In the Hendaye chapter, [if Le Mystere des Cathedrales] there is a mysterious inscription on the cross that Fulcanelli discusses, pointing out that the important thing about it is that the letter S, “which takes on the curving shape of a snake, corresponds to the Greek khi (X) and takes over its esoteric meaning”. “It is the helicoidal track of the sun, having arrived at the zenith of its curve across space, at the time of the cyclic catastrophe. It is a theoretical image of the Beast of the Apocalypse, of the dragon, which on the days of Judgment, spews out fire and brimstone on macrocosmic creation.”
Fulcanelli then gives the clue: “Thanks to the symbolic value of the letter S, displaced on purpose, we understand that the inscription must be translated in secret language, that is to say in the language of the gods, or the language of the birds, and that the meaning must be found with the help of the rules of Diplomacy.”
Fulcanelli discussed the subject of the “double catastrophe” much earlier than the second edition of Le Mystere, in which the Hendaye chapter first appeared. In his book Dwellings of the Philosophers, he launches his remarks on the platform of a mysterious obelisk located in the Crecy forest, that he describes as, “the tangible, expressive image, absolutely conforming to tradition, of the double terrestrial calamity, of the conflagration and of the flood, on the terrible Judgment Day”.
This suggests to me that someone - perhaps it was Fulcanelli himself - realized that the true message of Dwellings of the Philosophers was not getting through, and that a new mode of drawing attention to it had to be discovered.
So, let me ask the reader a question to contemplate: why are all of Fulcanelli’s books dedicated to “The Brothers Heliopolis”, and how does that relate to a “Double Catastrophe”? As Fulcanelli says, “Nature does not open the door of the sanctuary indiscriminately to everyone.” [...]
Based on observation and research, it is apparent that
humanity has now reached a great historical crossroads. We have come to the end of a two thousand year history of intolerance, cruelty and stupidity, which has created our present state of global, collective madness. Humanity, as a collective whole, is arriving at a state of Spiritual Bankruptcy, or “death”. And yet, we cannot assume that this is meaningless. Those who understand the principles of electricity will comprehend when I say that this present global estate is the way nature works and is the establishing of sufficient Contact Potential Difference for the inflow of energy of Cosmic Light. But just as it is in the case of the individual, when that point is reached - that Dark Night of the Soul - there is a “choice” that becomes apparent: the soul is offered the way “up” or the way “down”. In order for this coming inflow of energy to act in positive ways, to create a new reality of Free Will and Balance, there must be a point of contact that can conduct the energy. There must be human “micro-chips” or “circuits” sufficient to sustain this energy or all of humanity will perish. This means that only the development of human beings of a certain sort - with a certain “wiring”, so to say - will result in the global capacity to confront the energies of the
Crossroads.
The only other Turning Point in history that can be compared with the present one is that of the “Great Flood”. And so, we come to the idea that the search for the Holy Grail and the alchemical work of distillation of the Philosopher’s Stone is ALSO the “building of an Ark” in order to pass over into the New World. [...]
What is the specific purpose of the Cassiopaean work? Let’s stop and consider that: At the beginning of World War I, Ouspensky’s speculated to Gurdjieff that the war was a consequence of life in the industrial age, wherein humans were becoming more “mechanized” and had stopped thinking for themselves because they had things too easy. Gurdjieff replied:
“There is another kind of mechanization which is much more dangerous: being a machine oneself. Have you ever thought about the fact that all people themselves are machines? ...Look, all those people you see are simply machines - nothing more. ...You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical.”
At this point, Ouspensky raised what would seem to be a most logical objection:
“Why of course not! ...Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order.”
Gurdjieff replied:
“Of exactly the same order. These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines.”
He then continued:
“(Western civilization) armed with ‘exact knowledge’ and all the latest methods of investigation, has no chance whatever and is moving in a circle from which there is no escape.”
“That is because people believe in progress and culture. There is no progress whatever. Everything is just the same as it was thousands, and tens of thousands, of years ago. The outward form changes. The essence does not change. Man remains just the same. ‘Civilized’ and ‘cultured’ people live with exactly the same interests as the most ignorant savages. Modern civilization is based on violence and slavery and fine words.”
“...What do you expect? People are machines. Machines have to be blind and unconscious, they cannot be otherwise, and all their actions have to correspond to their nature. Everything happens. No one does anything. ‘Progress’ and ‘civilization’, in the real meaning of these words, can appear only as the result of conscious efforts. They cannot appear as the result of unconscious mechanical actions. And what conscious effort can there be in machines? And if one machine is unconscious, then a hundred machines are unconscious, and so are a thousand machines, or a hundred thousand, or a million. And the unconscious activity of a million machines must necessarily result in destruction and extermination.”
