with
apparently 'no will', or a 'machine', complaining at the fact that it is having another
will 'imposed' upon it 'from without' and as a result this something 'deciding' to
either 'rebel' against the other will and/or end it's own existence. This whole episode
in Beelzebub can be seen in part to be another look at man's conception and
understanding of what could be called 'justice'. Would the general man's reaction to
realizing his situation be 'justified'? Is he actually being done some 'wrong' or
'injustice' by the 'higher powers' that be, or would the said reaction be simply an
'egotistic' or 'selfish' reaction of his own, intentional or not. We can imagine a
situation where a given man wouldn't react in the way feared, so there may be this
element of uncertainty here where things can go in different and even opposite
directions.The topic of man's understanding of 'justice' can also be related to man's
understanding of 'means and ends' and his common perception that there is some
separation and 'tension' between these two that seems never to be wholly
reconcilable in an actual situation.
For man to transform his particular pattern and energy of emotional reaction, he has
to become open to the ability to 'choose' his reactions, to choose to 'like what it does
not like' etc. This ability, on the one hand, can be seen to involve the ableness to
choose to 'like' or 'dislike' on a given occasion, to be able to transform experience in a
certain way. On the other hand, this ability to choose can be seen to involve the

realization and actualization of that which is 'both' and 'neither' 'like' nor 'dislike';
the 'third force' or aspect in the given situation etc. The ability to choose in this way
may lead one to be confronted with ideas around issues of 'conscience' and
'responsibility' etc. To be able to choose puts one in the vicinity of 'The Devil' as
Gurdjieff says, but this ability is also what Gurdjieff says is the first condition
whereby a man can actually be helped by another who is further down the path. This
ability has also been related with the ability to actually 'submit one's will to another'
(or anything) and along with this the ability to 'sacrifice one's suffering'.
In coming out of hypnosis there can be real consequences to one’s actions, rather
than one's actions having no active influence upon one's situation and the 'ultimate
end' in the case of the sheep. This awakening from hypnosis can be expressed as the
awakening of 'man's will', or the will that is present in and operates through man.
The awakening of will in the realization of the ability to choose, and then further the
ableness to 'Do', raises the question of what 'independent' action actually means.
How can 'one' 'I', or will, be related and actively engage with another, how can will,
or 'Real I', be 'one and many', what are the possible forms of relation 'between' 'I's or
'wills' etc. Towards the end of Beelzebub's Tales this question is raised, and it could
be seen to be an essential thread throughout the Tales and a pressing concern of
Gurdjieff himself.
The question as to the possibility of not being a sheep opens up the question of what
it means to be a Man, to be a Man in a world that includes sheep, Men, Magicians
and who knows what else. If a Man's decision and Doing is real, then he thereby
actively participates in the creation or 'making of Reality', the process whereby
Reality is made 'What' it is and also 'That' it is, the process whereby 'Realness' is
made 'Real'. What does a sheep do when it becomes a Man and realizes his
'complicity' in not only his own past and present situation but also in the greater
situation as a whole. Does he just go out and by stocks and shares in 'mutton and
wool'? ''

On the question of 'First Contact' and ''Take me to your Leader''.

''Reference can be found, in the 'canonical' material of Gurdjieff's students, to

Gurdjieff's wish that Beelzebub should be published, and read, before Ouspensky's
ISOTM;- which Gurdjieff is also recorded as praising.
Besides this, there is the principle in Gurdjieff's own writings, and particularly in
regard to Beelzebub, that material, or specifically 'new' material as connected with
learning and understanding, is only assimilated by coming into direct contact with
the 'subconscious'; this being Gurdjieff's 'real consciousness' of man. This means that
the new material must, to some extent or in some way, 'bypass' the general
'processing' of the ordinary consciousness.
In this sense, it could be seen to be favorable to come to Gurdjieff's writings, and
particularly Beelzebub's Tales, with as little prior knowledge of Gurdjieff and his
students writings etc as possible. There is a particular kind of energy and potential
that is present when we come into contact with something for the first time, and the
conditions around this, both inner and outer, can influence how this energy or
potential is realized. Gurdjieff talked here about only being able to create favorable
conditions for work and transformation.
It is true that what is realized from such a contact with new material is dependent
upon what a person 'brings with them' in terms of some relevant material or
understanding, such as the 'gold needed in order to make more gold' etc. This
'relevant material' need not be in the specific form of knowledge of Gurdjieff and the
teachings and ideas through other writers. Gurdjieff says that if a person can do one
thing well, or has even one area of 'expertise' or 'competence' or 'talent', then it is
possible for them to receive and respond to 'wisdom' and new, 'higher' 'information'.

It is quite possible for a prior contextual knowledge of Gurdjieff and the work to
impede the extra potential for 'self observation' and 'self insight' that is present upon
the first contact with Beelzebub. If Beelzebub is constructed in such a way as to
attempt to foster 'subconscious' stimulation/activation, then it is useful to work
with this by reading Beelzebub and Gurdjieff's own writings before that of his
students where possible. Of course, after reading Gurdjieff's writings it will be useful
to read those of his students and commentators etc in order to provide additional
material with which to 're-engage' with the 'original material'.
The process of engagement, disengagement, and re-engagement with some central or
original set of ideas can be visualized like the passing of the needle and thread
through the base material in sewing, or perhaps like the process of forging and
tempering where there is the repeated periods of heating and cooling, and
hammering etc. One engages with some material then disengages with it and engages
with some other material, whether apparently related or not, only to then re-engage
with the original material in the hope of some new and deeper understanding,
realization and transformation etc. There is the idea of 'movement and repose' here,
which is said to be a 'sign of the work in manifestation'. The nature of the
'movement' of the 'prodigal son' is one which is related to Gurdjieff's notion of the
balance and mutual development that is needed between knowledge and being in
order for there to be understanding.
Gurdjieff's advice to read his writings in order, and to do so three times, each in a
different way exemplifies the 'attitude' that is intended for the reader to have in
approaching and engaging the material. The intended attitude is one which fosters a
process of 'self revelation', wherein the material, and its particular construction,
serves as a kind of 'template', 'organizer', and 'clother' to the 'data' that a person
currently has in them, thus revealing their current 'mental' content and processes to
them and also providing a new possible means of engagement with such data and
processes. This new means of engagement provides a direction for/of transformation
and the opportunity to participate in a creative action.

This potential experiential process is mirrored in Gurdjieff's words about the

different nature and particular aim of each of the three series of his writings.
Roughly, the first series is to destroy the established, or supposedly established,
present. The second series is to provide the notion and possible hope of the creation
or realization of a new present. The third series is to provide data on the practical
realization of such a new present, new world, or 'Real World' ''.

On Consciousness.

'' Sometimes, due to being in a hurry and trying to attend other engagements on
time, I find myself doing something mechanically and at the same time I'm aware
that I'm doing the work mechanically due to time constraints, whether I'm right or
wrong in this as far as the attempt to reduce mechanicality. There is the wish not to
do the work mechanically but there is also the concern that if I attempt this I will not
attend my next important task. How to balance? ''
The mechanical or automatic has its place and function as everything else. If I am
doing something and have the sense that I am doing so mechanically, then this itself
is already a different state to simple mechanicality, because there is some awareness
of mechanicality.
Why is there the notion that acting consciously, performing some task consciously,
should make the completion of the task slower?
It is certainly so that people can report difficulties when they attempt to perform
some task 'more consciously' than usual. In the attempt to be conscious there can be
interference in the established functional operations. For example, someone tries to
be more conscious whilst walking and ends up tripping over etc. This occurrence can

be seen as a case of 'sitting between two stools', wherein there is neither the
competent mechanical performance nor the competent conscious performance.
This disturbance itself can be seen as a necessary step in transformation, a state of
tension and friction which has corresponding possibilities. If one is familiar with the
ideas of the Enneagram and Octaves, then such a state of disturbance can be seen to
relate to the point 5 or 'Harnel Aoot' as called in Beelzebub's Tales. At this point
there is the potential for results to go 'either way', either into greater
disturbance/disorder or into greater order. Which way the results go depends upon
how we relate to this point and our understanding of the larger process.
It could be seen that some of these issues arise because there is a misunderstanding of
what it means to be conscious, a misunderstanding of the nature of the action that is
involved in the attempt to be conscious. Such a misunderstanding could be said to
come from the mechanical attempt to be conscious, a mechanical effort to be
conscious. This is, of course, inevitable in the course of the work.
There is also the idea that the value of consciousness is to be conscious when it is
needed to be conscious. Gurdjieff speaks of this in terms of saying that a man cannot
work all the time. Gurdjieff emphasized set periods of intentional, intensive work.
Gurdjieff also speaks of the two worlds, and each of their related struggles and work.
There is the 'outer world', which has its own particular related obligations and
efforts, and there is also the 'inner world' which has its own different obligations an
efforts. Gurdjieff mentions the need to keep these two worlds, and the related work
in each, 'separate' and not 'mixed'. This 'working in two worlds', and keeping each in
its relevant place, is said to be the function of Man. It is this dual working that is said
to lead to the realization of the 'third world of man' or 'Real Inner World of Man' as
mentioned by Gurdjieff in 'Life is Real..'.
Consciousness, as a higher energy/substance, is related to a higher quality of work,
which is to say that conscious work is of a higher quality and value than mechanical
work. The consciousness involved in some work or task can be externally expressed
in different ways, one of which may appear to be greater 'efficiency' and 'economy'
and 'competence' in the work, or with which it is carried out etc. However, these

external markers are necessarily limited and the presence of consciousness cannot be
defined by the apparent presence of these markers.
The value of consciousness, of conscious work, does not lie wholly in the 'external
world'. The value of consciousness, of conscious work, cannot be limited to 'worldly
values'. The results of conscious work are only partly aimed at, or directed towards,
the 'external world'. Hence conscious work cannot be defined, or apprehended, by
worldly values alone. The same values and criteria that are used to judge worldly
affairs cannot be applied to consciousness. Gurdjieff talks here of how people
respond to 'conscious art', for example, in different ways according to the level of
their Being. The consciousness present in some work of art, for example, is then not
apprehended in the same way or via the same means as the 'form and substance' of
the piece of art. The consciousness present is not completely reflected or expressed in
the particular form and substance of the piece of art, or rather, it is not the particular
form and substance of the piece of art itself/alone that leads to the recognition of
consciousness or confirms it etc.
It is this nature of consciousness, that it cannot be limited to the expression of what
have been accepted a 'positive' worldly values, which has led to problems in its
definition and the recognition of it at work in the world, both presently and
Gurdjieff talks of the Real Work of Man in terms of a particular relation between his
three brains with which the work is carried out. This particular relation, or
'lawfulness', can express itself and be maintained through various 'states of
consciousness', not being equatable to any one state of consciousness. It is here that
the presentation of the different states/levels of consciousness can be misleading, in
that people can come to think that what they are after is a particular state of
consciousness and its maintenance, and they equate this state of consciousness with,
or define it by, certain functional activity of thought, feeling, and sensation (the
presence or absence of such).

A little on the ‘Omnipresent Active Element’ and ‘Prime Source Substance’


This take on ‘Okidanokh’ (Okidanokh as Will) is certainly influenced by J.G

Bennett, but I would say that it isn’t too much of a ‘leap’ and fits into much of what
Gurdjieff says about the Creation story in Beelzebub and elsewhere.

Also, having had a Christian influence growing up, I tend to see Gurdjieff’s three
forces as the three aspects of ‘God’s Will’. In seeing the three forces in creation as the
three faces of God’s Will in creation, it makes sense to see Okidanokh as an
expression of the Affirmative face of the Will.

In Beelzebub’s Tales there is, in the creation story, the triadic division into the three
elements of the Holy Sun Absolute, Etherokrilno, and Theomertmalogos, and out of
these three there is a connection between the Holy Sun Absolute and Okidanokh.
The Holy Sun Absolute can be seen as the ‘place of being’ of the Prime Source, and
Okidanokh is the Prime Source substance. Here, the question could arise as to what
is meant by ‘Being’. There is perhaps the suggestion that ‘Being’ requires some
‘conditions’, or ‘actions’, in order to ‘be’ and ‘persist’. ‘Being’ is an ‘abode’ of the
Prime Source, a potential expression, vehicle, or manifestation of the Prime Source
which requires some action for its maintenance.

Okidanokh, as the Prime Source Substance, can be seen as the ‘substance’ of the
action that maintains such a place of being. Here again, the question could arise as to
the particular use of the word substance, which can be seen to be used quite
differently by Beelzebub and Gurdjieff than its common usage.

The same act of division that gives rise to creation is repeated in Okidanokh itself.
The separation and re-blending of Okidanokh can be seen as the means whereby
creation is sustained, and through which evolution and involution are possible. In
this sense, Okidanokh is like the ‘crystalization’ of God’s Will, or the Will of the
Prime Source. Okidanokh is God’s Will in creation in the sense that is it that which
provides the ‘existential’ means for the Will to act, to act in creation.

Through Okidanokh, the Will is limited or conditioned in such a way that enables
the existence of ‘multiple Wills’, and one of the expressions of the existence of
multiple Wills is the arising of beings with brain systems. Through Okidanokh, the
Triadic aspect of the ‘Logos’ is expressed/manifest in creation. In Man’s case, this is
expressed in his having three brains, and it is this which is said to make him ‘in the
image of God’. Okidanokh is that which, in all beings and formations, makes them in
the image of God. Okidanokh provides an existential ‘logos’ that mirrors the
‘essential logos’.

Okidanokh can be seen as the ‘lawful’ relation of the three forces in a being or
formation which gives them their place and potential in creation as a whole. In Man,
the three forces can operate in a particular way due to him being a three brained
being. The ‘triadic template’ present in Okidanokh can be expressed through man’s
three-brained nature/being. Each brain can be seen as a means for one or other of the
three forces, for each of the faces of the Will.

Okidanokh takes shape in man such that the three forces or wills can interact in a
way which provides the possibility for the creation of a ‘new centre of initiative’,
which is referred to as Real I etc.

If Okidanokh is something like the ‘substance’ from which Real I is born, or derives
its possibilities, then we could think of Okidanokh as the ‘material’ or ‘materiality’ of
Will. I see Will as central to Real I, and also to ‘Objective Reason’, in the sense that
Real I is that which ‘can Do’.

Beelzebub calls Okidanokh the ‘Omnipresent Active Element’, so there is the

question as to what is meant by ‘active’ here. Okidanokh is also mentioned in
connection with being a result of the emanation of the Holy Sun Absolute. This
emanation is spoken of as an act of will, and this act is linked with the third force or
reconciling aspect of the will. The emanation of the third force, the
Theomertmalogos or Word of God, into creation enables there to be evolution and
involution, or realization and spiritualization. There is a sense in which Okidanokh
can be seen as the crystalization of the third force, of the act whereby the creator is
made intimately connected with the creation.

In the unpublished 1930’s version of Purgatory Beelzebub says that the initial act of
creation involved the emanation of the two forces, affirming and denying, but by
themselves they proved sterile and impotent and not able to give rise to and sustain
an dynamic evolving creation. This means that the creator has to introduce the third
force from himself by an act of his will. It is this that ties creator and creation in a
significant, and potentially ‘dangerous’ way, such as is mentioned by Beelzebub
about the ‘choot-god-litanical period’ where God almost had to ask for help etc. This
idea is mentioned in ISOTM in terms of the overcoming or filling of the first
involutionary shock between Do and Si etc.

Through the direct emanation of the third force, the word of God, God enters the
creation in a very real way and thereby both the ‘fate’ of creator and creation become
intimately tied, and it is via the third force that the creation is spiritualized and able
of a degree of independence, as is expressed in the potential arising of ‘relatively free
individuals’ who can be new sources of initiative and aid in the ‘administration of
the enlarging world’ etc. It is this degree of independence of the creation that
enables it to serve the purpose of combating the effects of the Merciless Heropass
upon the Holy Sun Absolute, it could be seen that it is the potential for real ‘novelty’
that serves as the ‘food’ for the Merciless Heropass, ‘novelty’ serves to mitigate the
effects of the Heropass in terms of its diminishing of the ‘size’ of the place of being
of the Holy Sun Absolute.

In linking Okidanokh to the third force, or Thermertmalogos, it could be seen as the

crystalization of the word of God and this could be seen to be related to the ‘Holy
Bread’ that is our ‘Daily Bread’ and thereby also related to the ‘Lamb of God’.
Through Okidanokh God enters the creation in such a way that he suffers in order
to maintain it and its purpose. Okidanokh is then central to the Reciprocal
Maintenance of creation and to the Trogoautoegocrat; whereby the creator ‘eats
himself in order to maintain himself’. There is the idea that what is reconciling on
one level will appear or manifest as affirming, or denying, on a lower level depending
on whether the ‘observer’ in question is engaged in an involutionary or evolutionary
motion etc.

Beelzebub also talks of the negative effects of the artificial ‘destruction’ of

Okidanokh through such as electricity. This artificial destruction negatively impacts
man’s being functioning, and in regard to will we could say it dis-integrates or dis-
orders his will, the three aspects of the will etc. We could see this in a kind of literal
sense by talking in terms of the possible ‘laziness’ that can result from reliance on
electrical and mechanical aid, and also the effect of technology on psychology and
physiology, the effect on the being functioning of the radiation or waves themselves
etc and the effect of screens etc on attention.

Other than this, it has also been said that ‘electricity’ in this particular context can be
related to ‘self will’ rather than real will, or the will being dominated by the lower
egotistical impulses etc. The effect of the artificial destruction of Okidanokh may
have some similarity to that said about vegetarians living in a world of meat eaters
etc. The negative effects of man’s use of Okidanokh has impacts beyond himself to
the other beings of other planets and begins to hinder their being functioning. If
Will is closest to I in terms of the other aspects of being and consciousness, then it is
through the will that we are most connected and United with others, such that ‘Real
I’ can be seen as the ‘same’ in everyone, both one and many.

When another’s will is applied to our own from outside, in the aim of our
development, this can have limited positive results and mostly more likely negative
results. If we look at Gornahoor Harharkh’s experiments as actions from outside
upon our will, we can see that this can destroy or disintegrate our own will. Force
from outside will not suffice and neither will the brute force and ignorance
technique work from within. In both cases there is damage, damage to man’s
affirming part or nature and it’s harmonious relation with the denying and
reconciling natures.

Separate to Accumulate.

" I'm interested in the principle of separation and its mechanics. It seems separation
is withdrawal from the very activities that vivify our existence, being human; playing
our roles should be enough. Isn't that why we’re down here? To play out our role
while in the body. Therein lies the problem, if we are to escape our moment of death
does one need to be outside the body at the moment death?

Man’s consciousness has the potential, by way of separation, to observe himself from
outside his body. When separation occurs one truly steps outside his body and frees
himself from the fetters of this material world, his destiny has changed; he can
survive the death of his material body. Consciousness is independent of the way of
the world and he enters a

World of infinite possibilities, that is to say Nirvana.

Does karma really exist? If it does, is it a state of sin? Is it permanent? If not, is it

possible to remove? At what level man does one need to be free from Karma. To the

point, does one have to remove ones (self- consciousness) from the fetters of this
world, rapture ones being to some on looking gallery while ones’ corporeal body
plays itself out?

Imo karma does exist. With-out the principle of separation karma is probably
permanent. I’m thinking man no.5 has the potential to remove his karmic state by
separation or an out of body experience. When consciousness withdraws from the
body, one is free from his body of sin, yet the body acts out its’ pre-determined roles
in personality, one becomes as G said “one of the living dead”, why because one is
not alone in this world and things have to be worked out for the benefit or detriment
of the whole.

An example –the Christ Being descending into Jesus and Jesus ascending to heaven
at his baptism. Christ acting out Jesus’ role on earth till that fateful night of his
arrest when a young man in a white robe dropped his garment and fled naked into
the night, Christ’s escape and so much more, yet the basic mechanics are there.’’

'Separation' does not have to mean withdrawal from activities, it usually refers to the
establishment of an 'inner hierarchy' which can potentially arise in any external
situation or activity. In another sense, such a separation requires the general activities
of life for its possible arising and persistence. In this sense, the general activities of
life provide the energy and limitation/containment to enable the possible
transformation that results in such a separation.

Separation from the physical body whilst still alive, which can come in different
forms, is different to the separation of death, though, as said, it is possible to 'die
before you die' such that one can be confident in the establishment of something
which can persist beyond physical support.

The establishment of that which can persist and maintain itself without physical
support is not strictly coterminous with the establishment of separation from one's
body in terms of a disembodied observation of oneself. This is to say to that, the

establishment of such an 'astral/etheric' etc presence does not of itself guarantee

'survival' of the death of the material body.

In most cases of such separations, the 'self' in question is still dependent upon
'material' support in terms of being fed and sustained by the present 'sensory'
content or 'world of objects'. The given 'disembodied presence' is still dependent
upon the world of objects, or 'sensory' content via another means, for its survival or
persistence; the 'physical' world still serves as the support in terms of providing the
material and impulse for its functioning and actions.

Separation from the body and separation from dependence upon the 'world of
objects' are two different things. The latter separation is that which is usually
equated with 'survival after death' and 'immortality' in the different teachings.

The separation in question doesn't have to be conceived in terms of something

entering and exiting the body, that is, in terms of an 'out of body experience' etc.
There is the problem of considering that which is beyond the 'material' or 'physical'
as if it were material or physical, thinking of it in terms of properties that are those of
the material/physical world etc.

Man no. 5 has 'mobility' in the 'eternal' dimension, meaning that there is the ability
to 'perceive' and act (exist coherently) in this dimension which is 'beyond' the
dimension of 'time'. This does not have to be considered as involving an 'out of body
experience', but it certainly involves 'perception/consciousness' of, and engagement
with, that which goes beyond the limitations of the world of objects.

If the separation is not considered in a 'spatial way', or from a perspective rooted in

the world of objects, then the condition of 'one of the living dead' does not have to
be pictured in terms of the 'looking gallery' situation.

The 'body of sin' need not be considered as the 'flesh' itself but as the condition of
attachment and dependence upon the 'flesh', and here flesh can mean the world of
objects (including mental, emotional, and sensory objects). The tendency, or
possibility, for such an attachment and dependency does not lie in the flesh itself, or

in the consciousness, but exists as a possibility of the particular interaction and

relation of the differently-natured worlds that comprise, or are involved in, a human

The Self Combustion and Self Consumption of Self Re-member-ing.

(Know the 'organic' from the 'artificial' when it comes to Djartklom)

'' Self Re-member-ing: To (re) make oneself whole, parts being brought together as
members to the same one body.

Self Re-member-ing: To re-affirm the inherent principle of wholeness, or unity, such

that its capacity to reconcile difference and separation can manifest through a truly
creative act/action which is both re-newing to the individual and wider creation and
which also actualizes a higher level of order, organization, or coherence.

The re-embodiment or re-embody-ing aspect that is present in the term relates it to

the principle of renewal; that which maintains by its ever-newness.

Man's participation in self remembering is participation in an action whereby the

creation, and also possibly God Himself, is 'made anew'.

In this action there is the 'recapitualization' and re-member-ing of the whole

creation, but the creation is not doomed to repeat, remember, or re-collect itself in
the 'same' way. Through such an action of re-membrance there is the potential for
change, for becoming; new becoming. Through such an action the creation is
'perpetually/timelessly' re-created anew.

This creativity may be said to feed the 'Merciless Heropass' such that the 'place of
Being of the Holy Sun Absolute' may be maintained.

Through the 'perpetual' exercise of creativity, the principle of wholeness and unity is
constantly brought forth and called into enactment and embodiement; re-enactment
and re-embodiement; this itself being remembrance.

This re-enactment and re-embodiement of the principle of wholeness and unity that
is present in the 'Holy Sun Absolute', and expressed in/by its 'place of Being', is the
nature of the ''I eat myself to maintain myself'' of the 'Trogoautoegocrat'.

The principle of wholeness and unity must 'suffer' the action of creativity; the need
for ever new forms of expression or reconciliation. Through the 'eating of itself' the
principle of unity repeatedly re-enters the creation, and itself. In self remembering,
the creation, and also perhaps God, re-eats and re-enters itself.

Man is made in the image of God, and in the image of God, God is made and re-made
ever anew, makes and re-makes Himself ever anew in the 'flux and re-flux' of the
Spirit. "

The Aim of Objective Reality.

To have an aim puts one under a certain limitation and brings one into relationship
with oneself in a particular way. To have an aim can bring consciousness, decision,
and value together in a synergistic realization.
To have an aim is to question action and value, completion and
authenticity/originality. In this question, there is consideration as to the meaning of

'order' and the action of its unfoldment and realization. To have an aim is to engage
in the 'structure of meaning'.
In general life, everybody has aims, everyone is moved by motivations that are
directed towards certain ends. Everyone can be more or less conscious of the present
motivations and their enactment, conscious of this to different degrees.
Therefore, the sense that one is moving 'purposefully' and intentionally towards
some desired (and/or self-imposed) aim can have varying degrees of prominence in
The present sense of ''I have an aim'', and the sense that one is currently intentionally
working towards the realization of this aim, can have varying degrees of intensity.
It may be said that man always has an aim, and all that varies is the degree of
consciousness of the present aim and the quality of the intention applied to it.
This degree of consciousness and quality of intention may be what separates 'aim'
from 'desire', in the sense that it may be seen that it is this degree of consciousness
that turns 'desire' into 'aim'. In this sense, it is said that 'unconscious man' has no
aims and is moved merely by 'blind' unintentional desire, only 'conscious man' can
have an aim etc.
Of course, the 'unconscious man' still has the sense that he has aims and acts
intentionally towards their realization, even if he feels relatively 'aimless' and 'lacking
of intention'.
To have an aim then, in the Gurdjieff sense here, is not simply defined by the current
sensation that one has an aim and is working intentionally towards its realization.
What is the difference between the false or erroneous sensation that one has an aim
and the genuine sensation accompanying the real thing, what is it that makes the
A change in the degree of consciousness alone, by itself, cannot make this difference
between the presence of the false and the real when it comes to an aim and its active

If the difference between the false and the real lies simply in the recognition of an
experiential element, or if the false and the real are defined and determined by the
apparent presence or absence of a certain experiential element, then what does this
mean for 'objectivity' or the nature of 'objective reality'?
If the degree of consciousness determines and defines the false and the real as related
to aim, then what determines the degree of consciousness present?
It is said that the degree of consciousness present determines the form of the
experience, in the sense that consciousness itself is transformative. The difference
between the false and the real as related to aim may not simply be a matter of
transformation, or change in/of consciousness.
To the extent that aim is related to 'I', it may be said that the difference between the
false and the real lies in the presence or absence of 'Real I'. A real aim is connected
with Real I, a real aim may be 'real' by virtue of being an 'act' of Real I.
Evidently, when talking of the presence and absence of Real I we are talking of a
kind of presence and absence that is different to that connected with 'objects'. The
presence and absence of Real I cannot be an experience or process like the presence
and absence of 'objects' to the extent that Real I is not an 'object'.
'Objectivity' itself is connected with Real I, but this objectivity may be considered in
different ways. In the general conception, objectivity and subjectivity are both
'passive' in the sense that they are both something that is 'applied to' reality or is a
'product of' reality. Reality is taken as something 'separate' and 'independent' from
'human objectivity/subjectivity'.
It is then considered that reality, as it is 'objectively', may be gleamed by the presence
of 'objectivity'. But, the factors that determine the presence or absence of this
'objectivity' (its reality) are not all under the direct control of the individual
themselves. This kind of objectivity, and subjectivity, is then determined and defined
'from without'.
The objectivity that is connected with Real I cannot be the same as that of the
general conception to the extent that the presence or absence of such objectivity is

not determined or defined 'from without', independently of the Real I itself. The
objectivity of the Real I does not lie in the achievement or actualization of certain
criteria that are determined and defined by/from something that is
external/independent to the Real I itself.
The relationship between reality and Real I is not the same as that generally pictured
between objectivity and reality. The presence and absence of Real I is not the same
kind of presence and absence that may be thought of in relation to the general
conception of objectivity.
The objectivity of Real I does not lie in the 'accurate' 'apprehending' of reality, of a
reality that is 'separate' to it and which has independent existence. That which
'makes Real I Real I' is not separate or independent from Real I itself. The presence
or absence of Real I is not something which is determined and defined
independently of Real I.
Real I, the objectivity of Real I, is then something which is 'active' when considered
in relation to reality. Real I is involved in the 'making of reality', the making of
'objective reality', rather than simply the 'reception' or 'recognition' of reality. The
'making of reality' here does not simply refer to the 'what' of objective reality but
also to the 'that'. Real I is involved in the reality of objectivity and the objectivity of
reality, the 'making' and 'definition' of 'real'.
To 'have Real I', and to 'have real aim', is then to engage a 'creative action' whereby
objective reality is made. If Real I 'says' 'this is so, true, objective, or real' then it is.
To 'act or not act' with/from/as Real I is then a matter of what? In what or through
what lies the 'self-knowledge' of Real I? The objectivity of Real I is seen/known
The knowing and/or recognition of objectivity (of Real I) is not the same kind of
knowing/recognition that is involved in the knowing/recognising that ''I have my
shoes on'' for example. There isn't the same relation of elements present, and the
elements would include such things as 'subject' and 'object', 'knower', 'known', and
'knowing/knowledge' etc.

If a person is seeking to know/realize Real I through the same means and form as
general knowing/knowledge then where will this lead?

Excavating Conscience.

The man looking for (his own) conscience is looking for direction. The man looking
for direction is looking for the responsibility of decision.

The quickest way to conscience is to consciously take responsibility for one's actions,
to consciously choose a course of action and accept the consequences of this choice;
both the foreseen and unforeseen.

Accepting the consequences of one's decision means that such consequences are
brought in line with one's will. If the consequences are seen as being 'born' of one's
decision then they cannot be 'identified' with in the usual way, they cannot be
separated out as 'other' to oneself, or to one's decision.

To be able to 'accept' the foreseen and unforeseen consequences requires some

degree of inner coherence and integrity such that the functioning of the centers
complies with the decision. This ableness itself is largely connected with the
emotional center. It is a degree of emotional coherence that enables the functioning
of the centers to correspond to the intention. Without the emotional coherence
there will most likely be identification and reaction towards the consequences of
one's actions.

By exercising the capacity to consciously make decisions, and therein exercising the
ableness to accept consequences, the emotional nature is developed towards greater
coherence. This development, the cohering and integration of the emotional
substance and functioning, is as fuel to the connection and actualization of

This work vivifies and vitalizes the emotional nature and develops the connection
between intention and emotion, bringing intentionality into the realm of emotion.
In relation to the emotions, the work of becoming able to accept consequences
involves the 'non expression' and transformation of 'negative emotion'. It is through
the framework of decision that the energy of emotion, including 'negative emotion',
is channelled and transformed.

'Negative emotion', in general, is a product of the disconnect between 'I' and

emotion, and this then reflects in/as the friction and disturbance between the
emotions and the 'outside world' (the general 'reactivity' of emotion).

Bringing intentionality to the emotions, or blending intention and emotion, through

the exercise of decision transforms the emotions and makes them suitable 'material'
or means for the actualization of conscience. The 'bearing of the unpleasant
manifestations of others', which is advised as a means towards conscience, also
involves the application of intention to emotion through the decision to 'bear' the

If emotions are at the whim of external flux then they cannot serve as material for
conscience, they must have some degree of coherence and stability before they can be
a means for conscience. This involves, primarily, the ability of the emotions to
respond to an inner command or decision.

In this direction, the aim can be set to have periods of intentional emotion, periods
of intentional invocation, engagement, and direction of emotion. In beginning this
work, it can be helpful to make use of the established emotional habits and
repertoire. This is to say that, in general, man can only feel through the action of
something 'external' upon the emotions, he cannot initiate emotion himself and
must rely upon some 'external' 'trigger'; and this could be 'physical' or 'mental'.

Things which have, or evoke, a strong emotional charge for us, whether 'positive' or
'negative', can be used in the work of bringing intentionality to the emotions. If
something habitually brings with it a certain emotion of intensity, then this can be

used as a means for intentional work. The work could perhaps include such as the
intentional sustaining and intensifying of the given emotion and/or the intentional
engagement and expression of the 'opposite' (or just different) emotional response to
the habitual one. This is the intentional alteration of the habitual response. The
habitual becomes the 'artificial' which can then become the 'real'.

The body is a good buddy in this work. The body is a good 'mirror' to the emotional
activity and response. The body can be a good aid in observing the given emotional
habits and repertoire, and can also be an aid in going against and changing these
habits and repertoire. The emotional response and reaction to the body, one's own or
others, can be observed and this can give material to work with. The interplay
between posture/gesture and emotion can be observed, the interplay between what
could be called 'body language' and emotion. This interplay can then be
experimented with, such as changing the habitual emotional response to a certain
gesture/posture, for example, and imparting a new/different emotional 'content' to
the gesture/posture etc.

To Boldly Go Beyond Literal and Allegorical.

.." In one sense, the question of 'who' is 'who' in Beelzebub's Tales does not matter.
That is, attempts at identifying certain characters as actual historical figures, or even
as Gurdjieff himself, can potentially have little value. The 'historical' and
'autobiographical' level has its merits in enabling a possible context to certain ideas,
but this particular context is not necessarily needed in order to connect with the
ideas. If there is only the historical knowledge by itself, then of what benefit is this to
understanding? Considered alone, the 'purely historical' aspect can only be a
satisfaction for 'curiosity' and can only provide knowledge of a ‘surface’ kind.

As is said, all the episodes in Gurdjieff's writings are 'mythological' in the sense that
they blend 'fact', 'fiction', 'metaphor', 'symbolism' and 'allegory' etc. The
presentation, or form of exposition, is not 'linear'. What is apparently referring to
the 'past' can be actually referring to the future or present and vice versa etc. What
appear to be separate characters can be, at one moment, parts of the same character,
and at another moment they can be 'principles' etc etc. To try to pin one particular
meaning on some expression would be to 'miss the point' and to confine one's
'mentation' to some particular 'template' or mode of 'formatting' the data presented.
There is the tendency to interpret what is said in terms of the ‘duality/polarity’ of
‘literal’ or ‘allegorical’, taking what is said to have a ‘meaning’ that is either one or the
other of these two. Sometimes there is the interpretation that what is said has both a
‘literal’ and ‘allegorical’ meaning. This kind of interpretation is usually experienced
as an ‘alternation’ between the two, rather than an experience in which the two are
‘held’ simultaneously in the attention and held with equal (unbiased/unpartial)
If the literal and the allegorical act akin to the affirming and denying forces, then
what is the relative reconciling force in this situation? What is there in what is said
that is neither literal nor allegorical? General language is hard pushed to provide a
word or category for such. If we simply call it the ‘Real’, then it must be considered
that this aspect is not something that is simply ‘there’ to be ‘discovered’.
In the general mode of consideration, the ‘meaning’ of what is said, whether literal or
allegorical, lies ‘within’ what is said; ‘pre-existent/pre-existing’ there and simply
waiting to be found or made apparent etc. ‘Discovering’ this ‘pre-existent’ meaning
then simply involves the application of a certain ‘logic’ or ‘form’ which enables this
meaning to be ‘recognised’. This ‘logic’ or ‘form’ will be one that currently exists in
the person’s repertoire and has been acquired ‘externally’ through interaction with
‘the world’.
That which is neither literal nor allegorical in what is said is not came upon through
the application of a pre-acquired ‘logic’ or ‘form’. Neither does it exist in the same
fashion as something that can be ‘discovered’ in such a way. The reconciling, or

‘Real’ aspect, is not simply an equal presence, or co-presence, of the literal and
allegorical, but it is through the action of holding these together in the attention that
the actualization of the reconciling can be enabled. The actualization of the
reconciling aspect then enables further transformation and
If the actualization of the reconciling aspect is not one of ‘discovery’ then it is one of
‘creation’, involving a ‘creative action’. This aspect is ‘made’ rather than ‘discovered’.
The relationship between a being and the reconciling aspect in question is not the
same kind of relationship that a being has with ‘something’ that is ‘discovered’. If the
actualization of the reconciling aspect requires a creative action then what is involved
in this and how is it to be done?
The ‘discovery’ or coming upon of the literal or allegorical ‘meaning’ in what is said
can be taken as a given, as a pretty much ‘automatic/mechanical’ occurrence. If
certain data and/or ‘logic’ is present in the being, then what is said will be
interpreted accordingly, interpreted as either literal or allegorical etc. This is then
simply a case of ‘matching’ based on an apparent similarity/sameness, this is simply
establishing a possible compatibility. This is a necessary step in the process of
understanding, but usually this step is the only one and is taken to be understanding
The ‘either-or’ of the literal and allegorical, affirming and denying, provides the
possibility for the action of holding the two together, which then opens the potential
for the creative action which can actualize the reconciling aspect, leading to further
‘Spiritualization’ etc. The creative action requires that the being fully enters into the
action itself, is ‘one with’ the action, and that the action is a total or whole one,
involving the all of the being themselves. The relationship between the being and the
reconciling aspect may be seen as one characterised by totality/wholeness.
‘Discovery’ in the general sense does not involve or require this totality or wholeness
of the being. Even the action of the ‘separation’ and equal holding of the dual aspects
is not a total act but a preparation to such. Only with the actualization of the

reconciling aspect is there true/real ‘impartiality’. The action of separation and

holding is different to that of creativity and totality.
As much as trying to understand and 'get the gist' of the Tales is a worthy effort, it is
also a worthwhile effort to try to understand one's own attempts at understanding,
to see how one is attempting to understand the data presented, to see what 'forms'
one is using in trying to 'make sense' of the data presented. The hope of further, or
deeper, understanding and insight lies in catching sight of the limitations in one's
given, or habitual, form of mentation. Gurdjieff's very advice, of reading the Tales
three times in different ways, is aimed at getting some insight into 'how' we are
reading. We can only gain insight into ourselves through something 'artificial',
through doing something 'differently'. If I want to catch sight of the form of my
mentation then I have to mentate differently, I have to participate in this mentation
in a different way than usual.
To be able to participate differently I must have at least some sense of what my
'intention' is in reading the Tales, what is the 'form' of my intention with which I am
approaching the Tales, what is my 'attitude' towards them at the given moment etc.
To get some sense of this I will need some sensitivity towards my feeling nature,
because it is through this nature that I can see the form of my 'intention', 'attitude',
or 'disposition' and it is also through this nature that I can change my form of
approach, which is to then change the form of my mentation.
Much of what I may consider to be 'successes' in understanding are really barriers to
further understanding. Perhaps, in a given instance, I think that I see 'behind' the
words, behind the 'surface story', to the deeper meaning. Perhaps, in the given case, I
think '' Aha, this is really talking about the law of three'' etc. I may take this apparent
recognition to be some real understanding. I may go on to see many more such
'examples of the law of three' and consider this to be further insight and
understanding etc.
What may be happening is that I am simply stuck in repeating one form of
interpretation, stuck repeatedly, habitually, applying one form to the data presented.
I am then seeing through 'law of three tainted spectacles', and everything is seen in

this way. I can then no longer see anything else outside of this form or template, and
further, this form or template itself ceases to develop. I cease to see the form or
template, and what my actual understanding of it is. I mistake the habitual
application of one or other of my 'repertoire' of forms/templates for real mentation,
when mentation should consist in the conscious use and development of such forms
themselves, in order to understand them and not in order to understand the
apparent 'content' put into them, or which they organize and give 'form' and
'sequence' to. "
Maurice Nicoll talks of the need for ‘psychological thinking’ when addressing
esoteric/mesoteric material, this being in the sense of 'non literal' thinking and
understanding, thinking by 'analogy', 'metaphor', and 'symbolism' etc. In order to
think about something, or interpret something, 'metaphorically' and not 'literally'
we must have some material for this, we must have some material that can serve for
different interpretations or 'translations' of the given data. We can then substitute
this or that element in the given data for data that we have in us.
This substitution or translation can give a certain meaning to the given data. This
meaning will be dependent upon the particular data that we have in us and which we
have applied, and this meaning will also be dependent upon the manner in which we
have applied our own data, this latter being related to the kind of 'logic' which we
have used for the translation or substitution. Our understanding of the meaning
thereby obtained depends upon our own understanding of our own data, which we
substitute, and our understanding also depends upon our own understanding of the
form of 'logic' which we have used in order to perform such a substitution or
translation etc.
Suppose in a given piece of writing there is the word 'lion', and for some reason I
translate this word to signify an aspect of the 'heart' or 'feeling nature'. I substitute
the data that I have relating to 'heart' and 'feeling nature' for the word 'lion' and in
such a manner I come to some interpretation of what the piece of writing means. My
understanding of my data relating to 'heart' and 'feeling nature' will determine the
meaning that I arrive at, as well as my understanding of such meaning.

This is fairly obvious, but much of the time we do not closely examine the data in us
that we use for such translations and substitutions, we are satisfied with the present
'understanding' we have of such data and we simply proceed to use it. Because our
'understanding' of such data is generally very 'vague', the meanings that we arrive at
by using such will also be 'vague'. We may not even notice the extent of this
'vagueness' in respect to both the data itself and the meanings arrived at. Generally, a
certain 'sensation/feeling' which we may subjectively label as 'understanding' will
suffice for us, and we will not investigate further. We will simply be satisfied with an
apparent 'recognition' of meaning, such as in the example I gave above in relation to
the law of three.
If I apparently 'recognize' that something is referring to the law of three, I am simply
contented with this 'recognition' and I call this 'recognition' understanding, I think I
understand the meaning contained in the given writing etc. What is such a
'recognition' ? It is merely the case that the data presented is such that it presents no
obvious obstacle, or 'contradiction', to my 'projection' of my understanding of the
law of three upon it, it is apparently 'compatible' with my law of three 'template' or
data etc. In such a case I am apparently finding a 'sameness' between two things,
between my data of the law of three and my interpretation of the data presented.
How 'accurate' I am in finding and determining such 'samenessess' will depend on
how aware I am of each of the elements and how aware I am of the process of
'matching' etc. Perhaps I think that I am matching two 'squares' but I may in fact be
matching a 'square' and a 'triangle' etc.
It is one thing to be aware of the present data and different connections between
them, and it is another thing to be aware of the 'logic' or 'laws' behind the operations
involved in such arising and processing, or connecting, of data. Generally, we are
only aware of 'content', even if only dimly, and not aware of 'process' or 'form' in
relation to our mentation. I may be aware of the arising and content of a certain
thought, and I may be aware of a sequence of connections, or associations, that are
made from or with this thought. But In such a case I may not be aware of the
underlying 'form' or 'logic' that this action is conforming to, the form that is

operating in order to enable such a sequence of connections and associations to be

We could say that a 'thought' is a 'form', 'template', or 'pattern' which has no
'content' of itself and is that which enables 'content' to be organized and combined
or connected etc. We could speak of 'mind' instead of 'thought' and say that mind is
something which enables what we call thoughts to 'happen', the mind gives
'coherence' to such thoughts and provides a means for them to interact and combine
and organize etc. If we say that it is the mind that does this, that it is the mind that
'thinks', then we are saying that the mind consists of such 'active' 'forms', 'templates',
or 'patterns' which 'act upon' the 'content' of the mind, this content being what we
call individual 'thoughts' etc.
In talking about 'active mentation' and 'mentation by form' we are talking about
becoming conscious of, or practically engaging with, such 'active forms' which are
the basic 'structure' and 'modes of operation' of the mind, the basic nature of mind
itself. To actively engage with such forms, to become aware of their operation,
requires much more 'mental clarity', more 'light' to illuminate the mental realm, and
much more intentional participation on our part in our thinking. We need to
become more aware of the mental act itself, rather than only being aware of its result
and content etc. This requires both more intensive passive observation as well as
more intensive active participation and intentional engagement of thinking etc.
The apparent 'problem' is that we cannot be directly aware of such mental 'forms' as
'content', we cannot 'see' the forms themselves so to speak, we can only 'see' the
content that they organize. The direct apprehension of such forms is through the
Will rather than through the consciousness, and it is in this sense that we can say that
we can understand such forms practically and concretely and yet we cannot know
them. This kind of direct apprehension via the Will is the very meaning of
understanding, in understanding there is no 'content', and it is in this sense that
Gurdjieff said that ''understanding is what you can do''. This statement goes beyond
the idea of what we might call practical knowledge or ability, such as knowing 'how
to do' something, make something, or perform something etc.

Understanding, as an 'act' of Will, is a direct apprehension of, and engagement with,

the underlying 'forms' or 'laws' of reality. These 'forms' or 'laws' are not 'passive'
things which can be known, like some theory etc, they are 'active principles' which
are the very 'doing' of reality, and thus 'to know' them means to participate in them,
to participate in 'Doing'. Gurdjieff talks of 'objective reason', such as three-brained
beings may attain, as an aid to the Creator in the 'administration of the enlarging
world'. This is active participation, 'from within', and not some kind of 'controlling'
or 'acting upon' from 'without'. We may consider what it would mean to actively
participate in 'gravity' in the 'doing of gravity', for example, as compared to our
general position and conception of being subject to such or only passively taking part
in its actions or results etc.
The use of unfamiliar words in Beelzebub can be aimed at helping one towards
realizing the nature of their current 'mentation'. If I see 'vagueness' in my mentation
in relation to some given topic or idea etc then it is up to me to inquire into it and
work towards some possible 'concretion' or 'understanding'. As is said in the Tales,
understanding and 'reason of understanding' require work on my part, to transform
the given data into something 'real' and 'individual'.
If I can follow my mentation as I read the Tales, for example, then I can observe my
associations and see what data arises in me in response to what is read. If I can enter
into my mentation as it is ongoing I can come to see what it consists of; I can come to
see what certain words and ideas actually 'mean' to me, what i actually have in me in
relation to these words or ideas. The reading then becomes a means of 'knowing
oneself' and entering into the action of 'self-creation/transformation'.
The beginning of 'mentation by form' is to get to see the actual 'form' that is
operative 'behind' its 'surface' appearance, in this case the surface appearance being
the particular word or words that are being read and the associations with other
words that we have, and along with this the visual/sensory 'pictures' and/or
'memories' that we have, or arise, in relation to such words.
When, or if, I ask myself ''wtf do I know about world 3''? I am appealing to the data
that I currently have about such in order to actually understand it. Evidently I have

some data related to 'world 3' or I wouldn't have any notion of it. As this data is in
me it plays some active part in my general mentation and functioning, and as such
'world 3' has some meaning for me. The development of understanding then consists
in clarifying and concreting the meaning of 'world 3', which meaning is already
present in me and is evidenced by the very asking of the question ''wtf do I know
about world 3''?
We must also remember that 'knowing' and 'knowledge' are only one third of
'understanding', and hence there are 'things' that are beyond 'knowing' or
'knowledge', but this does not mean that they are then removed from us and that we
cannot engage with them in some way. A problem here is that we can confuse
knowing with understanding, we equate all kinds of 'knowing' or 'understanding'
with the current form of 'knowing' that we experience, and hence we expect new
'understanding' or 'knowledge' to come in the form of 'knowing' that we experience.
Gurdjieff remarked about how, in the beginning, 'new knowledge' will come
through the emotional/higher emotional nature. This means that there must be a
change in the emotional/feeling relation to 'something' in order for there to be a new
'knowledge' or understanding of it, the change itself being this new 'knowledge' or
understanding etc. What does it mean to feel differently 'about' something? "

Getting the Gist.

"To him that has, more shall be given. To him that has not, even that little will be
taken away"
There are different sides to the saying.

One way to look at it is in terms of possibility/potential. We are born with a

potential for development, our unique potential for individuality. If this potential
isn't realized in life then it is lost. To be incarnated means to be in a realm of hazard
and uncertainty, there is no guarantee that the potential will develop.
If this potential is not developed in life then not only is it lost in death but it also
actively influences our life whilst we are alive. Not being given the means to develop
and express, this potential will poison us and cause us and others undue suffering.
To be incarnated with such a potential places one in debt, and Gurdjieff talked of
the need to 'pay the debt of one's arising'. If this debt is not paid, in terms of
engagement in work on oneself, then one cannot proceed any further down the path.
Conscious efforts towards 'self perfecting' bring a greater return than the effort put
in, more is added to us through such efforts. "Unconscious' work not directed to self
perfecting and paying one's debt robs us of energy and deteriorates our given
This is the law of involution and evolution, which is mentioned in terms of the
octave/enneagram or law of Heptaparaparshinokh. If there is not the development
and realization of potential then there is degeneration and deviation. In biblical
terms we can see connection between this and the parable of the talents and mustard
Gurdjieff said that the reward for work is more work, and also that work to help
others, work in conformity to the purpose of creation, must be repaid. There is also
the idea that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Gurdjieff said that if a man can
do one thing well then he can be helped, he has a way in or means for further
In terms of the shocks or intervals in the octave, it is necessary for the present step to
'sound' as the next one in order to be connected with it and pass on to it through the
interval. The 'frequency' of the next note or step must be reached in the present step
in order to pass on to it. This transition requiring a degree of corresponding or
sameness between the two notes.

If there is a certain 'momentum' present in someone's work then this serves as a force
for 'accumulation' and gathering further momentum. This is like the separation of
the fine from the coarse such that everything finds its place, the same being drawn to
the same.
Here there is the nature of ashes to ashes and dust to dust. What is of a certain
quality or nature will be drawn to the same, having its own particular related fate. If
the potential within us is not brought forth then it will destroy us, such is the
biblical choice put before man, of life or death, requiring him to choose wisely.

Essence Identity.

‘’What are the sensory and experiential cues that tell us we are identified with the our
conditioned mind / false personality vs. say identified with essence / the body, or vs.
a state of self-remembering?’’

The most important aspect, I feel, to highlight in response would be to say that there
is a danger in attempting to define the presence of a certain state/station by reference
to 'experiential' functioning or activity etc. That is, there is a danger in trying to
equate a certain state/station with the presence, or absence, of certain functional
This may seem to be a cop out to the question, but it is the most important factor to
mention from where I'm standing. I think this is something good to ponder, to get a
look into how one is actually defining/determining certain states/stations and/or
their presence, according to what 'criteria' is one doing this etc.
It has been said that 'knowledge' is different to both 'being' and 'understanding'.
One way of looking at this, in terms of the question and post, would be to say that all

that can be known is functional activity of thought, feeling, and sensation. It could
be said that this is knowledge itself or the material of knowledge. Functional activity,
as knowledge, is the only 'content' to experience, it the aspect of 'content' in/to
In the kind of general way of looking at things, such functional activity is all that one
can be 'aware of', in the sense that this provides the content to all 'appearances' in/to
awareness. All 'objects' that can be present in/to awareness, in the broadest sense of
the term object, are made from/out of such functional activity.
Again, in the general kind of way of looking at things, this is the only aspect to
awareness or experience, there is nothing but such functional activity as the 'content'
to experience.
If it is only possible to be aware of the functional activity of thought, feeling, and
sensation, then what else can there be to experience, what are the relative roles of
'being' and 'understanding', what part do they play in experience?
In terms of the 'being' aspect, we could say that the same functional activity could
accompany quite different degrees of being. The functional aspect, or knowledge
aspect, does not itself define or determine the degree of being present. Nor, strictly
speaking, does the degree of the being aspect present determine or define the
particular functional activity present.
Generally, we might say that the degree of being that is present influences the
functional activity, and we might talk of different functional activity in terms of
things like 'efficiency' and 'effectivity' etc. We might say that functional activity can
be more or less efficient, effective etc, but it should be considered that this
judgement or rating of functional activity is not made according to functional terms
alone. This is to say that, functional activity is not judged in terms of functional
activity, not judged or rated according to 'criteria' that are themselves functional
More simply put, the judgement or rating of functional activity involves an element
of experience that is not functional. The judgement is not made simply by observing

and identifying the 'object' content of experience, the appearances in/to awareness
etc. To make such a judgement or rating of functional activity there must be an
appeal to the other two elements in experience, the aspects of being and
understanding. Being and understanding cannot appear in experience in the way
functional activity appears or is apprehended. This is quite significant to get to grips
with, in terms of possibly coming to any 'impartiality' towards oneself, such as
Gurdjieff relates to the action of three-centred (self) observation.
To see that being and understanding play a quite different role to/in our experience
than that of functional activity, and to see that they are each apprehended in their
own way, is very important in terms coming to see the/a way of working on/with
oneself. It is precisely this that isn't generally seen and it is this lack of seeing that
tends to make the attempts at work on oneself ineffective or only effective to a
certain point, only producing a limited transformation that then tends to stagnate
and degenerate or only proceeds 'randomly' or 'accidentally' etc.
The lack of appreciation of the difference between the three elements relates to what
Gurdjieff says about man in general being dominated by the action of sensing brain
alone and its relation to the denying force. General man is dominated by function in
the sense that this is generally all he is aware of, sensitive to, or actively engaging
with. His apprehension of the functional activity aspect dominates his apprehension
of the other two elements and hence everything is reduced to such functional
activity, his sees the world according to this apprehension alone. This ties in with
what Gurdjieff says about us seeing reality 'reflected in our attention upside down'
and also about us being 'third force blind'.
The kind of general conception of the words 'quality' and 'value' tends to be more
related to the being aspect of experience.
All that being said, if someone is new to the idea of identification and has similar
questions, then they could read In Search of the Miraculous where Gurdjieff talks
about identification and self remembering.

In general terms, it is a question of looking into how one’s attention is engaged.

Identification with 'false personality' has been connected with the working of the
'formatory apparatus', such that the 'thinking' that is present is dominated by
habitual patterns that have been acquired externally from others etc. If one is
approaching something/someone in the 'same old fashion', with the same old 'story'
towards it/them, then it could be seen that attention is identified with the working
of the formatory apparatus and thereby false personality.
However, it is said that the working of the formatory apparatus is such that its
potential for combination is so vast that it can 'trick' us into taking a 're-shuffling' or
‘re-formatting' of the old or existing/given for for something that is actually new. It
is this apparent 'deception' or lack of seeing of the 'mechanical' nature of the
formatory apparatus that fosters identification itself.
The nature of the formatory apparatus itself, along with its particular relation to
identification, connects very much to the idea of being dominated by functional
apprehension alone. To develop the apprehension of the other experiential aspects of
being and understanding is itself related to the notion of developing the
apprehension of the centers themselves, along with their inter-connectivity and
inter-communication etc. Gurdjieff mentions that, relatively, the formatory
apparatus is mechanical or 'inorganic' whereas the centers are 'organic' or 'conscious'
It is often considered that to be dominated by the activity of the formatory
apparatus simply consists in something like being 'lost in thoughts', or being
dominated by a certain kind of thinking activity/content etc. The functioning of the
formatory apparatus influences the other centers such that, although the formatory
apparatus is specifically linked with the thinking center and could be said to be the
equivalent 'thinking center' of the personality and/or false personality, its action is
not limited to the apparent content or activity of thought.
This means that through the functioning of the formatory apparatus the experience
as a whole is 'formatted' in a certain way, reality is apprehended according to a
certain 'form' or 'logic' etc.

The action of the formatory apparatus, when dominant, then also orders or formats
the experience and/or content of both emotion/feeling and sensation as well as
thought. Feeling and sensation are also apprehended in a certain fashion through the
dominance of the formatory apparatus, they are 'defined' and 'determined' in a
certain fashion because the action of the formatory apparatus influences the
relationship or connection between the different centers and it is from this
relationship that the individual elements 'emerge'. The particular appearance and
operation of the individual elements comes from the particular relationship and
connection that is present between the centers.
The question of the recognition of elements that are associated with the presence of
identification is tricky itself, because one could say that to see identification, or to
recognise such elements, is itself to cease the presence of identification etc. So there is
the question of not just the presence or absence of 'impartial' observation or
recognition, but also the question of whether such observation can be present
without altering what is observed in some way etc. It is another question to be
looked into in oneself and ponder etc.
To be identified with essence can have different meanings, because, in one sense, it is
valid to say that it is impossible to be identified with essence if essence is what we
truly are or is what is truly ours etc. There is the question as to what we mean by
identification here. Essence can have varying characteristics, some 'good' and some
'bad' in relation to aspects that are relatively beneficial or hindering towards our own
development. The same is so for the aspects present in personality etc.
To be identified with essence can mean to be subject to the manifestation of essence
characteristics, or not being able to act otherwise to a particular characteristic of our
essence in a given instance. Or perhaps we might might limit the meaning to the
inability to act otherwise to what are considered as the hindering aspects of essence.
We might also simply mean by the identification with essence the case where we are
acting more from essence than personality, any manifestation that comes from the
dominance of essence over personality.

Generally it is said that the essence remains undeveloped and so can be compared to a
young child in term of its experience of itself and the larger world. This is part of the
reason why the identification of essence manifestations and characteristics in oneself
problematic, because there is little material in the essence with which one can see
clearly. Experience of the essence can then be confused or confusing etc. Little can
remain of moments of connection with the essence, which happen all the time but go
relatively un-noticed or get forgotten. experiences of the essence tend to be what is
remembered as the most 'vivid' moments of our lives, but these are just those that
manage to get remembered because for some reason the essence was more able at that
time to actually take in what was present both inside and outside itself etc.
It is possible though early memories, if one has them, to be able to get a glimpse into
one's essence characteristics and moments of its manifestation. Of course, there is the
issue of the nature of memory itself, but we do have the potential for actual 're-call'
rather than just a form of recall which alters or fabricates. Part of this ability is
related to essence itself, its relatively 'timeless' nature as compared to the 'temporal'
nature of the personality', and part of this ability is also related to the existence of
conscience in us, its existence and persistence in the 'subconscious' etc.
Outside of particular characteristics and instances of manifestation, essence as 'type'
corresponds to something like a 'pattern' of action, or 'pattern/mode' of
apprehension, through which we can engage with the world. Through our essence
type we have a particular 'angle' on the world and also a particular way into certain
situations and events. Our particular essence, as given to us, is then both a 'key' and a
'lock', giving us entry to some areas of life but by this very fact it also refuses us access
to the other areas. To develop ourselves first consists in the appropriate relationship
between essence and personality, such that personality does not simply dominate and
essence only manifest or receive food sporadically, and then this enables the work of
the development or maturation of essence itself which gives the potential for essence
to realize itself and then possible transform itself, its 'typal' limitation. This latter
connects with becoming a 'cosmic individual' in Gurdjieff's scheme and it would
have connection with what he relates to 'man 6'.

To possibly get some sense of one's essence type as a kind of active pattern that
shapes one's life, it is necessary for the general 'attention span' to 'expand' and in this
way there can be the recognition of the pattern itself, the recognition of how the
pattern manifests as recurring elements both within and without. Again, this kind of
recognition is not simply of recurrences in the functional activity of thought, feeling,
and sensation and goes deeper than this including the aspects of being and
understanding. The essence is not simply what could be considered as characteristic
and behaviour, a particular set of characteristics and their related behaviours or
manifestations. To think of essence simply as some set of responses, or even simply as
some 'way of looking at the world', that can come into play or be actualized would be
to think in purely functional terms and would be to make the essence simply look
like a machine akin the personality and/or formatory apparatus.
There is the tendency to think of essence in these terms, which is to think of it as
something basically the same as the personality, at least in operation, but simply
different by virtue of being 'pre-existent' or not a product of the life experiences etc.
Evidently it is this difference that makes essence different to personality, but this
difference itself needs to be considered. This difference means that essence cannot
operate in the same fashion as personality, it is not simply the same kind of thing as
personality but just 'better' or 'subject to fewer/different laws' etc. If all that is
generally known about 'stimulus and response', 'character and behaviour' etc, comes
from/through the personality, our experience of this as dominated by this, then this
knowledge does not apply to the essence and the essence cannot be conceived of
in/through such terms.
We can question here what we ourselves actually mean by essence, what our actual
experience of such is, what is the nature of essence itself etc. Simply visualizing
'something' that 'exists/existed' in some form 'somewhere' 'prior' to one's physical
body and physical birth and then 'somehow' became connected with this physical
body and physical world or Earth is not really getting anywhere. Gurdjieff calls it
what is 'our own' and what we come into the world with etc, but what does this

actually mean to us, what is this that is ours and what is the ours, or self, in question
The general conception of 'things' that can be 'possessed' or 'ours' comes from
personality, through the activity and dominant activity of personality. Essence itself
cannot be equated with a collection of functional activity or patterns and operations
of such activity. Even if we did such equating, what would it be that did the
collecting or holding together of such functional activity, what is the containment
for such etc, what would be the nature of the 'body' of essence itself? If what we
know of 'bodies' is based upon the knowledge and experience of the personality and
world of objects or world/laws of Earth, then evidently the nature of the 'body' of
essence, if one could talk of such a thing, would be quite different. The relative
'materiality' and 'dimensionality' of essence would be different to that of personality,
as expressed by the different laws they are subject to etc. Again, the simple picture of
the difference in 'materiality' simply being one of 'finer' or 'coarser' is a limited
picture based on the laws and perception of the personality. The difference is
evidently more deeper and more significant, more radical etc.
I don't know of any of this is of use or interesting to you and your question, but if
there is some resonance with what i have said then I can recommend looking into
J.G. Bennett's work and specifically his book 'Deeper Man' which is short and
written in clear language with the aid of diagrams etc. The book also helps to give
some material for getting to grips with the cosmology in Beelzebub's Tales and how
this translates into work on oneself. Bennett's other short book 'Talks on Beelzebub's
Tales' also does this in a more specialized way, going into the terms used by Gurdjieff
and the background to some of the ideas expressed in terms of connections to
different teachings and religions of the past etc.

The Shocking Flavour of Harnel-Miatznel.


Apart from the obvious description of the first and second shocks that one meets
with in 'In Search of the Miraculous' and other early records of Gurdjieff's talks,
there is the question as to the nature of the action involved in each. This is to say
that, what is to be considered is the nature of the action involved rather than the
apparent aim and direction/object of the effort.
In the first shock, one appears to be working with impressions, with the moment of
their reception. In the second shock, one appears to be working with emotions, with
the form of their expression etc. This is the surface appearance of what is being done,
or the surface appearance of the material that is being worked with/upon.
Aside from the difference in direction, or apparent content, of the two shocks, is
there a difference in the nature of the action involved in each. Is it the same/similar
kind of effort that one is engaged in towards both shocks? Is one relating with the
different material of each shock in the same/similar fashion?
In terms of the enneagram, different descriptions and analogies have been used to
express the difference in the nature of the shocks, the difference in the nature of the
action involved in each. The first shock and first half of the enneagram (evolutionary
wise) has been related to what could be thought of as 'material' processes. In the
classic example of the enneagram as kitchen, as a means for cooking and eating food
etc, the first side concerns material processes, such as gathering, ordering,
manipulating, and mixing etc. These kind of processes are characterised by the
particular relation of the 'subject' and 'object/s' involved, and this is expressed in one
way by saying the action involved only penetrates into the material to a certain level.
The second shock and second half of the enneagram has been related to what could
be thought of as 'chemical' transformations of the material involved, actions that
concern the chemical/molecular/atomic structure of the material involved. In the
cooking example, this is related to the transformation or action of cooking itself, the
influence of the fire/heat upon the material in question. The other side of this is also

related to the eating of the food, how the food is transformed through the eating of
it, the nature of the action of human experience upon the food and vice versa etc.
In terms of our own experience, this second side of the process involves a different
relation of 'subject' and 'object'. The two are not so distinct and separate from each
other as they are in the nature of the action of the first shock and first half of the
process. In the first half, I am working upon the material involved 'from a distance'
and hence I only enter into the transformational action that is present to a certain
degree. It could be said that this side of the process is characterised by 'separation'
and by 'surfaces', meaning that it is only the 'outside' of things that is being acted
with/upon and this itself being done 'from outside/without'. In this side, it is the
form of separation present that determines the nature of the result.
In the second side, this characteristic of separation is no longer relevant or useful for
the transformation involved. In this side, 'I' have to enter into the transformational
action myself. That which was relatively 'non material' in the first process, as
connected with the 'I' who is doing the work upon the material etc, must itself
become the material which is worked upon and transformed in the second process.
This is why here there is often the motif of 'sacrifice' involved at this point in the
process. This is also portrayed in terms of submitting or offering oneself up to a
'higher power'. What was previously 'above' must become or put itself 'below' in
order to be connected with or realize a new 'above'. Gurdjieff talks about this in
terms of 'harnel miatznel' and the 'blending of the higher with the lower in order to
actualize the middle' which then itself becomes the relative higher or lower for
another process etc.
If we look into this, we can see why it is that the emotions are emphasised in relation
to the work of the second shock. It is not the case that the work of the second shock
is limited towards the emotions, but it is the case that, from where we generally
stand, it is the working of our emotional nature that hinders the kind of action
related to the second shock. Getting an insight into the nature of these two kinds of
action is what is most useful, and this then opens up the way of engaging with them
in a more coherent and 'global' fashion.

‘Mentation by Form’ and ‘Coating the Higher Being Bodies’.

” Gurdjieff speaks of the ‘liberation’ of sacred substances, energies, and forces. In

Beelzebub he has the process of ‘Djartklom’ in which the three sacred forces of
Okidanokh (the prime source substance or ‘will’) separate and re-unite/re-blend. In
both cases there is the notion of a process of ‘release’ or ‘combustion’ in which
something can be gained, something can be left over or retained which can be used
by the individual. In transforming our being-foods more consciously we liberate
more energy for the Cosmic purpose and along with this there is also something
which can be added to ourselves.

If we take Life, as a whole, as a kind of conscious being, we could see that it is our
part in Life that gives us ‘consciousness’, Life gives us a portion of consciousness so
that we may, willy-nilly, serve its own purpose and requirements. Our consciousness
enables us to transform the energies that are required by Life for itself and for its
own purpose and work. Along with this use of the consciousness lent to us there is
also the potential for our own personal profit, there may be a kind of ‘storing’ of
such consciousness itself, a potential kind of ‘surplus’ of consciousness, which can be
attained if there is an efficiency and economy in our functioning. In this sense, the
process of forming and coating higher being bodies would involve the ‘liberation’ of
a certain ‘amount’ of the consciousness of Life, a ‘diverting’ or ‘channeling’ of a
certain portion of the ‘flow’ of such consciousness, and the storing of this in a kind
of ‘vessel’, or, if you like, the transformation of this consciousness itself into a kind of

The consciousness that is transformed into a vessel then comes under the direction
of the individual, the individual can use such a vessel or body for different things, it
has different capacities, and it may be used to penetrate more deeply into the organic
nature. Gurdjieff says that development is both ‘up and down’ in relation to
cosmoses, development is an ‘expansion’ in both directions, towards the relatively
large and small, the cosmos above and the cosmos below etc. The development of the
higher being bodies is not dependent upon becoming conscious of the physical cells
per se’, but it certainly involves a process of transformation in which the physicality
itself is changed.

The development of the kesdjan body involves a change in the experience of

embodiment, and in the process there can be the literal sense of a development of an
‘inner body’ that is of a different ‘materiality’ to the physical body. The formation
and coating of the kesdjian body is said to come through the digestion of the second
food, being breath or air, though it also involves the other two foods as well. The
process involves the interaction and relation between the breath/air, blood, and
sexual substance, which can give a kind of fusion or ‘fission’. This ‘vivifies’ the
‘Hanbledzoin’, or blood of the kesdjian body, and this vivification is a kind of
‘coating’ of the kesdjian body, ‘energizing’ it and giving it greater ‘substantiality’.

In having the sense of another body, an ‘inner’ ‘finer’ body, there is the
intensification of bodily awareness/presence, ‘sensation’ is developed, and it could be
said that such an inner body is itself made of ‘sensation/sensing’, is a body of
sensation/sensing. Along with the added bodily or physical dimension there is also
an added ‘mental’ dimension to the development of the kesdjian body. This expresses
that the kesdjian is formed not only from the blend of the first and second foods but
also from the blend of the second and third, it has something that is both ‘mental’
and ‘physical’ in nature. Along with the ‘cohering’ of the stuff of sensation and
physical embodiment, there is also a cohering of the stuff of ‘mind’.

Gurdjieff says that the general mind, or mind stuff, is acted upon by sensation, is a
reflection or product of sensation. He talks about this by saying that the general
mind is like a kind of ‘atmosphere’ which inter-permeates the physical body and is
controlled or directed by flux in physical sensation. Bodily/sensory flux tends to not
only control the ‘content’ of mind or thought, but also controls the ‘localization’ of
the atmosphere of such mind, where it is ‘concentrated’ in relation to the physical
body. It is said that the mental atmosphere is generally much smaller in size than the
physical body, and it is constantly moving around due to physical stimulation. Part
of the work then involves ‘expanding’ this atmosphere, so that it ‘fills’ the whole
physical body or corresponds to it, and developing its stability in the face of
physical/sensory flux.

With the added mental dimension in the kesdjan development there is a greater
‘mental embodiment’, there is not only a greater ability to not be identified with
mental activity, and to be more able to direct the mind intentionally, but there is also
the ability to experience a wider range of ‘thought’. If thought or mind is like radio
waves then there is the ability to receive or ‘tune into’ a greater number of channels
or frequencies, rather than just our ordinary narrow bandwidth. This may be
expressed by saying that what was previously ‘unconscious’, or only present to the
‘subconscious’, becomes available to the consciousness, or said another way, there is
greater access to the subconscious and its mode of thought/mind, its ‘language’ etc.

Gurdjieff talks of the difference between mentation by ‘word’, or the general mode
of mind, and mentation by form- which may be like the mentation of the
‘subconscious’. The ‘form’ in mentation by form does not mean ‘picture’ or ‘visual
image’, but more closely relates to the word ‘pattern’, again though, not pattern in
the sense of a geometric image etc. Gurdjieff says that mentation by form is
influenced by the landscape, it is connected with the natural cycles and patterns, it is
based on the ‘laws of nature’. Compared to the general kind of mentation, mentation
by form has a different ‘order’ to its activity, it has a different ‘form and sequence’, a

different ‘logic’. Because of this nature of mentation by form it has been said to be
more sympathetic to access or stimulation by symbols and visual art, because these
may inhibit the automatic response and apprehension of the general mentation, the
same is so for ‘fairy tales’ and fables etc. Mentation by form can respond to ‘encoded’
information or ‘patterns/templates’, such as is present in ‘Legominism’. Verbal
language itself is, or was, constructed using mentation by form, being based on its
principles, but the language, or its use, has degenerated such that it only serves as
material and stimulation for the habitual mode of mind/logic.

The development of mentation by form is connected with the development of the

‘moving brain’, in that higher mental activity, or the reception of higher/finer
impressions, requires a stable physical presence, a balancing of the physical energies,
and the assimilation of higher/finer impressions, such as certain ideas and laws etc,
requires their ‘enactment/performance’ or translation into the physical body, a
literal form of ‘transubstantiation’. Gurdjieff mentions this by saying that access to
the subconscious is generally hindered by the shocks, or flux, upon the physical
organism. These shocks need to be compensated for in order to enable subconscious
access and this compensation is achieved via the physical blood. In Beelzebub, in the
Hypnotism chapters, he mentions how a change in blood flow is involved in
accessing the subconscious, this relates to the interaction between the physical blood
and the Hanbledzoin.

The development of the second body is both into greater physical and ‘somatic’
presence and also into greater mental presence, a greater light is cast into the world of
‘mind’ such that it ‘expands’ and becomes much more ‘populated’, we gain more of a
presence and foothold in the mental realm. Thus we become greater participants in
two worlds, the ‘physical’ and ‘mental’, and these two worlds become richer and
more vibrant, and though they each become more ‘distinct’ they also become more
inter-permeated and entwined in a more subtle way. Not only do we need to be
become more alive in our physicality but we also need to become more alive in the

realm of ‘ideas’, our physical senses can be developed and become more keen and we
can also develop our latent ‘mental’ senses. We can have greater perception of the
‘Noosphere’, the ‘atmosphere’ of ideas or information in which we dwell, and which
could itself be called the kesdjan body of the Earth.

Gurdjieff talks of ‘thought-tapes’ that are stored in the atmosphere of the Earth and
contain various information, information about the Earth and organic life itself,
information about the history of man, and information about Cosmic laws and
destiny. This information is literally in the air we breath, it is our natural
inheritance, but in general we do not ‘digest’ it, such higher influences pass right
through us. We cannot digest such food unless we have the corresponding ‘enzyme’,
and maybe we do have such an enzyme but the problem is that the food doesn’t
come into contact with it, something is required to enable the food and enzyme to
come together. First and foremost there has to be the Wish, and not merely a fantasy
wish with no real presence or substantiality, but a wish with a degree of integrity and
persistence. There can be no coherent wish if there is a constant flux of conflicting
emotions, a wish depends on a strength of feeling, a strength of feeling gives a ‘center
of gravity’, a center of gravity is something which can respond, or be moved,
‘according to law’ rather than something which is moved ‘chaotically’. A strength of
feeling can be the needed catalyst, a means of ‘propulsion’ to our spaceship, a kind of
polarization or magnetization that can enable us to fall, or be attracted, towards a
desired destination, such as the cosmic concentration or second order sun known as
planet purgatory.

