I have again read with the greatest interest naturally this astonishing book by G. Gurdjieff. I believe that the most important thing, objectively, is that in this book there are a number of observations which indicate a superterrestrial source:
- The point of view about devils.
- The affirmation that there are, at present, four centres of initiates on the earth, and the situation of these centres.
- The forbidding to impart true information directly to ordinary minds.
- The difference between mental knowledge, which is an obstacle to real understanding; and the knowledge of “being”—the only real knowledge. This, perhaps, is the most important point.
- The fact that it is Buddhism (in its distorted forms) that has produced occultism, theosophy, psychoanalysis and so on.
- The fact that only revelation can teach us something.
- The suffering of God.
We are thus in the presence of one who, in a certain measure, speaks with authority.
In the second place, very many of the ideas, though common-sensical, are based on intuitions well above the normal: Every criticism of modern life and of human history is perfectly just, and this is perhaps one of the most important things in the book, since it is absolutely necessary to understand that all our ideas have been falsified - before we have been able to correct at least some of them.
The Greeks and the Romans have been responsible for putting in train fundamental errors—and then the Germans.
God forgives all.
The importance of the lawful inexactitudes in the transmission of real teaching in Art.
The criticisms of the doctrine of reincarnation.
In the third place it is necessary to state that a great part of the book is not clear, and one has the right to suspect that G.G. has done this intentionally. Leaving his sense of humour on one side one can follow his idea that it is forbidden to teach directly, and that one can tell lies if these lies are useful to humanity; this shows that he has probably put errors or intentional inexactitudes in his book so as to compel his followers to exercise their own judgment and thus themselves develop and reach a higher level, to which—according to the theories of G.G., these followers would not arrive at if he, G.G., taught them the truth directly. In the latter case they would be in the category which is called “mental knowledge”, whereas G.G. wishes them to reach the category of “knowledge of being”, and the first hinders the second.
It is on this that each reader must take his own stand. I am quite ready to tell you mine. I place among the myths which are to be rejected, completed or explained:
- The person of Beelzebub, who is evidently a transformation of G.G. himself—leaving on one side the question of who is G.G.
- All the story of the central sun, of the planets, of the earth and the moon; and of eternal retribution for a small number of beings, which contradicts the idea of a universal pardon.
- The idea of Christ as only one of the messengers; in this case it is necessary to identify the Logos, which is perfectly indicated in the chapter on purgatory.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the teachings of G.G. should be able to play a very important role in our time if they are explained by minds first of all endowed with a certain preliminary knowledge and a developed critical sense.
I think further that it is a compliment to G.G. to believe that this is exactly what he intended himself. You know as well as I, and even better, that he had a critical sense and a sense of humour extremely well developed; and further, a very poor opinion of the intellectual capacity of people to whom he spoke in general. I shall be very happy to know what you think of these points of view, and I shake you very cordially by the hand.
Posts