“It is precisely in unconscious involuntary manifestations that all evil lies. You do not yet understand and cannot imagine all the results of this evil. But the time will come when you will understand.”
Again we note: Gurdjieff was speaking at the beginning of the First World War, in the opening rounds of a century of unprecedented warfare. And now, almost a hundred years later, humanity is on the edge of a precipice and no one knows what feather will plunge us all into the abyss.
Wilhelm Reich wrote about the same problems that concerned Gurdjieff and Ouspensky:
Why did man, through thousands of years, wherever he built scientific, philosophic, or religious systems, go astray with such persistence and with such catastrophic consequences? […]
Is human erring necessary? Is it rational? Is all error rationally explainable and necessary? If we examine the sources of human error, we find that they fall into several groups:
Gaps in the knowledge of nature form a wide sector of human erring. Medical errors prior to the knowledge of anatomy and infectious diseases were necessary errors. But we must ask if the mortal threat to the first investigators of animal anatomy was a necessary error too.
The belief that the earth was fixed in space was a necessary error, rooted in the ignorance of natural laws. But was it an equally necessary error to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake and to incarcerate Galileo?[…]
We understand that human thinking can penetrate only to a given limit at a given time. What we fail to understand is why the human intellect does not stop at this point and say: “this is the present limit of my understanding. Let us wait until new vistas open up.” This would be rational, comprehensible, purposeful thinking. [...]
What amazes us is the sudden turn from the rational beginning to the irrational illusion. Irrationality and illusion are revealed by the intolerance and cruelty with which they are expressed. We observe that human thought systems show tolerance as long as they adhere to reality. The more the thought process is removed from reality, the more intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee its continued existence.
Who or what is responsible for this state of mankind is a major issue, most particularly if we assume a benevolent God and a hierarchy of benevolent beings guiding the destiny of mankind. Gurdjieff commented on this in the following way (edited for clarity):
“We must remember that the ray of creation... is like a branch of a tree. ... Growth depends on organic life on earth. ...If organic life is arrested in its development, in its evolution, and fails to respond to the demands made upon it, the branch may wither. This must be remembered.”
“To this ray of creation, exactly the same possibility of development and growth has been given as is given to each separate branch of a big tree. But the accomplishment of this growth is not at all guaranteed. It depends upon the harmonious and right action of its own tissues.”
Organic life on earth is a complex phenomenon in which the separate parts depend upon one another. General growth is possible only on the condition that the ‘end of the branch’ grows. Or, speaking more precisely, there are in organic life tissues which are evolving, and there are tissues which serve as food and medium for those which are evolving. Then there are evolving cells within the evolving tissues, and cells which serve as food and medium for those which are evolving. In each separate evolving cell there are evolving parts and there are parts which serve as food for those which are evolving. But always and in everything it must be remembered that evolution is never guaranteed, it is possible only and it can stop at any moment and in any place.”
“The evolving part of organic life on earth is humanity. If humanity does not evolve it means that the evolution of organic life will stop and this, in its turn will cause the growth of our ray of creation to stop.”
“At the same time if humanity ceases to evolve it becomes useless from the point of view of the aims for which it was created and as such it may be destroyed. In this way the cessation of evolution may mean the destruction of humanity.”
“We have no clues from which we are able to tell in what period of planetary evolution we exist. We cannot know this but we should bear in mind that the number of possibilities is never infinite.”
“At the same time in examining the life of humanity as we know it historically we are bound to acknowledge that humanity is moving in a circle. It one century it destroys everything it creates in another and the progress in mechanical things of the past hundred years has proceeded at the cost of losing many other things which perhaps were much more important for it.”
“Speaking in general there is every reason to think and to assert that humanity is at a standstill, and from a standstill there is a straight path to downfall and degeneration.”
“A standstill means that a process has become balanced. The appearance of any one quality immediately evokes the appearance of another quality opposed to it. The growth of knowledge in one domain evokes the growth of ignorance in another; refinement on the one hand evokes vulgarity on the other; freedom in one connection evokes slavery in another; the disappearance of some superstitions evokes the appearance and growth of others; and so on.”
“A balanced process proceeding in a certain way cannot be changed at any moment it is desired. It can be changed and set on a new path only at certain ‘crossroads’. In between the crossroads nothing can be done.”
“At the same time if a process passes by a crossroad and nothing happens, nothing is done, then nothing can be done afterwards and the process will continue and develop according to mechanical laws; and even if the people taking part in this process foresee the inevitable destruction of everything, they will be unable to do anything.”
“I repeat that something can be done only at certain moments which I have just called ‘crossroads’ and which in octaves, we have called the ‘intervals’.”
“The process of evolution, of that evolution which is possible for humanity as a whole, is completely analogous to the process of evolution possible for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink and sleep.”
“In humanity as in individual man everything begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity, in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes, and weaknesses fight against conscious awareness in man.”
