Category: Spiritual

Tobias Blessed

Everything is fine

Everything is fine.
Whatever happens is what must happen.
Mentality doubts,
Question, imagines possibilities.
Everything is as it must be.
See, be present, honor a Master:
Goodness incarnate.
Yet, uncarnate Goodness is Goodness.
Everything is fine.
I want, I desire, I would, I should:
Disruptions happen.
Everything is fine.

esse or accidere

Accident: from Latin Accidere ‘to fall or happen’.

When I trip on a crack in the sidewalk, spill the hot coffee I am carrying and have an aching toe, I call it an accident and blame myself for not being more alert, not paying enough attention. Or, I may recognize from this that I have been inattentive and become more attentive, now aware of the mild burn on my hand and my aching toe, and shrugging off the disturbance.

Clearly, stubbing my toe ‘happened’ and so, by definition it can be considered an accident. However, was it really unintentional? That step, which was interrupted by the rise in the sidewalk, surely, was no less unintentional than the dozen which preceded it. I was just as inattentive with them as I was with that fatal step.

We have extended the definition of ‘accident’ to imply unpleasant. My misstep had a momentary unpleasant result, but with a broader perspective I see it as a gift. Do I still call it an accident?

We have also extended the meaning of accident to mean an event which is unforeseen, unintended. I guess this comes from our assumption that most of our activities are intentional. Is it necessary to point out that, with a little self-observation, this assumption is proven incorrect. In fact, the vast majority of my actions and experiences are unintended.

So, based on the standing definition of an unforeseen event, it seems that in life, it is closer to the truth that everything is an accident.

On the other hand, Gurdjieff speaks of a Law of Accident. If it is a ‘Law’, then it seems preposterous to say events are accidents. Like the digestion of my breakfast, there is not a direct intention behind it, it is not even foreseen, unless I think about it. But, my thinking about it has no effect on its happening or not happening. It happens. By the original Latin meaning, it Accidit, but certainly, it is not an accident.

Readers of Gurdjieff often suggest that through growth in being, my actions can become intentional, I will, as Gurdjieff suggests, come out from under the Law of Accident. Does this mean I will then ‘will’ my digestion? Sounds silly to suggest it but the point is to ask at what level independent will is expected to operate.

When pressed by Ouspensky about his insistence that we cannot ‘do,’ “And can nobody do anything?” Gurdjieff responded, “That is another question. In order to do it is necessary to be. And it is necessary first to understand what to be means.” At another time, Gurdjieff elaborated that, “The ‘man-machine’ can do nothing. To him and around him everything happens. In order to do it is necessary to know the law of octaves, to know the moments of the ‘intervals’ and be able to create necessary ‘additional shocks.’”

So, in order to have any intentional impact on what happens, one has ‘to be.’ In order to ‘be,’ one has to ‘know how to be.’ Even then, the only intentional impact one can have is to act at the precisely right moment in the flow of an octave, the flow of action, to keep it going in the intended direction. Rather like nudging a satellite or asteroid at the right moment with just the right force, in just the right direction, to keep in on the preferred course or avoid a catastrophic collision.

To summarize, as I understand what Gurdjieff is suggesting: Everything happens, however, if I Am present, there may be a moment when I can act intentionally and have a small impact which may be consequential. However, these opportunities are very rare, and in order to be ready for them, I have ‘to be’ always, prepared to act. I have to Be, knowing there is virtually nothing I can ‘do.’ Yet, perhaps with faith that what is happening is ‘according to law.’

In conclusion, my first responsibility is to Be. Until I am firm in this, I can forget about ‘doing’ externally. Perhaps though, doing for me is to prevent the law of accident from interrupting Being. I admit that this is still more than I manage most of my days, hours, minutes. In fact, I can not even honestly claim that I know what ‘to be’ means.

“Ay, there’s the rub.”

Do I Lie?

Do you think, or
Are you thought, or
Are you thoughts?
Are you caught?

Do you breath, or
Are you breath, or
Are you breathed?
Is there death?

Do you age, or
Do you climb, or
Are you always?
Is there time?

Do I lie, or
Do I rhyme, or
Do I hide
Behind thoughts on line?

The Crucifixion

Jesus died on the cross
And become Christ
At the hand of the Romans,
Who were ignorant.

Jesus first died
In baptism
At the hand of John
Who understood.

Jesus died by his own hand –
Gathering Fishermen,
Raising Lazarus,
Walking on Water,
On the Mount
Giving a sermon.

These were not by choice,
He protested,
“My time has not yet come.”
Then died.

The cross stands for Jesus’ story.
Yet, the cross is always and everywhere.
May these words mark a cross accepted.
Finish now.
Another is prepared with your next breath.

Everything is Nothing

Everything is Nothing.
Nothing is everything.
Everything in Nothing.
Nothing in Everything

“Nothing comes from nothing,”
Some mockingly say.
To reorient ignorance, we say,
“Nothing neither comes nor goes.”

Love and Nothing,
Identical twins,
Preside over and inundate
The pantheon of everything.

Love and Nothing,
The heart of everything,
And everybody,
Overflow continually.

See and feel
Your true heart
Shared by everybody and everything,
Overflowing everywhere.

Written Teachings are Not the Truth

You have no reason to believe me. I ask you not to believe anything that you cannot verify for yourselves. – Gurdjieff

It seems to me that virtually every record of the Gurdjieff teaching is a record of something said in a given place and time, to certain people. As such, we have to understand that it was said for those people at that time with the point of making a certain impression on those people. Therefore, it was not meant as ultimate truth for posterity.

The one exception is All and Everything. However, as Gurdjieff says in The Arousing of Thought, he wrote it for the subconscious, not in normal language for the false-consciousness. Therefore, it is almost completely allegorical. It may state ultimate truth, but not directly. There is also Herald of Coming Good, but Gurdjieff recalled it.

Reality of Being may appear to be an exception but remember that it is from notebooks and so was not prepared by Jeanne de Salzmann for publication. For all we know, it may have been meant simply for her own use preparing for talks with groups. The editors say she had reported that she was writing a book, but we don’t know how close this was to the book she intended. It does not appear to be anywhere close to a complete book. I am compelled to note that, despite its limitations, I feel it is exceptionally valuable.

Still, it seems to me that we must take all of it with some doubt but use it to investigate truth for ourselves.

Words are good but they are not the best.
The best is not to be explained by words.
Johann Goethe

The ‘best is not to be explained by words,’ because truth cannot be expressed in words. It is said that the teaching is an oral tradition. Although oral means by mouth, here it implies direct, not only by mouth. This is why there are few written expositions of great teachings, the teachers know their truth cannot be expressed in words. Of course, truth can also be communicated directly without an oral element.

I began by addressing the Gurdjieff, Fourth Way, teaching but this point is true of all spiritual teachings.

Knowledge is knowledge of the whole. Yet we can only receive it in fragments. Afterward we must connect them ourselves in order to find their place in an understanding of the whole.                                                                                                                   Jeanne de Salzmann

Nondual nature of Gurdjieff’s idea of the Ray of Creation

This post assumes a familiarity with the ideas of G.I. Gurdjieff. However, it may be of interest to those studying nondual concepts as well.

How do you understand, or picture, the Ray of Creation as it is presented by Gurdjieff, as recorded by Ouspensky in In Search of the Miraculous? I realized that I had generally pictured it as presented in the diagrams in the book. That is, hierarchical, sequential, and separate, like a family tree. Then I realized that Gurdjieff’s words as they are recorded in the book present a different picture.

Consider these excerpts: (emphasis is mine)

“In relation to the term ‘world’ it is necessary to understand from the very outset that there are many worlds, and that we live not in one world, but in several worlds.” P. 75

“If we take one of the many worlds created in the Absolute, that is, world 3, it will be the world representing the total number of starry worlds similar to our Milky Way. If we take world 6, it will be one of the worlds created within this world, namely the accumulation of stars which we call the Milky Way.” P. 80

“In the big cosmic octave, which reaches us in the form of the ray of creation, we can see the first complete example of the law of octaves. The ray of creation begins with the Absolute. The Absolute is the All. The All, possessing full unity, full will, and full consciousness, creates worlds within itself, in this way beginning the descending world octave. The Absolute is the do of this octave. The worlds which the Absolute creates in itself are si.” P. 132

“In order better to understand the significance of the law of octaves it is necessary to have a clear idea of another property of vibrations, namely the so-called ‘inner vibrations.’ This means that within vibrations other vibrations proceed, and that every octave can be resolved into a great number of inner octaves.

“Each note of any octave can be regarded as an octave on another plane.”  P. 135

The words here present a picture, not of a family tree of separate entities like the diagrams in the book, but more like a body with parts which serve individual functions yet are made of the same material, or energy, as the whole. Beelzebub says we have the potential to become particles of the Absolute. This picture seems to suggest we are already particles of the Absolute, all be it, not fully conscious particles. To put it another way, it is popular these days to say we are made of star stuff. Further, this picture suggests that we are made of and live within the sun; the sun is made of and lives within the milky way; the milky way is made of and lives within the world of all stars; all stars live within world three and everything which happens in it, is the action of world three; and everything, including everything we see, know and experience, lives within and is made of the Absolute.

To Die or Simply Fade Away

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, еxcept a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, еxcept a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

Some call it separate self,
Some ego.
Some, “What the hell are you talking about, this is who I am!”

For those who feel that something is amiss
Who hear the prophets’ warning as their gist
They look for the culprit now and then
Catching glimpses of impermanence within
But with each glance it vanishes
Replaced by claims of vanquishes.

The game continues with now and then
Becoming more and less
With warnings becoming mindfulness
And vanishings becoming emptiness
Vanquishes, “The quiet space within.”

So, is death due for the prideful one
Or quiet fading like last night’s dreams?
Is there one which could die,
Or many which evaporate, as
With thanks to the sun,
Does the puddle in the afternoon.

For any who know, let them know.
For those who are wondering,
Best keep wandering,
Appreciating the game,
Of sacred to-and-fro.

In the Beginning …

was …

“In the beginning was the Word.”
In the beginning was emptiness, the implicate and things.
In the beginning was the shadow of the hawk flying overhead;
In the beginning was the four-year old’s taste of ice cream,
              and being the last to finish,
              being tickled,
              finding a frog,
              running in circles;
In the beginning was the cool moist autumn morning;
In the beginning was walking over Ambassador Bridge,
               and feeling it move when the rail is over-looked;
In the beginning was the traffic jam, the long line, the late doctor, forgetting,
               and quiet felt;
In the beginning was crepuscule light, and
               Monk and Nellie,
               and the minor key;
In the beginning was the Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen …;
In the beginning was Duino and the Elegies,
               and Da Vinci’s smile;
In the beginning was the silence of the aged couple,
               and the look between them;
In the beginning was the cross
               with its torture and death,
               adoration and return;
In the beginning was the messenger,
               in resonance with emptiness;
In the beginning was the seeker, seeking the beginning.