Thus spoke Beelzebub:

”.. This kind of people among us who have been turned into, so to say, ”moths”
destroying the good prepared and left for us by our ancestors and by time, have not
the slightest notion and have probably never even heard of the screamingly obvious
fact that, during the preparatory age, there is acquired in the brain functioning of

every creature, and of man also, a particular and definite property, the automatic
actualization and manifestation of which the ancient Korkolans called the ”law of
association”, and that the process of the mentation of every creature, especially man,
flows exclusively in accordance with this law.

In view of the fact that I have happened here accidentally to touch upon a question
which has lately become one of my so to speak ”hobbies”, namely, the process of
human mentation, I consider it possible, without waiting for the corresponding
place predetermined by me for the elucidation of this question, to state already now
in this first chapter, at least something concerning that axiom which has accidentally
become known to me, that on Earth in the past it has been usual in every century
that every man, in whom there arises the boldness to attain the right to be considered
by others and to consider himself a ”conscious thinker”, should be informed while
still in the early years of his responsible existence that man has in general two kinds
of mentation: one kind, mentation by thought, in which words, always possessing a
relative sense, are employed; and the other kind, which is proper to all animals as well
as to man, which I would call ”mentation by form”.

–The second kind of mentation, that is, ”mentation by form”, by which, strictly
speaking, the exact sense of all writing must also be perceived, and after conscious
confrontation with material already possessed, be assimilated, is formed in people in
dependence upon the conditions of geographical locality, climate, time, and, in
general, upon the whole environment in which his existence has flowed up to

Accordingly, in the brains of people of different races and conditions dwelling in

different geographical localities, there are formed about one and the same thing or
even idea, a number of quite independent forms, which during functioning, that is
to say, association, evoke in their being some sensation or other which subjectively

conditions a definite picturing, and which is expressed by this, that, or the other
word, that serves only for its outer subjective expression.

That is why each word, for the same thing or idea, almost always acquires for people
of different geographical locality and race a very definite and entirely different so to
say ”inner content”.

In other words , if in the entirety of any man who has arisen and been formed in any
locality, from the results of the specific local influences and impressions a certain
”form” has been composed, and this form evokes in him by association the sensation
of a definite ”inner content”, and consequently of a definite picturing or notion for
the expression of which he employs one or another word which has eventually
become habitual, and as I have said, subjective to him, then the hearer of that word,
in whose being, owing to different conditions of his arising and growth, there has
been formed concerning the given word a form of a different ”inner content”, will
always perceive and of course infallibly understand that same word in quite another
-From Beelzebub’ Tales, chapter one book one

As Gurdjieff said, the ‘forms’ can give rise to a definite sensation, through the flow of
association, which can then give rise to a certain picturing. The form is then separate
to the picturing, and really the form is of a ‘higher world’ and can be said to be more
‘objective’. The particular resulting picturing and sensation may be of a lower world
and hence more ‘subjective’ etc. Of course mentation by form may not guarantee an
effective result in any particular instance, but the point is that it is only through the
engagement of mentation by form that a being can come into contact with the ‘realm
of form’, they can develop their ‘sensitivity’ and ‘capacity’ in relation to this realm.
Mentation by form, just as by word, exists as a possibility which we can exercise and
develop to varying degrees.

In coming into direct contact with the form there is no necessity of any picturing,
the picturing etc is a mode of ‘translation’ which may or may not be involved in any
given instance. This has been expressed in relation to understanding, by saying that
in understanding, or in a ‘moment’ of understanding, there is no ‘content’ of
consciousness involved. This is why understanding has been connected with will
rather than with consciousness. The actual understanding itself is different to any
particular content or mode of ‘representation’ that may be involved in a ‘moment of
understanding’. In mentation by form it can be said that the aim is to move through
the ‘image’, or really the mode of representation, in order to come into contact with
the form itself, which is ‘beyond’ any particular picturing etc.

So the act of mentation by form does not necessarily rely on, or have to involve, any
picturing. Saying that there can be different, independent forms in relation to one
and the same idea, is saying that one idea can be ‘seen’ from different ‘angles’ or
‘expressed’ in different ways. This is saying something other than the fact that one
idea may give rise to different picturings in different people. So, as I said, the essence
of mentation by form, or the ‘form’ in mentation by form, does not refer to an image
or picturing in the usual sense of these words etc.

You could consider what it is that gives rise to picturings, that is, what is form itself?
What is form without the connected ‘content’?

I related mentation by form to the mentation of the subconscious, and talked of

accessing the subconscious via the engagement of mentation by form. In this sense,
there is a kind of connection between the words ‘form’ and ‘logic’. There can be
different kinds of ‘logic’, the only requirement of a ‘logic’ (in order to be such) is that
it be ‘self consistent’, and hence there can be kinds of ‘logic’ which may appear to
have no application in what is considered to be ‘real life’. A ‘logic’ may be able to
‘prove’ an answer/premise, reach a conclusion, or make an valid/truthful statement

etc, which may have no apparent ‘meaning’ outside of the given ‘logic’ itself. The
‘logic’ determines itself, it determines and defines what is ‘consistent’ and
‘inconsistent’ according to its own ‘logic’. Of course, a ‘logic’ ‘exists’ independently
of its particular mode of expression and the particular signs and pictures that may be
used as designated terms etc. The ‘same’ ‘logic’ could be expressed by different
systems of signs and pictures etc.

In asking what form is itself, aside from any particular content, we may also be
asking what is a ‘logic’ apart from its related system of signs? We might say that any
‘logic’ is founded on some ‘central’, ‘core’, or ‘base’ ‘notion’, such as for example
A=A. But aside from the symbols used to express this ‘notion’, and aside from any
inner picturing that may also be used to represent this ‘notion’, what is the ‘notion’
itself? Such ‘notion’ may be described as a ‘way of looking’ at the ‘world’, and in a
‘way of looking’ itself there is no ‘seen’, no ‘thing looked at’. A way of looking is a
way of arriving at ‘things looked at’ or ‘seen’ etc. It may be taken as a kind of
‘organization’ or ‘order’, that is, ‘something’ which organizes and orders (itself or
something else). It may also be taken as ‘something’ which creates or
determines/defines ‘meaning’, or even that which determines the ‘rules’ involved in
the making of meaning, the possible kinds of ‘interpretation’, the possible ‘moves’ in
the ‘game’ of ‘meaning’ etc. In essence, both of these ( way of looking and way of
meaning etc) refer to ‘something’ closer to an ‘action’ or ‘act’ rather than a ‘content’
or ‘acted upon’ etc.

We might say that the Form, or forms, in mentation by form refer to the ‘rules’ or
‘structure’ of ‘mind’, or ‘reason’, itself. In coming into contact with form itself we
come into contact with the essence of ‘mind’ or ‘reason’ itself, and it is through this
that there is the development of Gurdjieff’s ‘gradations of reason’ and access to the
‘subconscious’ (Gurdjieff’s ‘real’ consciousness etc). The engagement of mentation
by form, coming into operational contact with the realm of form, is the means of
‘exercising’ the I, the Individuality. It is in this sense that Gurdjieff said that

”Understanding is what a man can Do’ and also ” A man IS his understanding”.
Where Gurdjieff says ”…what a man can Do” he is referring to something that is
much more concerned with, or centered in, the ‘inner world’ rather than the outer
world- as in ‘practical’ competence in some area etc. Gurdjieff touches on this when
he talks about what is the work of a real man, in connection with the relation
between his three brains etc.

Some may see a potential connection here between Gurdjieff and Plato in relation to
form.The connection with Plato is not strictly relevant, though I would say that the
two are really the same, talking about the same thing using different language,
though Gurdjieff goes a bit further. I would say that the language used by Plato is
generally mis-translated/misunderstood and it is this that brings up issues.

The particularities of the form are related to geographic conditions and climate etc,
but the form itself, its operation, is objective to all, hence the ”laws of association”
that Gurdjieff mentions. The world of form, the ‘laws’ of form, are of a higher ‘level’
than those of the particularities of the picturing and its ‘medium’ and ‘mechanism”
etc. The ‘higher’ form, or realm of forms, is not separated from the conditioned and
particular, not ‘somewhere else’, but operates ‘hand in hand’ with it. The ‘divine’
and ‘unchanging’ words used by Plato in relation to form are simply an expression of
the difference between the realm of form and the ‘relative’; even in form there is a
kind of ‘change’ and ‘evolution’ in connection with the nature of creativity.

The fact that a different form can evoke a different sensation and picturing does not
mean that form is ‘subjective’, really it means the opposite. For example, ‘objective
art’ can give rise to different responses in different people, depending on the ‘level of
being’ of the person, that is, each responds ‘objectively’ according to his being, by
law etc. This example is not an exact analogy with the topic of form but you may get
the picture.

Of course, we are in contact with form all the time, we can develop our
‘consciousness’ and understanding in this regard, in our relationship with form. This
possibility is the difference between man and animals in regard to form, evidently a
different number of brains enables a different relation. I have only said that form
itself is of a higher world/nature than the particular picturing and its mechanism and
medium and that the two are not the same thing, that form does not refer to the
sensation or picture itself, it is involved in the evokation of such etc.

As I said, I am not using Plato’s theory or trying to match it with Gurdjieff, though
as I have said, they do really correspond. We would have to look at the language of
Plato, such as what is really meant by his use of the word ‘image’ etc. The ‘image’ of
Plato’s form is not a picture, it is what I have talked of as a ‘way of looking’ or kind
of ‘logic’, it is in an act of ‘comprehension’ or ‘understanding’ in which there is no
‘content’ of consciousness, or in which such is a secondary after effect etc. Such an
act is a ‘act’ of ‘will’, so that one ‘conforms’ to the form, or its ‘image and ‘logic’, and
thereby one is ‘made one’ with the form, or its ‘image’ and ‘logic’ – which is itself
‘one with’ the form.

What is ‘taken back’ from the realm of form by Plato’s philosopher is the
‘understanding’, or the ‘will’, to act in accordance with such form, the person then
acts in accordance with such form, in his understanding he IS the given form, and it
is this that makes him ‘wise’. Something like riding a bike, one never forgets how to
do it, and it is not necessary to have visual image memories in order to get back on a
bike and ride it, of course here we generally speak of such things as bodily and muscle
memory, but again you may get the point.

Of course, the forms are not ‘perceived’ directly, they can be contacted directly, one
can come into direct operational contact with them through the will and
understanding, in which there is no ‘content’ of consciousness. Particular ‘insights’

and understandings appear periodically, the development of the gradations of reason

progresses ‘periodically’, but one always acts according to his current level or
gradation of reason, more than acting according to such, he IS such. One is always in
relation with form, the nature of this relation can change, hence there can be

I have said that mentation by form, its active use and development, involves going
through, or getting ‘beyond’ or ‘behind’, the particular picturing or ‘image’ and its
mode of representation, in order to contact the underlying form directly for
‘assimilation’ or understanding via the will and ‘I’ – or its ‘seed’ etc. The form itself,
in corresponding to geographical conditions etc, ‘expresses’ or ‘contains’ the ‘laws of
nature’, the laws involved in the fashioning and operation of such geographical
conditions and their connection to the human mind or mentation etc. Hence via the
operation of mentation by form we can connect with the forms which ‘express’ or
are involved in the ‘laws of world creation and world maintenance’, thereby
developing our understanding of such.

The ‘conscious confrontation’, mentioned by Gurdjieff, involves the ‘confrontation

with the ‘forms’, the forms are involved in shaping mentation, in the ”laws of
association” etc. To ‘get to know’ what form is, is then a practical endeavor, a
necessary one in the process of the development of mentation and understanding.
Evidently there is no other way of ‘knowing’ ‘what’ a form is, being told or listening
by itself will not produce understanding. Allowing associations to flow whilst
listening or reading may or may not provide insight, generally we take a new
‘configuration’ or formatting of the existing data to be a new insight or an
‘interesting thought’ and we remain satisfied with this. Obviously this relates to the
nature of the formatory apparatus.

In passively observing association we may get a glimpse to the ‘form’ behind the
content, but most often it is simply the content that is observed, watching one

association after another and seeing, or reasoning, something of how, or why, one
particular association has arisen or lead to another etc. In this passive observation we
are generally ‘on the outside’, only observing the content that is being acted upon,
rather than being aware of that which is acting upon the content, organizing it, in-
forming it etc, and how this operates. I may be aware of what I am thinking but I am
not generally aware of how I am thinking, aware of the thinking itself rather than
what is thought about, that which brings the thoughts to mind and connects them
and the ‘logic’ of its action in doing so.

You may be reading these words and observing your associations, but what about
that which is making those associations appear ‘relevant’, or that which is making
your thinking appear ‘rational’ or appear to ‘make sense’, rather than appearing as
just a random nonsensical series of unconnected ‘thoughts’? In what I have said, it is
the form that is involved in ‘formatting’ thought or mentation, or experience in
general, such that it appears to ‘make sense’ etc. Form then has a connection with
‘logic’, a ‘lawful’ operation that has some ‘parameters’ related to ‘meaning’.

In the active engagement of mentation by form it is the understanding of the

operating kind of ‘logic’ that is sought, rather than seeking any particular expression
of this. The given logic is present ‘behind’ every expression that arises from it or in
accordance with it. As the ‘logic’ or form is ‘higher’ or more active than that which it
operates upon, or that which is organised by it, it is possible to connect with it or
understand it without having to do this by going via that which it acts upon.
Evidently the logic or form itself does not have any particular expression or ‘picture’
itself, it produces or evokes ‘relevant’ pictures or expression according to its own
logic. The particular pictures or expression may run in a linear sequence and order
one after another, but the form, logic, or pattern is there ‘all the time’, in itself it is
not ‘linear’ or ‘sequential’ in the same way as the expressions, relative to such it is

Thus understanding by mentation by form is a kind of ‘instantaneous’ or ‘timeless’

affair, in which there is no linear progression in order to reach an conclusion. In
reading I may have to go from one word to another and reach the end of a sentence
in order to arrive at some understanding of what has been attempted to be conveyed,
the equivalent via mentation by form would be like looking at a block of text as a
whole and coming straight to the meaning. In the real exercise of mentation by form
one is exercising different kinds of logic or different ways of ‘making sense’, one is
exploring the ‘rules’ of ‘mentation’ itself. This may involve picture making, but this
is secondary to the ‘logic’ or ‘rules’ which such pictures are fashioned in accordance
with and are ‘interpreted’ through.

Mentation by form is basically the mode of ‘thinking’ of the ‘subconscious’, or of the

‘essence’, as defined by Gurdjieff. It is a different mode of accessing the data or
experiential information that is in a being, and a different mode of processing this.
In Beelzebub’s Tales, Gurdjieff talks of the different kinds of reason that a being can

General reasoning is based upon verbal associations, and as said the words come to
replace direct experience, such that one may ‘think’ only in words or images that are
not connected to direct experiences. Words and images come to replace the
experiences that they refer to. Also, in general reasoning the associations can be led
by chance and not involve any intentionality and can lead to misunderstandings,
unrelated connections may be made and related connections may be missed. General
reasoning is based upon ‘linear’ ‘chains’ of thought, and to get from particular
thought to another requires a certain series of steps. The accessing of information or
data in the being is by way of ‘verbal’ symbols.

Mentation by form is not dependent upon ‘linear’ chains’ of thought to get from one
idea to another and information is gathered or grouped together according to a

different ‘form’ of ‘logic’ or reasoning. The data or information of mentation by

form is based upon direct living experience, the thoughts are ‘living’ thoughts, there
is no difference between the ‘object’ of thought and the actual object to which the
thought refers. In general reasoning or mentation an apple is simply a word or verbal
sound or a vague image, in mentation by form the apple is a real apple.

Mentation by form has connection with ‘kinaesthesia’ and a form of thinking or

knowing by the body that largely operates ‘unconsciously’, that we are generally
unaware of. In kinaesthesia the movements or actions of another person or object
that are witnessed are repeated in us. A simulation is played out of their actions in us,
giving us the experience of what it would be like if it were us who were performing
those actions, or if our body were subject to the same kind of action. This has been
related to ‘mirror neurons’ and is also part of why we can ‘cringe’ upon seeing an
image of someone hurting themselves for example. “

Sensing Essence.

”What is the point of sensing exercises?

Why do people say they are so important?

Isn’t keeping the ‘impartial Witness’ awake sufficientfor self remembering and

Gurdjieff may say that without intentional sensing and feeling there is no ‘witness’,
certainly no impartial witness founded on three centered attention. Gurdjieff talks a
bit about this in ”Life is Real..” when he talks to the Orage group about ‘self
observation’. I have also to say that the term ‘witness’, which comes from Eastern

tradition translations, does not refer to the generally experienced ‘witness’ or

‘consciousness’, which is always a ‘consciousness-of’; involving a certain form of
relation between ‘subject’ and ‘object’.

If one has wishes or aims to develop something ‘beyond’ the physical, such as might
be related to the second and highest being bodies, then it appears that intentional
sensing/feeling and intentional thinking is essential. Also, as far as ‘therapy’ is
concerned, that is, the process of changing habits or de-crystalization and re-
crystlization, then intentional sensing also appears necessary as a means to
communicate wishes/intents to the ‘subconscious’.

”The generally experienced ‘witness’ is my essence identified. This is my experience.

My Essence is my I AM. No? Will study G on self-observation again. ”

Yes, the ‘essence identified’ could also be referred to as ‘personality’, in the sense that
the general experience is one that is dominated by the ‘perception’ of the personality.

In Beelzebub, Gurdjieff stresses that the ‘real consciousness’ of man lies in what he
calls his ‘subconscious’. This ‘subconsciousness’ is not simply an ‘intensified’ version
of the generally experienced consciousness. There can be degrees of relative ‘wake-
fullness’ of this general consciousness/witness, for instance, the difference between
being aware of one’s body and the immediate environment whilst watching a t.v
program rather than simply being ‘lost in the t.v’ etc. Some might call this difference
a difference in the degree of ‘identification’, but this difference still applies to the
same general consciousness.

Whether this general consciousness is identified or not, it is still the same

consciousness and operations with this consciousness, or upon it, are still on the
same ‘level’. This is to say that operations with/upon the general consciousness
cannot, of themselves, yield the actualization/realization of the ‘subconsciousness’ or
‘real consciousness’. If I am aware of my body and breath and my feelings and

thoughts, this of itself does not make me ‘really conscious’ or mean that real
consciousness is present or active etc. This is also to say that when I am more aware
of body sensations, feelings, and thoughts it does not of itself mean that ‘I am more
in my essence’ or essence is more present/active etc.

Gurdjieff speaks of Essence as being asleep in such a way that basic self-awareness is a
preparation for the realization of essence. Gurdjieff advocates attention division
exercises where the attention is split into three parts, each being connected with the
three brains/totalities, and each part itself engaged in something active. Gurdjieff
gives the exercises in the context of developing the strength/medium of the
realization of Essence/Individuality.

The action of intentional division of attention, along with the intentional

engagement of sensation, feeling and thought, is different to the general effort to be
present and self-aware to what arises in oneself of itself. Gurdjieff emphasizes such an
action as necessary to true self-observation; which he then goes on to say is itself
necessary for self-understanding and self-transformation etc.

The ‘waking’ of the Essence has been expressed as the waking or birthing into a
different world, and we could also speak of a different ‘mode’ of
‘experience/perception’. The waking of the essence or subconscious is not a process
whereby the general consciousness becomes conscious of such essence or
subconsciousness, which is to say again that it is not an increase in the intensity
and/or ‘size’ of the general consciousness/witness. ‘Subjectively’, the waking of the
essence can be akin to a ‘parallel processing’ of two different ‘modes’ of ‘being’, or
two different kinds of consciousness, rather than the ‘engulfing’ of one by the other.

Much of the work that Gurdjieff referred to as ‘soil preparation’ is work aimed at
preparing the general consciousness such that it can be a fertile/fruitful medium for
the awakened Essence in its work of self realization/transformation. In ISOTM,
Gurdjieff speaks in the context of developing the ableness for connection with the

Higher Centers etc. Gurdjieff also speaks of the difference between ‘state’ and
‘station’, such that many have the view that development consists of the prolonging,
making permanent, or intensification of what is considered as ‘good’, and such good
could be a state of consciousness.

Beelzebub’s Gender Gatherings and Artificiality.

I think there is the need for a variety of forms of group gathering/interaction.

Experiencing these different forms can be helpful in coming to know ourselves.

One side of our nature is ‘gendered’, and therefore there are things to be understood
about the differences between ‘men’ and ‘women’. Understanding this gendered side
of our nature is key to any future development in our social structures. The
‘celebration’ of the differences between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is also a
celebration of their sameness and unity, or can be a way into such. A gathering
together of only one gender does not have to necessarily promote gender
discrimination and inequality etc. The energies present, or potential, in a gathering
of one gender are different to those in a gathering of mixed genders, and as such
there can be different roles that such gatherings can play.

The engagement in a gathering of one gender, and the engagement/repetition of a

particular form of practice, does not have to be a barrier to ‘individualism’ or ‘radical
individualism’, and this precisely because of the nature of individuality. I am all for
‘bromance’ and ‘womance’ (or whatever is the word for ‘sisterly love’ etc) and for the
equivalent ‘romance’ between men and women (humance). The very ideas we have
about ‘men’ and ‘women’, whether for better or for worse, are necessary forms of
engagement with reality, with our human situation. Without these forms of

engagement, or means of relation, we would be cut off from each other and from the
world at large.

The very nature of these forms means that there is the potential for them to be used
in a way that fosters division/conflict and inequality, but that is the nature of the
beast. It then becomes incumbent upon us to use these forms in an appropriate way
that fosters positive social interaction, which requires that we engage these forms
creatively. We can think here of Gurdjieff’s ‘Whim’, which was to bring a new
conception of God to mankind, and also of Bennett’s wish to provide modern man
with a new means of worship. Both of these involve the engagement, and evolution,
of the present forms of social interaction/relation.

To this end, an individual is required to navigate these different social forms, to

actually enter into them and be moved by them etc. The forms are our collective
inheritance, and though of course there are accumulations of undesirable elements in
these forms there are also elements of considerable worth which may themselves be
considered as either ‘gifts from Above’ or as the results of the great labors of certain
individuals, or both.

The Soul is of course considered as without or beyond gender, but this gendered side
of our nature is also there and as such it requires some kind of recognition and work
etc. I do think that men-only and women-only gatherings have some part to play in
individual development and also in our collective development and social relations
etc. Of course, there is the tendency for such ‘segregated’ gatherings to lead to
discrimination, but this is not necessarily so.

Many social stereotypes, such as those related to gender, are re-enforced by the
general inability of people of the same sex to gather together and really relate and
communicate openly/honestly with each other, to work together in some direction
etc. Usually, this coming together either resorts to some form of violence and
conflict/division, or it resorts to the use of some kind of stereotype to avoid such

conflict, some ‘other’ must be present and rallied against in order to provide some
sense of cohesion and unity between the members of the group or gathering etc.

I think there is the need to provide such same sex gatherings, as well as mixed, in a
form that fosters a space for ‘communion’ and ‘self expression’. I think it will only be
through something like this that social change will come, as this can provide a
possible means to change the present notions about what it means to ‘be a man’ or
‘be a woman’ etc. I think Gurdjieff was also in favor of using the nature of an
‘occasion’ (or the creation of an occasion) to help provide a space that can foster new
understanding and insight. There may have to a particular form to the occasion,
some particular limitations and apparent ‘formality’ that help to give a structure etc.

The ‘artificiality’ is a means for transformation, but it often happens that such
artificiality loses its meaning, when it becomes engaged in as mere ‘performance’
without some inner action in the members, when it is forgotten that it is a means
rather than an end etc. The power of ‘artificiality’ can also be missed by those who
find it hard to adopt any kind of ‘formality’ or ‘convention’ etc, those who are
suspicious of any such thing and who would prefer to have a gathering in which
there were no rules and no ‘formalities’ (which also has its own value).

On Leverage.

Gurdjieff’s term ‘Lever’ can be seen to refer to both the actions/activity of the
different centers (different operations that have been learnt/developed) and also to
the nature of the influences that can bring such centers into motion/activity. One
center may have relatively more levers which can bring it into motion, meaning it has

more ‘associations’ or forms of connection with the other centers and outside world

The difference in the relative number of levers a center has can be both a help or
hindrance depending on what one is aiming at. If I wish for a certain center, or one
of its operations, to be called into action but do not have the ability to directly
initiate this myself from the given center, then I may be reliant upon the use of one
of the established levers and its particular triggers in order to get the operation to
manifest. In this case, the fact that a certain center has many levers can be an aid to
my intention.

On the other hand, if I wish for a certain center to remain ‘undisturbed’, or wish for
a certain activity or line of work to be maintained by a given center, then the fewer
the levers and ‘associations’ that the given center has the easier it may be to achieve
this aim. If there are less levers and associations then there is less chance for the
activity of the center to be altered by something else.

Gurdjieff speaks of the difference between the ‘mind’ and ’emotions’, saying that in
the general man the ‘mind’ is dependent upon fewer number of influences than the
emotions, and thereby, at the beginning of work the aim is to be able to keep the
mind in a certain direction. At the beginning there is not the ableness to keep the
emotions in a certain direction because they are too changeable, dependent on too
many different influences for us to be able to control. Later, through work, we may
be able to form ‘something’ which can ‘disconnect’ the center/centers from the
varying influences, such that they come under the direct influence of ‘I’.

Gurdjieff says that the same outer manifestation can be caused by different centers
and actions, such that a movement of an arm may come directly from the center or it
may come from an external stimulus which triggers a stored/learnt program. The
manifestation is not classified according to its external form of appearance but is
classified instead according to its cause. So, a movement of the arm, for example, may

not be classified as a ‘moving center’ manifestation unless the moving center is the
actual cause/initiative in the given case.

Generally, this is something we do not consider or distinguish between, generally we

classify in terms of the apparent form of the manifestation rather than the particular
cause, and this is because we are not generally in touch with or aware of the given
cause but are only aware of the effect/expression or manifestation.

Levers and associations, inter-connectivity, is the nature of reality and how it works,
to be is to be inter-connected/inter-related. This then brings in the question of how
something can be itself or be an individual in a world of such inter-connectivity. The
question is one about the nature of ‘authenticity’ and authentic ‘self expression’.

Super Effort.

”G said that ordinary efforts don’t count – only the super effort does. What does this
even mean? I was making no attempt whatsoever to try to comprehend this, but it
came to me as an experience.

There are needs, coming from different places within, during the everyday existence
to “make a certain efforts” connected with something I understand as the work on
oneself. “Oh, I have an aim to sense a part of my body; need to listen to my voice
while speaking; need to walk slower than usual” etc etc. Whatever the aim for the
time is, there is effort to do it. But suddenly, it came to me that all this efforts are
coming from the “horizontal level”, or the level of the mind, or the functions. There
is a wish to accomplish, to do the aim/task given to me, and a certain effort is made
to make it happen. This effort is probably necessary, but it is not enough, because it
must be the form of identification, since everything probably is. So at one moment
there came a place from which the making of effort could be observed. This place

was on the higher level, or beyond the effort. Basically, I could see myself making the
effort, and therefore, I felt free from it, while it was still trying to be maintained.

This I experienced as the transcendence of the effort, and therefore, it came to me

that super effort is not at the same level as “ordinary” effort, but just more intense,
or whatever; on the contrary, super-effort is not effort at all – it is the transcendence
of it; it is going beyond the effort; it is observing, or seeing the effort in its very
process. Just like the superman is the being that is beyond ordinary man, but in a
way that, in its transcendence of ordinary man, it still contains a man within it.
Similarly, in the transcendence of effort, there is a super-effort, within which
“ordinary” effort still exists.

By transcending the effort (or experiencing the super effort) man is going beyond
the horizontal level of his functions by which this effort is being made, and
therefore, he is free from his own effort, and it feels like “he can do more”, since
there is no really “him” there – or, in other words “He is beyond him”.

Freedom must probably be freedom from all, even the freedom from one’s own
efforts and one’s of wish for freedom.

This is just a subjective exchange; it might all be nonsense and my own wiseacering.
Time will tell; or it will not.”

Definitely, ‘super effort’ is not simply more of the same general kind of effort, it is
not ‘more of the same’. Along with what you have said, about super effort involving
a freedom from identification with effort, there is also the aspect of relevance, such
as knowing where and when such a super effort is ‘needed’, or recognizing when an
opportunity for super effort is being presented.

There is a lot in Eastern traditions, particularly Hinduism, about the necessity of

freedom from attachment to the results of work, and this also includes freedom from
the struggle and conditions involved in the work itself. To me, a central part of this,
or what enables this relative freedom from action, or attachment to action and its
results, is the Feeling Brain. A certain quality/energy of feeling enables one to ‘stand
apart’ from the action that one is engaged in. This quality/energy of feeling then also
feeds into the action, such as you say, giving the sense that one could do more. There
is more ableness present, one has more potential. This is also like saying there is more
power of choice present at such moments. This sense of one’s own ableness and
relative freedom from effort/action may relate to the ‘Harnel Aoot’ and
‘Piandjoehary’ mentioned in Beelzebub’s Tales. There is a point of tension here
where the results can go either way, either the added sense of freedom and ableness
feeds back into our ordinary efforts and motives, or it feeds into the service of
something higher. This is why there is a strong emphasis on the need for some kind
of discernment at this moment, so that it will really bear fruit.

”Yes. The “problem” is that these moments are not so common, and also, they are
always felt differently, uniquely, so they are experience (at least for me) like
something totally new and different from everyday stuff. So this openness is so huge,
if compared with “ordinary” everyday states, that I feel stuck and overwhelmed, and
there is really nothing I could do. And the sea of possibilities and consequences of it
are to much for my experience, so I cannot discern anything – thoughts are so fast
and opposite feelings are there at the same time, acting simultaneously. I guess it is all
the matter of experience. But anyway it is liberating, no matter how much the mind
is confused.”

From what you have said in your commentary of your experience, it would seem that
the experience is/was not too overwhelming for you, in that you have provided an
apparently cogent account of it. So if ‘you’ are present and relatively ‘together’ when
such an experience occurs, it would seem that there is the potential for you to
exercise some degree of ‘choice’ at these moments, in relation to how you respond to

them ( if this relative freedom lasts any reasonable length of time). As you have said,
at that moment of being free from the effort there was the recognition that ‘you
could do more’. The freedom from identification with the effort and instrument
enables a potential greater effort and a greater/wider ‘utility’ of the instrument.
When it is realized that ‘I could do more’ there may then possibly be the exercise of
the choice whether to ‘do more’ or not.

With the relative ‘liberation of energy’, or greater ableness/potential, comes the

question of how to use this and further transform it. Once one has a relative degree
of freedom from identification with the instrument and the effort in using it, then
the ‘meaning’ and ‘value’ of what is being done with/through such an instrument
becomes more significant. The relative freedom from identification not only brings
more consideration as to how to use the instrument/vehicle, it can also bring
consideration as to what this relatively free ‘part’ can do itself, that is, is there a
possible corresponding effort/action that could be made with/upon this relative free
‘part’ itself? Relative freedom from one kind of action opens up the prospect of
another kind of action. The freedom experienced in/through ‘super efforts’ may
open the way to another kind of effort or another kind of work, another
realm/world of work.

If the relative freedom has come through working with the ‘first conscious shock’,
then there is the question as to what kind of work is involved in the ‘second
conscious shock’. If the work of the first conscious shock involved a certain effort
and the use of certain functions, and this has now yielded a relative freedom from
such effort and functions, then the work involved in the second conscious shock will
not be focused up these functions and that kind of effort, or at least, they will not be
involved in the same way.

Additional Introductory ‘Fourth Way’ Q and A.

Q: ... I would like to now move into questioning you about some of the aspects of
The Work in particular, and how ‘Spiritual development’ is seen from this Teaching.
How this path is walked and some of the problems to be dealt with, along with also
asking about what might be called the key tenets of this Teaching and the meaning
of some the terms and phrases that are found in Gurdjieff’s writings and those of his
most notable pupils.
A: Please, go ahead.
Q: Ok. Well, I guess my first question would be what is meant by the terms ‘Sleep’,
‘Mechanicality’, and ‘Buffers’?

It is said in this Teaching that man is in a state of a kind of ‘hypnosis’ and that he
doesn't realize this, or doesn't realize the extent of this state of ‘sleep walking’ in
which he lives his life. So in this state man is like a ‘machine’, being controlled by
‘outside forces’, or he is stuck in a kind of loop, going round in the same small circle.
He is unaware of this due to something hindering him from seeing it, this being like
a sort of screen or blindfold, which is related to a ‘buffer’.
Could you say something on this?
A: Yes alright, though bear in mind that my answers will be in accordance with the
context of this interview, which is of an introductory nature towards these ideas, so
they will be as brief sketches of answers rather than ‘anatomical blueprints’. I think
your definitions of these terms is as good as any other.
In general, man only has so much ‘memory’, that is, what may be called ‘conscious’
memory. So, if a man were to be stopped at some point towards the end of his day
and asked to provide answers to specific details of his previous activities that day, he
would most likely struggle, or be unable, to answer such questions. There would be
many ‘gaps’ and ‘scenes missing’ when he attempted to search his memory files, so to
This is generally taken to be simply the way things are, and outside of the degree of
memory that is necessary to get by, so to speak, memory is not valued. An extra

‘capacity’ of memory is not sought by most people, and most do not find their
current ‘capacity’ ‘unsatisfying’ or ‘displeasing’, save perhaps for a few brief
moments of reflection which are usually stimulated by some mistake in their current
memory ‘capacity’, by ‘forgetting something’, or by someone else apparently
demonstrating a greater ‘capacity’ of memory in some direction.
This ‘condition’ and functioning of memory is mostly only applied to, or considered
in regard to, ‘outer events’ but not also ‘inner events’. A person may consider his
‘small’ memory ‘capacity’ in respect of outer events, but he doesn't usually consider
this memory in relation to ‘thoughts’ and ‘emotions’. The ‘inner’ sequence of events,
or sequence of ‘inner’ events, is considered even less than that of the ‘outer’ sequence
of events, or sequence of ‘outer’ events, in regard of memory ‘capacity’.

So let's say someone was asked to provide details of their previous activities that day,
they were asked what they were ‘doing’ at such and such a time, and let's say that
they managed to answer this correctly, but how would they fare in regard to
‘thoughts’ and ‘emotions’, if they were asked what they were thinking at such and
such a time, what thought was present then, and if they were asked what were they
‘feeling’ at such and such a time, what ‘feeling’ was present then, what they ‘felt’
then? This ‘inner’ memory is, generally, valued even less than the ‘outer’, as in some
people may say they wish they had a ‘photographic memory’ but only mean this in
relation to ‘outer’ events. But what of the wish for, or notion of, an ‘inner’
‘photographic’ memory, in relation to ‘thought’ and ‘emotion’, as well as ‘bodily
If a person's ‘outer’ memory ‘capacity’ is apparently greater than that of their ‘inner’
memory ‘capacity’, then it would seem that there is some form of ‘disconnection’
between the ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’ in their experience, or experiencing. There would
seem to be some current limit in their ability to hold the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ together,
simultaneously, as they are experiencing. The ‘attention’ may be attending one at the
expense of the other.

This situation is certainly curious, especially if it is considered that the ‘inner’ is

‘more’ valuable than the ‘outer’, in relation to ‘self-hood’, ‘identity’, ‘purpose’, and
‘meaning’. People consider themselves to be more than what they ‘do’ in an ‘outer’
sense. They consider ‘themselves’ to be more ‘in’ the ‘inner’, they identify
‘themselves’ more with, or as, the ‘inner’ rather than the ‘outer’ in terms of activity,
and yet the opposite would actually seem to be the case. This ‘disconnection’ or
‘unbalance’ between the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ is one expression of the ‘state’ of ‘Sleep’
in man.
Generally, in the course of a day it would seem that man spends most of his time in
‘thought’ and ‘feeling’, rather than in what may be called ‘sense perception’, but
most of the ‘content’ of such ‘thought’ and ‘feeling’ seems to be lost or to be
forgotten. Man doesn't spend much time actually attending what is actually in front
of his face, and yet the little that seems to remain in his memory is mainly of the
‘outer’, images of that which was in front of his face.
In this sense man is mostly simply operating as a ‘machine’, as an ‘empty vessel’ or
‘lump of flesh’ that is moved without his participation, without the participation of
his ‘attention’ and ‘will’, without his very ‘self’. Of course most people are under the
impression that ‘they’ are in ‘control’ of their lives, that they are at the ‘helm’ for the
duration of their activities, that ‘they’ make their decisions and that their ‘intents’
come from ‘themselves’.
What passes in or through their ‘inner’ realm is what passes for ‘their’ ‘identity’ or
‘individuality’, and is taken as ‘theirs’. This ‘discordant’, ‘dis-jointed’, stream of
‘inner’ ‘content’ is taken as ‘me’. It is cobbled into a ‘self’ that is mostly reliant on the
‘continuity’ of the ‘outer’ ‘content’, or outer events, in order to sustain and maintain
itself and some semblance of ‘continuity’ and ‘order’ to itself, that is, to continue the
‘self deception’ of self, self-hood, and identity. Without this sense of ‘order’ there
could be no self in the meaning of the word, or at least not a ‘peaceful’ self unaware
to its ‘disorder’.
When a ‘thought’, ‘emotion’, or ‘movement’ arises or occurs there is something, or
some process, that says ‘’I did that/this’’, says ‘‘this is mine’’, unless the ‘thought’,

‘emotion’, or ‘movement’ is seen as ‘undesired’ or ‘unpleasant’ or

‘unintentional/involuntary’, in which case there is often some form of ‘distancing’
from these, ‘distancing’ of the related ‘i’ and ‘my’ to some degree.
In relation to memory we could ask what is it that determines whether something of
yesterday is apparently ‘retained’ or not. It wouldn't seem that a person ‘chooses’
what to ‘retain’, so it would make sense to say that what is retained is due to a certain
‘quality’ or form of ‘attention’ towards it at the time of its occurrence. The presence
of a certain ‘intensity’ of ‘attention’ determining what is present to apparent
memory. If ‘i’ only recall what ‘i’ was present to, then what ‘i’ don’t recall is because
‘i’ wasn't there so to speak, ‘i’ can only ‘infer’ these moments, at least currently.
So what is it that then determines whether this ‘quality’ of ‘attention’ is present or
not. Generally, this is the degree of the ‘intensity’ of the ‘outer’ event, or the
‘requirement’ of a greater degree of ‘inner’ ‘processing’ in an activity or event. So this
‘quality’ of ‘attention’ can be present both ‘unintentionally’ and ‘intentionally’, so
to speak, meaning it would seem that a person can influence this through some
People experience ‘drifting off’ whilst doing something, such as driving for instance,
but what causes this, is this ‘intentional’ or ‘unintentional’, it would seem at least
closer to the latter. At what point does the person themselves cease to see what is in
front of their face and only see the ‘daydream’, where is the point of transition and
how does this transition actually occur.
People experience acting in ways that they later regret, whether this later is a span of
a ‘second’ or much longer. Why do people do this, again it is usually taken for
granted as just the way people are. What is it that determines whether a person acts
in a regrettable fashion or not in any instance, people say ‘i’ didn’t ‘mean’ it, ‘i’ was
not ‘myself’ etc.
People also experience ‘torrents’ of internal dialogue, verbal thought, that they
apparently cannot stop. For instance, a person may have a song repeating in their
heads that they can’t stop, it being ‘stuck in their mind’ as it is said. Some people also
experience undesired and unpleasant verbal thought, or a ‘negative inner critique’.

Why are these things generally accepted when perhaps they could be changed.
People in general, if they do make efforts in these areas, usually only do so in a
compensatory fashion, rather than trying to go to the ‘root’ or to actually
understand the process or the ‘mechanics’ involved in such.
In terms of what I have said, it is ‘buffers’ that are involved in taking things for
granted, accepting and assuming something to be so when not necessarily so, and
doing this without real self exploration and effort, taking the path of least resistance,
so to speak. It is the ‘glossing over the cracks’ in order to keep the ‘status quo’, it is
the ‘attachment’ to the ‘known’ or ‘given’ and ‘fear of the unknown’. There is a
certain ‘logic’ in the action of ‘buffers’ in relation to ‘self preservation’, but it is really
illogical as it is based on, or in, ignorance and ‘self deception’. ’Buffers’ can make the
‘same’ appear ‘different’, the ‘old’ appear ‘new’, and they are involved in people
‘forgetting themselves’ and also in dealing with the consequences of such, peoples
compensating or ‘justifying’. ‘Cognitive dissonance’ is a related term to ‘buffers’.
Let's say that a person has a habit like clockwork of getting angry at three o'clock on
Tuesdays, but they are not aware of this as being a clockwork habit. Well what is it
that keeps them from seeing this about themselves? ‘Buffers’ is one word for this.
People's ‘attention span’ is generally very small in this direction, relating to ‘pattern
recognition’, and the modern forms of education and social conditions are somewhat
responsible for this, or for making people more ‘prone’ to such.
The constant change in the ‘sense perceptions’ or ‘outer’ environment is part to the
‘hypnotizing’ or entrancing of ‘attention’ that then leads to ‘daydreaming’, ‘drifting
off’, or ‘forgetting oneself’ etc. There is a lack in the ability of ‘attention’ to stay with
the current ‘sense perceptions’. This is something similar to a lack of ‘storage
capacity’ in relation to the ‘amount’ of ‘information’ that is in the ‘sense
perceptions’, which then causes an overwhelming to the ‘data processing’ of such
information, this giving ‘crashes’ and ‘skipping’ in computer systems.
In people's experience this is usually reflected the other way round, meaning that
people feel, see, or think the current ‘sense perception’ environment to be ‘boring’,
the ‘same old’ story, and are hence ‘drawn’ into ‘imagining otherwise’.

This is partly due to ‘education’ in the sense of ‘value’, people are mostly told, in
different ways, that there is no inherent value in ‘sense perceptions’ themselves, or by
themselves. People are told that 'sense perceptions' or 'sense perceiving' has no value
in relation to ‘learning’ or ‘knowledge’, as a means to such. People are told that only
‘thinking’ or ‘thought’ is of value towards ‘learning’ and ‘knowledge’, that it is the
only means to such, or the only ‘valid’ means. So there is the ingrained attitude that a
person ‘should’ be ‘thinking’ rather than ‘merely’ attending ‘sense perception’.

Also, there is a disease, a friction, that is experienced by most people from the
‘content’ of the current ‘sense perception’ environment, a dissatisfaction with it, or
with attending it alone without ‘imagination’, there is a sense of something lacking
in it, or rather a sense of something lacking in the people themselves that is closer to
the surface in the absence of common ‘imagination’, and hence this is usually
avoided, this avoidance being related to ‘buffers’.
In most things that people do, they are unaware of ‘why’ they do it, they do not
really ‘know’ or ‘understand’ the reason for it. In this sense people are mostly
‘mechanical’ operating without purpose or intention, or without the ‘knowing’ of
such. They only ‘know’ or are aware of the ‘effect’ not the ’cause’, and even then only
to a small extent. People's behaviour is then ‘compulsive’ and is usually simply a
means of using the energy that their being ‘produces’, this being similar then to
This energy, that could be directed and used ‘intentionally’, is mostly being released
as ‘unintentional’ ‘thought’, or ‘daydreaming’, and bodily movements and 595
tensions, as well as ‘emotional outbursts’. People find it hard to sustain
‘intentionality’, or intentional action and activity, as they become quickly
‘distracted’, or the activity soon becomes ‘mechanical' and is performed
‘automatically’ without their noticing. They no longer participate in the activity,
the, or their, ‘I’ not being present to the activity or directing it. The ‘I’ is ‘usurped’ by
the ‘automatic’ capability, which of course has its necessary uses and benefits, but

when operating ‘mechanically’ and ‘automatically’ the potential for learning and
understanding is all but lost and the habitual has rule over the intentional, the past
has rule over the present, or the ‘lower’ order ‘survival’ tendencies and operation,
such as 'aggression' , has rule over the ‘higher’ order ‘ideals’ or operations, such as
It takes little seeming ‘similarity’ or ‘sameness’ of the current experience in order for
the habitual to take over. The ‘past’, and there also the ‘future’ in ‘expectation’, is
being ‘projected’ on to the ‘present’, serving as a blinker to insight. The ‘Sleep’ and
trance of ‘attention’ keeps man out of the place of learning, being the ‘present’, and
keeps him lost in the ‘past’ and ‘future’, unable to act with actual purpose through
time, unable to connect his past, present, and future in a meaningful way, unable to
realize or make significant meaning, or to actualize his creative abilities. Without this
man is unable to be really happy, to have ‘fulfilment’ in life, and can lead to the
various forms of distraction and suffering that affect not just himself but also others.
Not to ‘Sleep’, or to be ‘awake’, requires some ‘energy management’ in relation to
‘attention’ and intention’, and in this sense it ‘takes money to make money’, there is
the aspect of ‘investment’ and ‘use it or lose it’. In ‘Sleep’ there can be no order of
values, of what ‘really matters’ really mattering. In ‘Sleep’ man is kept from his own
‘mortality’, kept from the real value and valuing of his time. In ‘Sleep’ man is simply
‘persisting’ without ‘persistence’. There is no ‘individual’ in ‘Sleep’ only
‘disconnected images’. There are no real ‘morals’, or conscience, in ‘dreams’ or
‘dreamers’, and without such they are ‘night-mares’.
‘Buffers’ are involved in keeping people from experiencing the suffering of their own
contradictions and from making concerted efforts towards these contradictions.
They keep a person from seeing the immense gulf between what a person ‘says’ and
‘does’, between their ‘professed’ values and ideals, and their actual actions and
manifestations. It is said that when a child is born they undergo the ‘trauma’ or
‘wounding’ that comes from being exposed to all the contradictions of the people
around them and the world at large. This suffering requires some compensative
process to enable the child to survive and function amidst such surrounding

conditions. The contradiction and the suffering coming from it must be hidden
from view to a large extent, pushed into the ‘subconscious’, so to speak.
The compensative processes enable the so called ‘ego’ to maintain some sense of
‘order’, and these processes could be called ‘buffers’. But the contradictions and
suffering cannot be completely hidden, and so there is the general sense of
‘unhappiness’, ‘dis-satisfaction’, ‘un-fulfilment’, and ‘lack’ that is in most people and
contributes to most everything they do, being the reason for their doing it. Though
their motivation is essentially coming from these ‘wounds’ in order to try to ‘heal’
them, this motivation is mostly inverted in its process of manifestation. So instead of
‘healing’ and revealing these ‘wounds’ the opposite is the result.
Most of the motivations are directed towards the ‘outside’, in outer activities, but as
the ‘problem’ is on the ‘inside’ these activities tend to lead nowhere, only being
temporary distractions at best. This is not to say that ‘outer’ activities cannot lead
anywhere in regard of self knowledge and ‘healing’, but only to the extent that they
are connected to the relevant ‘internal’ activities and processes, and of course here
there are plenty of considered ‘internal’ activities that lead nowhere due to how they
are performed, such as various so called ‘meditations’ and ‘psychological’ ‘self
diagnoses’ that further the ‘sleep’ and ‘mechanicality’ of man.
Q: Could you say something about man being defined as a ‘three brained being’ in
the context of the Work?
A: Yes. Man is seen as having three basic modes of experience, and this relates to the
idea of the Triad and Trinity as being expressions of the essential laws of existence
and reality, of 'realness'. These three modes of experience are over-layered,
superimposed, so to speak, one on top of the other and together they form our
experience of self and reality.
In each person these three modes can be in varying degrees, or forms, of relation in
terms of functionality, one or another mode can be functioning closer to, or further
from, its current ‘best’ or most effective level etc. Each of these modes of experience,
each of these brains, along with its own individual functioning, has a degree of
connectivity and communication with the others.

As man generally functions with a low degree of coherence between his three brains,
his experience of reality is ‘distorted’ in a ‘compensatory’ fashion. A relatively ‘false’
or ‘lower dimensional’ appearance of reality is presented, or in other words, a
relatively higher dimensional reality is attempted to be ‘translated’ into a ‘lower’
dimension, or lower dimensionality.
This of course brings adjustments that can potentially give rise to the experience of a
certain kind of ‘paradox’ that seems to negate the laws or frame work of the apparent
given dimensionality. As the brains generally are, their degree of connectivity,
communication, and interaction is such that they can hinder each other in their own
relative functioning, they can interfere with each other so to speak, which then
hinders any potential of a higher order co-operative working or transformation.
So these brains need to come into some proper functional alignment before they can
individually and collectively develop and transform, or realize their potential. This
coming into alignment and greater connectivity and communication of the brains is
likened to re-translating the lower dimensional experience into the higher reality.
With each brain, mode of experience, or ‘lens’ in alignment the ‘image’ can become
‘three dimensional’. With the brains out of alignment the experience of the ‘self’ is in
one sense ‘illusory’. The ‘self’ is experienced as a ‘false’ whole or unity, an abstract or
compensated ‘image’ of such whole or unity is taken for the real.
So here man must first ‘awake’ to the nature of his being and self in terms of being a
triad or trinity and also in terms of his common ‘false’ sense of self, his common
sense of self unity, or unity of self. Each of the brains ‘sees’ in its own way, as a mode
of experience, but each brain is also a ‘seeing’, has its own ‘attention’ or ‘awareness’
so to speak. When these ‘converge’ or relate together in a certain way it gives the very
sense of self, in a variety of forms of expression, or ‘states’ of being.
So the process of cohereing and integrating the three brains suggests a shift or
transformation of the common form of ‘identity’ as well as transformation of
functionality in terms of the extra dimensionality of experience. The ‘lack’ of
coherence, inter-connectivity, and organisation of the three brains makes them more
subject to the flux of surrounding conditions, and ‘less able’ of effective co-ordinated

action in relation to intents, purposes, and challenges, and ‘less able’ of effective self
It is said that a man's role in relation to his three brains is that of the work of
effectively communicating the data in each of his brains to the others, he is the
middle man or means of connectivity and communication between the brains, at
least in part. A man is responsible by his work of attention and intention towards his
Without coherence the brains are spoken of as being ‘collapsed’ on top of each
other, like a toy ‘slinky’ that can be ‘flat’ or can be stretched out, revealing the
sections between or spiral structure. So to get the three brains in relative alignment is
often spoken of in terms of an ‘expansion’ or a kind of ‘separation’ that is more like
an ordering or organising of the same with the same, just as ‘separating’ colours out
from a mix into a spectrum or rainbow.
The three brains have been named as the ‘head’ brain, relating to ‘mind’ and ‘seeing’,
the ‘sensing’ brain, relating to the spine and ‘sensation’ and ‘movement’, and the
feeling brain, relating to the solar plexus area and ‘emotion’ and what might be called
a kind of ‘intuition’. These are brief descriptions of course, but the three brains
transcend the ‘physical body’, at least in its common perception and conception,
though they have a 'physiological' basis that is mostly known to science. The general
apparent ‘physical’ aspect to experience only relates to one of the three brains, and
this ‘physicality’, in being tied to dimensionality, or the current three dimensional
experience, is also relative and therefore transformative in experience. The
‘perception’ of ‘physicality’ is related to the current working of the brains, their
degree of coherence and integration.

The general ‘state’ of relation of the brains has been called the ‘center of gravity’ in
one sense, and ones ‘common presence’ in another, in the terms of the Work.
The ‘head’ and ‘sensing’ brains are hardly connected, hardly in effective
communication, in one sense they are hardly aware of each other. This leads to the
‘disconnection’ and ‘disparity’ in people between their ‘inner’ and their ‘outer’, their

‘mind’ and ‘body’, their ‘ideal’ and ‘actual’. So this gives the ‘sleep’ that we
mentioned earlier. The ‘head’ and ‘sensing’ brains are also related to the ‘Indian’
terms of ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’, their dual principles to reality.

The relation of these dual principles in man is described such that the ‘consciousness’
or ‘head’ principle is ‘trapped’ or ‘ensnared’ in the ‘nature’ or ‘sensing’ principle, that
is to say that their relation is ‘biased’ towards the ‘nature’ or ‘sensing’, at least in this
period of time. So ‘consciousness’ must be ‘raised’ to balance, it must be ‘raised’ from
the ‘sensing’ by integration with the ‘sensing’, coming to know the ‘sensing’ and
thereby itself.
The ‘head’ and ‘sensing’ brains need to become ‘synchronised’ in their motion or
functioning, and the ‘feeling’ brain is said to be the means of this process in action.
Here the ‘feeling’ brain is said to be the most ‘undeveloped’ of the brains in general,
due to its ‘structure’ or ‘substance’ which is described as being ‘diffuse’ throughout
the being and as having taken a ‘separatized’ or ‘divided’ form in our common
It could be said that it is actually the ‘head’ brain that is the most ‘under developed’
of man’s brains, but in terms of transformation in general and mans common
position, it makes sense to emphasise the ‘feeling’ brain. So in order to get some
coherence and communication between the ‘head’ and ‘sensing’ brains, the ‘feeling’
brain must itself be ‘organised’. Without their integration the ‘feelings’ or emotions
equally feed into the disconnection or miscommunication between the brains, and
further the ‘entrancement’ of ‘consciousness’ in ‘sensation’.
Generally man is only operating on the level of ‘sensation’, his ‘mind’ and ‘feeling’
are mostly lacking. This feeds into his ‘daydreaming’ and ‘ineffective’ ‘disordered’
thinking, as well as emotional reactivity and ‘moods’ etc. Even in man's ‘sensation’ he
is mostly lacking, in that he is hardly ever embodied, experiencing the organic
presence and functioning of his body, hardly aware of his body at all in quality or
duration, this also then furthering bodily problems from unnecessary tensions and
bad posture etc.

In order to begin to align the brains, some intentional attention must be applied to
the body and sensation, to foster bodily presence and awareness. This can aid the
posture and also the relative ‘posture’ of the ‘mind’ or thinking, and can also give
potential for greater feeling or emotional recognition. The general feeling or
emotional experience is ‘divided’ into two, or two poles, which are considered as
being ‘actually’ ‘separate’, as are their various ‘shades’ in between, when they are part
of the same singular feeling or emotion at different ‘frequency’. Further, in the
relation of ‘mind’ and ‘feeling’ or emotion, the emotions are mostly inverted in their
‘apprehension’ and interpretation, giving opposite than intended results or
The feeling or emotional ‘guidance system’, or ‘gyroscopic balance’, is misinterpreted
and thereby misused. ‘Negative’ and ‘unpleasant’ emotion is taken as being ‘bad’ and
as some form of ‘judgement’, self judgement, that then leads to some further
‘psychological’ processing in order to try to determine some ’cause’ and thereby
enable some change of the effect. This position is upheld by the lack of
understanding of a person’s own ability towards their emotions and their
interpretations of them, which then means that emotions are then ‘projected’ into
surrounding circumstances, taken as being dependant upon, and dictated to, by the
outer conditions. This can feed into a sense of a lack that can further the
misinterpretation of the emotions and their functional purpose.
The resulting reaction and attitude towards ‘negative’ or ‘unpleasant’ emotion is
then to ‘turn away’ whenever one arises or appears, or to further indulge such in
ineffective processing. This removes most of the potential to come to understand
and transform emotions and to develop the ‘feeling’ brain and thereby the
communication between the ‘head’ and ‘sensing’ brains.
Direct attention needs to be fostered towards the emotional flux, to observe it in
relation to ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ activity or changes. Once the emotions can be
‘separated’ or distinguished from the surrounding conditions they can then be
connected in awareness to the physical body, in a ‘somatic’ sense. This can aid their
observation or recognition towards potential understanding and transformation.

The emotions are communicating all the time through the flux or waves of emotion
and through the mental images and their interplay with emotions. If the emotions
are attended with a quality of attention and energetic sense of embrace, then they
can begin to make connection to the ‘mind’ and be 'translated'. They need to be
attended with a sense of full self exposure rather than any sense of ‘control’ or
‘resistance’, if anything, they need a quality of ‘love’ in order to establish
communication and integration.
In terms of the Work this is related to the ‘non expression’ of ‘negative emotions’
and also ‘self remembering’ in one sense. The quality of attention and the energetic
embrace towards the emotions relates to the ‘non expression’ of the ‘negative’, and
then there is the remembrance of the higher or positive in order to aid the
transformation or harmonization of the ‘negative emotion’. This linking of the
‘mind’ and ‘emotion’ and body, establishing communication, is also spoken about as
the connection of the ‘subconscious’ and the ‘conscious’ in the terms of the Work.
In these terms, the actual consciousness is what is commonly taken as or called the
subconscious. So the common ‘subject’ consciousness is actually the means to the
commonly experienced ‘subconscious’. The common view results from the
misunderstanding of the emotional intelligence and a beings own role in their triadic
nature, in regard of their ‘self’ and attention and intention.
Once some relative balance and understanding of a mans functioning is acquired,
mainly in regard of the emotions and their mental connection, then work can
proceed towards developing each brain individually and collectively through their
co-operative operation. This can be done through many means, especially those
involving simultaneous co-ordinated bodily, mental, and energetic action and
All teachings aim in practice to harmonize and give coherence to the three brains,
which can then enable connection to the ‘higher’ centers and development of the
'higher bodies of man', in the terms of the Work. These are expressed in various
teachings and have their particular functional properties.
It is said that only when the three brains are in relative order can there be manifest

the inherent presence of conscience that is in us, which is covered over or unable to
actualize through our instability of functioning. In the terms of the Work it is this
conscience that can enable a beings connection with the Divine and with the
intelligence that is involved in the realization of the Cosmic Purpose, of man and
It is said in certain teachings that the transformation or transition from one
dimension, or realm of function and being, to another requires three ‘simultaneous’
kind of movement or motion being blended in a certain way, order, or ratio. This is
expressed in the ‘physical’ aspect through the bodily practice of simultaneous
movement in the three axis of motion, and also in the movement of the energetic
presence of feeling and sensation through the body, through the use of intentional
attention, and it is also expressed in the intentional movement or activity of the
mind in different ways.
So the human position is in a circuit and cycle of his three brains or natures, which
require equal navigation and integration in order to give the necessary balance for
transformation. In another Work representation of man as a three brained, or
natured being, there is given the image of man as a cart, a horse, and a driver.
The cart has doors and seats for passengers and so the driver may be called a cabby.
The cart represents the body aspect, which is connected to horse via the cart shafts
etc, the horse represents the emotions which are connected to the driver by the reins,
and the driver is the mind aspect and he can hear or communicate with potential
passengers and also with the horse and cart in their work and upkeep etc.
As man is, he is hardly aware of his current state of being or of the functioning of his
cart, horse, and himself as the driver, and therefore each aspect is in dis-repair to
varying extents, yet is under the illusion of being ‘fine’ or ‘ok’. The driver spends
most of his time day dreaming and forgets where he is going and forgets to tend the
cart and horse etc.
Due to the state of the driver and also due to the relative education of the driver and
the horse they hardly understand one another, so are often at odds, the horse not
responding to the reins of the driver, or the driver misusing and misinterpreting the

horse. As man is, any passenger may potentially jump in the cart and use him as taxi,
though he will likely not serve them well in any case given his functioning.
So man has no ‘self will’ or order to his general functioning and cannot thereby hear
or actualize the voice of the Master, who owns the horse and cart and who employs
the driver, and who may come to be a 'passenger'. The Master and his Voice relate to
the Teachings and to the higher sides of man, such as the conscience, 'I', and higher
bodies of the Work.
In what I have said before, about the interaction with emotions and connecting or
translating them to mind, this relates to what is called ‘self confrontation’ and
‘mentation by form’ in the terms of the Work.
Self confrontation being related to the quality of attention towards the emotions and
their energetic embrace, and mentation by form being involved the translation of the
emotional intelligence in mental form, that can then lead to understanding and
Mentation by form is also related, in a sense, to ‘kinesthesia’, or to the aspect of
‘mind’ that is involved in such. This is where the body perceives another body's
movements and simultaneously plays out an ‘internal virtual’ simulation of the other
body's movements, as how they would be experienced by itself. Most of this is of
course relatively unconscious to us, but people can access it through a form of
‘visualization’ that is more ‘actualization’, in terms of the accuracy of the ‘image’ and
an actual ‘physical’ relation to one’s own body or being.
This is practiced in forms of Taoism and Taoist meditation and in internal energy
arts such as internal Tai Chi and Qi Gong, where specific organs are ‘visualized’ at
the same time as ‘internally’ sensed and felt. This can provide an ‘actual’ connection
in terms of energetic healing and transformation and also in terms of an information
download and access of a relatively higher nature of functioning.
This being expressed in the Work in terms of the reception and digestion of ‘finer
impressions’, and in the sense of the upgrading of the working of human being, who
is seen as as three story energy factory or refinery with varying degrees of efficiency
and production, and who serves in the Cosmic transformation of energies and

In terms of the connections between the three brains, the physical blood is linked to
the interaction and communication between the body and emotion, and the blood of
the ‘second body’ or ‘Kesdjan body’, in the Work terms, is what connects the ‘mind’
and emotions and this is called ‘Hanbledzoin’ and its quality and functioning is said
as being dependant on the intentional action towards the integration of the three
This second blood or ‘substance’, which has its equivalents in different teachings, is
what aids the transformation and coherence of the brains, particularly relating to the
‘feeling brain’, and aids the connection to the higher bodies or realms etc. It is also
connected to what is expressed in the Work as a process of ‘coating’ the higher bodies
or a kind of ‘accumulation’ of substances for transformation at a certain point of
The exercise of Intentionality is often applied least in connection to the ‘feeling’
brain or emotions, as the common form of psyche sees it as ‘unnatural’ or ‘fake’ etc,
and this is one of the main reasons people are cut off from understanding and
transforming their emotions, ideas of lack in this area feed back into the emotionality
of lack. So ‘intentional’ interaction and navigation of the emotions is the means to
another Work term of the 'Reason of Understanding' in comparison to man's
common form of the 'reason of knowing'. In the former there is a certain interaction
of the three brains such that the data processed in a moment becomes forever part of
their being and means of transformation, this does not necessarily mean static but it
does not become dependent on being regularly ‘refreshed’, which is necessary with
data that is taken in the form of the reason of knowing, which in being only partially
digested or assimilated, can become a barrier to transformation, it becomes further
conditioning etc.
This is spoken of in the Work in relation to the interaction of mind and feeling and
the link to the kesdjan body, in that Reason of understanding and a degree of
impartiality, itself linked to conscience, is only possible with the presence of the
kesdjan body, at least to some form of coherence etc. In this sense it is said most

people do not have the kesdjan, or that it is still undeveloped and remains as a
potential embryo, due to the lack of producing the relevant substance or energy that
is a degree of functionality and communication of the three brains.
The nature of having a triadic brain makes man very special in reality, in that he can
mirror the ‘image’ of the creative laws and creative structure of reality, this being
connected to the ideas of Will and Reason. Man can potentially participate in the
creation of reality, at least on his relative scale of being, he can participate in the
Creative Will. In this sense the Gurdjieff teaching can appear different to some of
the more recent religious interpretations, in regard of the nature of the Creator and
Creation relation, and the nature of Creation itself as an ‘act’ of Will in relation to
Time etc. The idea of the triad is in the reconciling of the duality that doesn't permit
‘evolutionary’ change or growth, giving apparent stagnation or degeneration, or
conflict etc. To work means to recognise the potential of choice in each moment, and
this is related to self remembering and the impulses of man of ‘I Am’ , I Can’, and ‘I
Wish’, which Gurdjieff speaks of in ‘Life is Real’.
Each brain requires its relative food in a healthy ratio that is according to our
individuality, and thus we take part in the larger scheme of the food chain and chain
of energies and substance transformations, their involutions coming down the scale
and evolutions going up etc. In this sense there is no ‘cheating’ in ‘spiritual’
development, only more or less effective action and functioning, and this relates to
This is why the Work is also called the Fourth Way, in that it works on the three
brains at once as means to their integration, instead of the other three ways of the
fakir, relating to the body, the way of the monk, relating to the emotions, and the
way of the yogi, relating to the mind, this broadly speaking of course. These other
ways being more ‘sequential’ in their general ‘conception’ of transformation so to
speak. In this connection the Fourth way has also been called simply the most
suitable form of teaching for the ‘modern man’ in contemporary civilisation and
culture. So it is more a way of living rather than a set form of practice, though there
are of course parallels between all teachings.

Q: Could you please say something more about the Kesdjan body and Hanbledzoin?
A: Yes. The kesdjan body has been related by some people to the ‘astral’ body, which
is said to be made from a ‘finer’ or varied kind of matter or materiality than that of
the physical body. It is therefore linked with extra dimensional capabilities and
capacities, such as those related to ‘astral travel’ , ‘telepathy’, and the like.
This body has it equivalents in other teachings. This ‘second’ body is said as being
‘dormant’ in most people, often described as as being in a ‘seed’ or ‘embryo’ state and
is connected to the ‘alchemical gold’ that is needed to make more ‘gold’ and the
‘philosophers stone’ etc. In the Work terms the kesdjan body is called the ‘vessel’ of,
or to, the ‘Spirit/Soul’, and is considered as one of the ‘higher being bodies’, the Soul
itself being the other.
These bodies have been connected to the ‘higher centers’ in man which are said to be
developed themselves yet remain only in a potential or possible ‘state’, removed from
the ‘lower centers’ and man’s consciousness in general. So it is said that it is the
connection to, or manifestation of, these higher centers that is needed, and that this
involves the development of a relative body or medium, via the integration and
coherent functioning of the lower centers.
Along with being a three brained being man is also said to be a ‘dual natured being’,
which has been related in one sense to the ‘organic’ and ‘psychic’ sides of man, and
also the physical and kesdjan bodies. The kesdjan body, and the integration of the
lower centers, is said to develop through a certain kind of ‘friction’, or interaction
and relation, of the ‘dual natures’ of being, that can give a ‘fusion’ and ‘liberate’ or
refine the relevant ‘energy’ or ‘substance’ of transformation. This process relates to
the feeling brain ‘substance’ or formation that is ‘diffuse’ throughout the being and
its potential organisation or coherence.
The kesdjan ‘embryo’ itself, in terms of its ‘organs’ so to speak, is in a separatized
form and requires its component parts or ‘organs’ to come together in order to form
the complete ‘embryo’ that can then be ‘birthed’. The kesdjan body ‘organs’ could be
said to be ‘embedded’ ‘in’ the physical body, though the opposite may be nearer the
case, and they are in ‘separate localities’ and require an ‘energetic’ connection and

coherence. Relative to the physical body or the general experience, the kesdjan body
is connected to the ‘subtle’ energy system of our being, and its ‘organs’ themselves
are connected and integrated through such energetic system and its currents, or its
flow and blendings.
The kesdjan body is said to be fed, or sustained and developed, through the
‘substance’ and ‘energy’ of ‘air’ , or breath, and ‘impressions’, in relation to ‘thought’
or ‘mental’ activity and data. These can be said to energize the Hanbledzoin that is
called the ‘blood’ of the second body, this relating to the energetic system and its
connection to the physical body. Through an ‘intentional’ action towards the breath
and ‘impressions’, in the sense of attention, hanbledzoin is said to be energized and
the feeling brain developed.
This process involves the aspects of sensation and feeling and their integration
through the physical body, this being through the use of intentional attention and
movement of the currents or energies of sensation and feeling in relation to the
‘organic’ nature. This process also involves the active, and passive, action of the
‘mind’, in terms of active, intentional, contemplation and movement of the data of
the ‘mind’. Through greater awareness of the processes of being functioning, the
intake, output, and transformation of substances and energies , the kesdjan body can
be developed and the lower centers integrated. This begins with the ‘organic’ aspect
in developing attention and presence in the physical body, particularly in relation to
the process of breathing and the blood flow, as well as the bones.
Attention can come to ‘permeate’ more of the ‘organic’ processes and stimulate the
energetic transformation, or the refining of the being functioning. This then aids the
development of the ‘psychic’ aspect of man in terms of clarity, insight, and a greater
capacity and mobility of ‘mind’, or the data of mind. This being an extra
dimensionality of ‘mind’ or thinking, and related to the intelligence of the ‘higher
feeling’ center and Reason of Understanding, and also expressed as the establishment
of the relation between the subconscious and the conscious, or essence and
personality, in the terms of the Work.
The dis-harmonious functioning of the being, and the inherited, stored, ‘toxic

products’ from past experiences that are in the being, result in kind of energetic
‘holes’ in the ‘atmosphere’ of the kesdjan body or its ‘substance’, relating to the
‘potency’ and flow of hanbledzoin. The intentional ‘movement’ of the ‘substance’ or
‘energy’ of hanbledzoin has been connected, in one sense, to the intentional
movement of ‘qi’ through the body, in which the heart is central. Here the heart has
been directly related to the kesdjan body or its means of interface with the physical
body. Emotions have been connected to specific physical organs and their related
processes and functionings, and here there is the link between intentional attention
towards the body and the integration and development of the feeling brain.
The energy or substance that is connected to ‘air’, or breath, and ‘mental
impressions’ can be taken in and ‘concentrated’ or intensified in or through the heart
, and can then be intentionally moved through the organism and directed or
localized to specific organs and physical processes, and this can be healing in many
ways. In terms of the Work this is related to the stimulation of the centers in varying
orders to give different results, just as ringing different bells in different orders, and
it is also related to the establishment or realization of ‘I’ in each center or totality and
to the ‘reverberation’ of ‘I Am’ and the impulse of ‘Wish’.
In the Work, the body 'movements' and inner exercises were aimed towards this
process of ‘consciousness’ permeating and coming to know the being formation and
functioning, through the energetic presence and system, in order to 'Do' or realize
the Creative Will. This is represented in different Teachings in different ways, such
as for one the symbol of the the eye on the hand or palm, expressing the development
of the eye of consciousness in seeing, knowing, and directing as able the energies of
the subtle and physical realms, relating here to hanbledzoin and the kesdjan body,
and in terms of brains the head and sensing integration. This opens up or actualizes
the extra dimensional realms of experience and functioning, new worlds of
In the kesdjan development, the ‘language’ of the subconscious is established with
the conscious, coherent communication and translation between them is established.
This gives the greater access and interaction with the experiential data that is

currently within a being, their brains, to which the common level of access is low,
and it also gives greater reception and assimilation of the subconscious data that is
present in a beings surrounding environment . In this sense, both ‘verbal thought’ or
language and ‘formal thought’ or language have been used as expressions of this
subconscious language or realm.
When the subconscious-conscious relation is established the wealth of data or
information around the being can be assimilated, and in this it would be hard to
believe the amount of information that is actually present to beings and in which
they have their being, yet to which they are unaware. The degree of density or
connectivity of information or meaning that is present and perceived in the
subconscious realm is much more than is present to the general functioning or
consciousness. This, and the extra dimensionality of the subconscious language, or
its language processing, communicating, and translation, is one expression of the
extra abilities of the kesdjan body, as is also the greater access into the actual history
of humanity and the world. This has been spoken of in terms of the access to a living
collective information field, in which the past is still living, at least in the sense of
being able to be ‘directly’ experienced or ‘perceived’, and in which the future is
present in a form of temporality that is above or outside of the linear form of
The kesdjan body, in connection to Essence and Individuality, is also said to be a
‘communal’ body, in terms of being a means of certain potential group
communications and activities. It is a means of healing not only individually but also
‘socially’, healing others or each other. In this, kesdjan bodies can serve as mediums
or middle men to the healing or integration of the physical-subtle energy system of
another or each other. This also has a generational and family aspect of healing.
In another communal sense, the kesdjan is said as being the means of forming a unity
of Will for a time towards the realization of some common aim, and this relates to it
being the means to a higher order of intelligence and its manifestation in action. This
common aim may only be relatively known to the kesdjan members, who may have
their own interpretations of the, or a, collective aim, as also their own individual aim

in such communal activity, and here each of the respective realizations of these aims
may be be intertwined in subtle ways. The interaction of kesdjan bodies as means to
higher intelligence is related to the level or realm of the Soul, and is expressed in such
as 'group souls', where the kesdjan members can ‘form’ or manifest, or actualize, a
‘Soul’, as a kind of birthing of another order of ‘organism’ that the member ‘parents’
may then live on in, in some form, in a kind of ‘symbiotic’ relationship.
This also reflects on a smaller scale in the course of an individuals life, wherein
moments of greater awareness, or presence etc, can come to form something
themselves on another level or mode of dimensionality, as a ‘parallel’ structure that
actually encompasses the general mode or level. The extra degree of communication
and intimacy of the kesdjan body or realm, is expressed in different ways in different
Teachings, in kinds of ‘communion’ or ‘exchange’ and also ‘lineage’ and
‘transmission’ etc.
It is said that in order to first establish connection with the subconscious, the frontal
consciousness must be intentionally 'distracted' or engaged in some form, such that
it doesn't hinder, screen, or distort the given data of experience, enabling it to be
assimilated directly by the subconscious, and various means are used for this in
different teachings...