“Can it be said that there is a conscious force which fights against the evolution of humanity?”, Ouspensky asked.
“From a certain point of view it can be said”, said G.
“Where can this force come from?”, Ouspensky asked.
“There are two processes which are sometimes called ‘involutionary’ and ‘evolutionary’. The difference between them is the following: An involutionary process begins consciously in the absolute but at the next step it already becomes mechanical - and it becomes more and more mechanical as it develops; an evolutionary process begins half-consciously but it becomes more and more conscious as it develops.”
“But consciousness and conscious opposition to the evolutionary process can also appear at certain moments in the involutionary process.”
“From where does this consciousness come?”
“From the evolutionary process of course. The evolutionary process must proceed without interruption. Any stop causes a separation from the fundamental process. Such separate fragments of consciousnesses which have been stopped in their development can also unite and at any rate for a certain time can live by struggling against the evolutionary process. After all, it merely makes the evolutionary process more interesting.”
“Instead of struggling against mechanical forces there may, at certain moments, be a struggle against the intentional opposition of fairly powerful forces though they are not of course comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process.”
“These opposing forces may somethimes even conquer.”
“The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destory both evolution and involution at the point in question.”
“Are we able to say for instance that life is governed by a group of conscious people? Where are they? Who are they?”
“We see exactly the opposite: that life is governed by those who are the least conscious, by those who are most asleep.”
“Are we able to say that we observe in life a preponderance of the best, the strongest, and the most courageous elements?”
“Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.”
“Are we able to say that aspirations towards unity, towards unification, can be observed in life?”
“Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostility, new misunderstanndings.”
“So that in the actual situation of humanity there is nothing that points to evolution proceeding.”
“On the contrary, when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is, a growth of the artificial, the unreal, and what is foreign, at the cost of the natural, the real, and what is one’s own.”
“Together with this we see a growth of automatism.”
“Contemporary culture requires automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines.”
“It is impossible to say where is the end of all this and where the way out - or whether there is an end and a way out. One thing alone is certain, that man’s slavery grows and increases. Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man.”
Carlos Castaneda puts the problem another way in the words of don Juan:
“You have arrived, by your effort alone, to what the shamans of ancient Mexico called the topic of topics. I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner! This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico. [...] They took over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. Just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops. Therefore, their food is always available to them.”[...]
“I want to appeal to your analytical mind,” don Juan said. “Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.”[...]
“In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver - stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.” [...]
“Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them.”
This, of course, takes us to Gurdjieff’s story of the Evil Magician which we have already discussed. We should pay particular attention to this remark made by Gurdjieff:
The evolving part of organic life on earth is humanity. If humanity does not evolve it means that the evolution of organic life will stop and this, in its turn will cause the growth of our ray of creation to stop.
At the same time if humanity ceases to evolve it becomes useless from the point of view of the aims for which it was created and as such it may be destroyed. In this way the cessation of evolution may mean the destruction of humanity.
In short, based on an objective assessment of the world around us, we are in deep trouble. In another place, Gurdjieff makes a rather spooky remark:
“There is a definite period”, he said, “for a certain thing to be done. If, by a certain time, what ought to be done has not been done, the earth may perish without having attained what it could have attained.”
“Is this period known?”, I asked.
“It is known”, said G. “But it would be no advantage whatever for people to know it. It would even be worse. Some would believe it, others would not believe it, yet others would demand proofs. Afterwards they would begin to break one another’s heads. Everything ends this way with people.”
Gurdjieff gave other hints about this, though I expect that he didn’t fully know the details since his own work was that of one who prepares the ground and plants the seeds that are crucial to us now when considering the Cassiopaean “Mission”. In this passage, Gurdjieff returns again to the subject of evolution which, as he pointed out, has stopped in humanity.
“Everything I have said till now I have said about the whole of humanity. But as I pointed out before, the evolution of humanity can proceed only through the evolution of a certain group, which, in its turn, will influence and lead the rest of humanity.”
“Are we able to say that such a group exists? Perhaps we can on the basis of certain signs, but in any event we have to acknowledge that it is a very small group, quite insufficient, at any rate, to subjugate the rest of humanity. Or, looking at it from another point of view, we can say that humanity is in such a state that it is unable to accept the guidance of a conscious group.”
“How many people could there be in this conscious group?”, someone asked.
“Only they themselves know this”, said G.
“Does it mean that they all know each other?”, asked the same person again.
“How could it be otherwise?”, asked G.
“Imagine that there are two or three people who are awake in the midst of a multitude of sleeping people. They will certainly know each other. But those who are asleep cannot know them. How many are they? We do not know and we cannot know until we become like them.”
“It has been clearly said before that each man can only see on the level of his own being. But two hundred conscious people, if they existed and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are sleeping too soundly.”
:
