The World Inside the Devil

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

In our previous discussion of Discernment, we have asked two question:

How in the world can we hope to win such a game, played by GameMasters who are clearly so much more powerful than we are?

Or are they?

The Cassiopaeans have said that "knowledge protects." They have also said that it is not "where you are but who you are and what you SEE" that counts in cosmic metamorphic terms. Obviously, "seeing" is somehow related to Knowledge and "conscious awareness."

C's: Remember, density refers to one's conscious awareness only. Once one is aware, ALL [many spirals of the planchette for emphasis] conforms to that awareness.

Note here: The obvious implication of this is that there is some "objective test" of one's awareness and that is the fact that one will experience significant changes in one's life and experiences as a consequence of a deep change in awareness. In other words, it is not an arbitrary, nebulous statement that cannot be held up to proof. If your awareness changes in a deep and significant way, then your reality will also change significantly. It is not enough to say "Oh, I see things so differently! I am at peace!" and so on. If "all" conforms to advanced awareness, that suggests a completely different dynamic interaction with reality than existed before. It also suggests that those who have a "different" awareness will be unable to even perceive the higher dynamic.

But here, before we get into specific techniques of developing this heightened awareness that can create a shift in reality, we want to discuss some of the basics, i.e. what it really means to "SEE" and the context in which this SEEing takes place.

As we have documented on this website, our research shows that most of what is passed off as "esoteric" teachings is based on a narrow and limited view of reality even if it is couched in terms that seem to be "spiritual." One of the chief failings of these teachings is that they promote the idea that one can achieve great "spiritual" advancement by "emulating beings at higher levels" or practicing "spiritual disciplines" that are purportedly designed to change one's state. What most people do not take into account is the fact that this amounts to is attempting to do advanced calculus before one has even learned basic math. It could even be considered hubris. Georges Gurdjieff commented:

"The idea of initiation, which reaches us through pseudo-esoteric systems, is also transmitted to us in a completely wrong from.

"The legends concerning the outward rites of initiation have been created out of the scraps of information we possess in regard to the ancient Mysteries. [...]

"Transitions from one level of being to another were marked by ceremonies of presentation of a special kind, that is, initiation.

"But a change of being cannot be brought about by any rites.

"Rites can only mark an accomplished transition.

"And it is only in pseudo-esoteric systems in which there is nothing else except these rites, that they begin to attribute to the rites an independent meaning.

"It is supposed that a rite, in being transformed into a sacrament, transmits or communicates certain forces to the initiate. This again relates to the psychology of an imitation way.

"There is not, nor can there be, any outward initiation. In reality only self-initiation, self-presentation exist. Systems and schools can indicate methods and ways, but no system or school whatever can do for a man the work that he must do himself.

"Inner growth, a change of being, depend entirely upon the work which a man must do on himself." [Gurdjieff quoted by Ouspensky in In Search of the Miraculous]

Like most other seekers of higher spiritual states, I was inculcated for most of my life with the ideas promoted by the "imitation systems" mentioned by Gurdjieff above. And it was from this frame of reference that my early interactions with the C's took place during which time most of my "sacred cows" were put out to pasture and I was divested of many errors. I, too, thought that I had to do advanced calculus when it was obvious, from my life, that I hadn't even learned the basic math of this reality. For this reason, some of the lessons the C's were trying to outline for me were difficult:

Q: (L) What is it about the oncoming wave that is going to make any given person aware?
A: Not yet... First: your prophets have always used 3rd density symbology to try to convey 4th density realities. You are attempting to gather 3rd density answers to explain 4th through 7th density principles. This is why you are getting frustrated, because it doesn't "mesh." [...] You see, my dear, when you arrive at 4th density, then you will see.

Q: (L) Well, how in the heck am I supposed to get there if I can't "get it?"
A: Who says you have to "get it" before you get there?

Q: (L) Well, that leads back to: what is the wave going to do to expand this awareness? Because, if the wave is what "gets you there," what makes this so?
A: No. It is like this: After you have completed all your lessons in "third grade," where do you go?

Q: (L) You go to fourth grade.
A: Okay, now, do you have to already be in 4th grade in order to be allowed to go there? Answer.

Q: (L) No. But you have to know all the 3rd density things...
A: Yes. More apropos: you have to have learned all of the lessons.

Q: (L) What kind of lessons are we talking about here?
A: Karmic and simple understandings.

Q: (L) What are the key elements of these understandings, and are they fairly universal?
A: They are universal.

Q: (L) What are they?
A: We cannot tell you that.

Q: (L) Do they have to do with discovering the MEANINGS of the symbology of 3rd density existence, seeing behind the veil... and reacting to things according to choice? Giving each thing or person or event its due?
A: Okay. But you cannot force the issue. When you have learned, you have learned!

The point the C's are trying to make is that anyone who is IN this reality is here because that is where they "fit." And when one is in a particular reality, it is for the purpose of learning the lessons of that reality, NOT to try to learn the lessons of higher realities before one has arrived there! And one CANNOT "graduate" to a higher reality until one has mastered the lessons of THIS reality which the C's have described as karmic lessons and simple understandings - which are universal.

In trying to get to the issue in practical terms, the reader will note that I did have SOME idea of what the C's were saying in the above passage. I had been reviewing the writings of the Sufi Shaykh, Ibn al-Arabi at the time, and his exposition of discovering the "meanings" of the symbol system of our reality and "giving each thing his due" was what was on my mind. The reader who wishes to have a deeper understanding of this can refer to these writings or to our review and analysis of same in the Wave Series.

Discovering the "meanings" of things, in Sufi terms, means to "see the unseen truth."

But this perspicacity is more than that. The Shaykh writes:

Perspicacity is a divine light just like the light which belongs to the eye of sight. When a person has this perspicacity, its mark is like the light of the sun through which sensory objects appear to sight. The light of the sun enables the being to differentiate among sensory objucts. It discerns the large from the small, the beautiful from the ugly, the white from the black, red, and yellow, the moving from the still, the far from the near, and the high from the low. In the same way, the light of perspicacity discerns the praiseworthy from the blameworthy.

This light unveils the movements of felicity pertaining to the next abode and the movements of wretchedness.

Some of the possessors of perspicacity have reached a point where, upon seeing a person's footprint in the ground - though the person himself is not present - they are able to say that he is a felicitous person or a wretched person. This is similar to what is done by a tracker who follows footprints.

The possessor of perspicacity perceives the REALITY of the ALL. He perceives the good things and the evil which occur in matters of this world and the next, the blameworthy qualities and the praiseworthy, the noble character traits and the base, and what is given by Nature and by the spiritual domain. [Futuhat, Book II 235,35]

So, it seems that "who you are and what you see" is connected to seeing the unseen dynamic - discovering the meanings of the symbols of our world - in the events of our lives here in THIS reality, and utilizing this seeing to deal with karmic issues effectively, i.e. choosing. The Shaykh tells us:

Man gains the light of perspicacity through assuming the noble character traist in perfect harmon, balance and equilibrium. [...] In order to bring the traits into balance, man has need of the divine physician. It is his task to show the seeker how to employ his innate character traits, since nothing can be added to man's creation. The "assumption of traits" which a person should undergo can NOT mean that he comes to posses traits which did not already belong to him. On the contrary, the traits which he possesses innately are redirected such that they will always be "felicitous."

ALL character traits are of an individual's essence and cannot be "base" in an ontological sense because "everything that comes from God is good." Good and Evil have to be defined in terms of relative factors, which is to employ the Law of Three: There is good and evil and the specific situation in which it is to be determined which is which.

The attributes of human beings do not change and it is error to attempt to change them. These attributes include cowardice, avarice, envy, eagerness, desire, arrogance, harshness, seeking subjugation, and so on.

Since it is improper to try to change what IS, one must then find the proper application for such traits so that they can be directed according to one's soul orientation.

For example: One should be cowardly toward committing violence toward an innocent person or other violations of the free will of others because of the loss that one will experience as a consequence.

A positive application of avarice is that one should be avaricious in respect of seeking knowledge in order to "know God."

A person can be envious of someone who spends all his time and effort seeking God, and thereby seek to emulate him.

The seeker can be arrogant FOR God toward anyone who is arrogant toward God and the seeking of truth.

It is proper to be harsh toward, or to subjugate, anyone who is harsh or offensive toward or seeks to subjugate the seeking of truth.

The Shaykh writes:

I do not know how it is that people suffer hardships of self denial since nothing is forbidden and suppressing the attributes of the nature is not required. On the contrary, the Law of God requires the proper application of all one's attributes.

Of course, it is in the "seeing" that we come to the problem. How is one to KNOW when any action leads to felicity or wretchedness? How many times have people done their best (or so they thought) and everything ended in disaster? Why, indeed, do we have the saying that "hindsight is 20/20?" Why is it only AFTER we have made a choice for a certain action that seems, on the surface, and by all the indicators, to be so RIGHT, that we discover that it was SO WRONG?

It is because we do NOT have perspicacity. We have not learned to properly read the symbol system of our reality. And this is what the C's meant by "simple understandings" being the key to learning the lessons of this reality.

In order to even discuss what potential we, as human beings, may have, it might be useful to have a broader perspective on the problems we may be facing.

Canseliet, in his preface to the Second Edition of Fulcanelli's Dwellings of the Philosophers, writes:

Philippe de Mallery engraved with a delicate touch: 'Image of the World, in which Calamities and Perils are emblematically presented along with the opposition in feeling between the Love of God and that of man.'

The first emblem straightforwardly points to the original, if not unique, source of all ills of our Humanity. It is also underlined by the Latin inscription which, in the parenthesis, is another pun of phonetic cabala: 'Totus mundus in maligno positus est'; the whole world is established inside of the devil."

What does it mean, "the whole world is established inside of the Devil?"

P.D. Ouspensky was once discussing with G. I. Gurdjieff the problems of modern society. This was in the period immediately prior to World War I, and Ouspensky had just returned from London where he noted the "terrifying mechanization that was being developed in the big European cities."

In our present day, we have seen much more of the terror of this mechanization than Ouspensky may ever have dreamed was possible, and we are living in a technological powder keg, giving off sparks.

We certainly cannot say that a technological society IS the devil that Philippe de Mallery referred to because such a society - as we know it - did not exist at that time. However, what seems to be so is that there is a certain principle of "mechanicalness" that is part and parcel of this "Devil" inside which our world is established.

Ouspensky's speculated to Gurdjieff that, in the industrial age, humans were becoming more "mechanized" and had stopped thinking. 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."

At a later point in time, Ouspensky asked: "Can it be said that man possesses immortality?"

Gurdjieff's reply was fascinating:

"Immortality is one of the qualities we ascribe to people without having a sufficient understanding of their meaning. Other qualities of this kind are 'individuality,' in the sense of an inner unity, a 'permanent and unchangeable I,' 'consciousness,' and 'will.' All these qualities can belong to man, but this certainly does not mean that they do belong to him or belong to each and every one.

"In order to understand what man is at the present time, that is, at the present level of development, it is necessary to imagine to a certain extent what he can be, that is, what he can attain. Only by understanding the correct sequence of development possible will people cease to ascribe to themselves what, at present, they do not possess, and what, perhaps, they can only acquire after great effort and great labor.

"According to an ancient teaching, traces of which may be found in many systems, old and new, a man who has attained the full development possible for man, a man in the full sense of the word, consists of four bodies. These four bodies are composed of substances which gradually become finer and finer, mutually interpenetrate one another, and form four independent organisms, standing in a definite relationship to one another but capable of independent action."

Gurdjieff's idea was that it was possible for these four bodies to exist because the physical human body has such a complex organization that, under certain favorable conditions, a new and independent organism actually can develop and grow within it. This new system of organs of perception can afford a more convenient and responsive instrument for the activity of an awakened consciousness.

"The consciousness manifested in this new body is capable of governing it, and it has full power and full control over the physical body.

"In this second body, under certain conditions, a third body can grow, again having characteristics of its own. The consciousness manifested in this third body has full power and control over the first two bodies; and the third body possesses the possibility of acquiring knowledge inaccessible either to the first or to the second body.

"In the third body, under certain conditions, a fourth can grow, which differs as much from the third as the third differs from the second, and the second from the first. The consciousness manifested in the fourth body has full control over the first three bodies and itself.

"These four bodies are defined in different teachings in various ways. The first is the physical body, in Christian terminology the 'carnal' body; the second, in Christian terminology, is the 'natural' body; the third is the 'spiritual' body; and the fourth, in the terminology of esoteric Christianity, is the 'divine body. In theosophical terminology the first is the 'physical' body, the second is the 'astral,' the third is the 'mental,' and the fourth the 'causal.'

"In the terminology of certain Eastern teachings the first body is the 'carriage,' (the body), the second is the 'horse' (feelings, desires), the third the 'driver' (mind), and the fourth the 'master (I, consciousness, will).

"Such comparisons and parallels may be found in most systems and teachings which recognize something more in man than the physical body. But almost all these teachings, while repeating in a more or less familiar form the definitions and divisions of the ancient teaching, have forgotten or omitted its most important feature, which is: that man is not born with the finer bodies. They can only be artificially cultivated in him, provided favorable conditions both internal and external are present.

"The 'astral body' is not an indispensable implement for man. It is a great luxury which only a few can afford. A man can live quite well without an 'astral body.' His physical body possesses all the functions necessary for life. A man without 'astral body' may even produce the impression of being a very intellectual or even spiritual man, and may deceive not only others but also himself.

"When the third body has been formed and has acquired all the properties, powers, and knowledge possible for it, there remains the problem of fixing this knowledge and these powers. Because, having been imparted to it by influences of a certain kind, they may be taken away by these same influences or by others. By means of a special kind of work for all three bodies the acquired properties may be made the permanent and inalienable possession of the third body.

"The process of fixing these acquired properties corresponds to the process of the formation of the fourth body.

"And only the man who possesses four fully developed bodies can be called a 'man' in the full sense of the word. This man possesses many properties which ordinary man does not possess. One of these properties is immortality. All religions and all ancient teachings contain the idea that, by acquiring the fourth body, man acquires immortality; and they all contain indications of the ways to acquire the fourth body, that is, immortality."

"For a man of Western culture, it is of course difficult to believe and to accept the idea that an ignorant fakir, a nave monk, or a yogi who has retired from life may be on the way to evolution while an educated European, 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.

Georges Gurdjieff has said that the chief problem of man is that he has no real "I." His description of what he meant by saying this suggests that he was talking about the many "programs" - or thought loops - that human beings "run" automatically throughout their lives, based on the belief systems that are inculcated into them as infants and children. This problem has been scientifically studied in some detail and we have described many of these studies and their results in the Wave Series published on this website.

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. [ Ether, God and Devil, Wilhelm Reich]

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 contineu 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 'crossroades' 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 involutioary 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. [ISOTM, Ouspensky]

In Gurdjieff's comments above, we see a description of the two pathways that were introduced to the world by Elkins, Rueckert and McCarty in the Ra Material.

The understanding of Service to Self as the involutionary force, and Service to Others as the Evolutionary force has been discussed in great detail by the C's. We also detect suggestions of the 4th density STS reality in Gurdjieff's remarks when he said that there is a "conscious force" which fights against the evolution of humanity. He also describes the increasing mechanicalness of the STS path which the C's have suggested ends in a "black hole" that regenerates this sleeping consciousness as primal matter - and it's hard to imagine anything more "mechanical" than matter itself.

In Gurdjieff's discussion of the "consciousness" aspect of the STS pathway, he makes the point that the involutionary force is simply mechanical and part of the fundamental nature of the universe - a thought center of Non-being, as we have described it elsewhere - and that when it 'acquires' consciousness it is due to fragments of consciousness, or - as the C's call it - consciousness units - that have stopped in their development which thenn seek to be united with other consciousness units that have stopped in their development also, and - for a certain time - are able to "feed" themselves by struggling against the evolutionary process.

Here, we want to make a special note: As many physicists will tell you, all that really exists are "waveforms" and we are waveforms of reality, and our consciousness is something that "reads waves." We give form and structure to the waves we "read" either according to some agreed upon convention or because there is something "essential" about a waveform that gives it a certain perceptive quality. And so it may be that certain denizens of hyperdimensional space are "read" as more or less "reptilian" because that is the "essence" of their being, the frequency of their "wave form." Based on their "essence," they may be perceived as Reptilian, bird-like, insectoid, or anything in between. We just call the reptilian essences "Lizzies" for short. They are not necessarily physical as we understand the term, nor are they necessarily "alien" as we understand the term either. We suspect that the perceptions of these levels of reality and their "consciousness units" are what is behind many religious conceptions and mythological representations of "gods and goddesses and creatures of all sorts.

Having said that, and getting back to the issue of consciousness units that have "stopped" and seek to assimilate other blocked consciousness units to themselves, there are a few comments made by the C's that are relevant here in the context of what Gurdjieff has said about the possible evolution of humanity:

C's: And those who are described as the Lizards have chosen to firmly lock themselves into service to self. And, since they are at the highest level of density where this is possible, they must continually draw large amounts of negative energy from those at the third level, second level, and so on, which is why they do what they do.

This also explains why their race is dying, because they have not been able to learn for themselves how to remove themselves from this particular form of expression to that of service to others.

And, since they have such, as you would measure it, a long period of time, remained at this level and, in fact, become firmly entrenched in it, and, in fact, have increased themselves in it, this is why they are dying and desperately trying to take as much energy from you as possible and also to recreate their race metabolically.

Q: (L) Well, if we are sources of food and labor for them, why don't they just breed us in pens on their own planet?
A: They do.

Q: (L) Well, since there is so many of us here, why don't they just move in and take over?
A: That is their intention. That has been their intention for quite some time. They have been traveling back and forth through time as you know it, to set things up so that they can absorb a maximum amount of negative energy with the transference from third level to fourth level that this planet is going to experience, in the hopes that they can overtake you on the fourth level and thereby accomplish several things. 1: retaining their race as a viable species; 2: increasing their numbers; 3: increasing their power; 4: expanding their race throughout the realm of fourth density.

To do all of this they have been interfering with events for what you would measure on your calendar as approximately 74 thousand years. And they have been doing so in a completely still state of space time traveling backward and forward at will during this work. Interestingly enough, though, all of this will fail.

Q: (L) How can you be so sure it will fail?
A: Because we see it. We are able to see all, not just what we want to see. Their failing is that they see only what they want to see. In other words, it's the highest manifestation possible of that which you would refer to as wishful thinking. And, wishful thinking represented on the fourth level of density becomes reality for that level. You know how you wishfully think? Well, it isn't quite reality for you because you are on the third level, but if you are on the fourth level and you were to perform the same function, it would indeed be your awareness of reality. Therefore they cannot see what we can see since we serve others as opposed to self, and since we are on sixth level, we can see all that is at all points as is, not as we would want it to be. [...]

Q: (T) Although, they're working on the false premise that they can do this. (L) 'Wishful thinking.'
A: No, they are working on that false premise that they can seal realms into "4th" density and 3rd, 2nd, 1st STS for eternity.

Q: (T) They just want to [...] keep them STS to feed off of them.
A: "Eternity" is the key word there. It is where the wishful thinking comes into play.

Gurdjieff was certainly getting very close to describing 4th density - hyperdimensional realities - and its denizens when he said:

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 sometimes even conquer.

These last two remarks seem to be contradictory - that forces that are not comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process can conquer. However, if we do not think in earth-human terms, we can realize that human beings on Earth, in this sector of the Universe, might very well cease to exist and it will have little effect on the overall balance of the universe.

Sure, that's not a pleasant thought, but from where I sit, things on the Big Blue Marble aren't developing in a very positive, STO way. And we note the C's remark about "eternity" being the key word. It is entirely possible that planet earth WILL be "sealed" into STS for the next cycle with all the attendant misery and suffering and "feeding" for all of humanity that has not achieved some crystallization of the organs of higher consciousness.

Carlos Castaneda puts the problem another way:

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. [Castaneda, The Active Side of Infinity, 1998, pp. 213-220]

This, of course, takes us to Gurdjieff's story of the Evil Magician:

"There is an Eastern tale which speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where his sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines, and so on, and above all they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and skins and this they did not like.

"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned, that, on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to others that they were eagles, to others that they were men, and to others that they were magicians.

"And after this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins." [Quoted by P.I. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous]

We ought to note particularly the fact that Evil Magician in the tale suggested to some men that they were "magicians."

In the present day, there are many "magicians" who promote the idea of "attaining cosmic consciousness." Ouspensky described "cosmic consciousness" as a "higher consciousness" possible for man. Gurdjieff remarked about it, and we have found much evidence to support his comments:

I do not know what you call 'cosmic consciousness. It is a vague and indefinite term; anyone can call anything he likes by it. In most cases what is called 'cosmic consciousness' is simply fantasy, associative daydreaming connected with intensified work of the emotional center. Sometimes it comes near to ecstasy but most often it is merely a subjective emotional experience on the level of dreams.

The question is, of course, if this is the true state in which we live, how in the world did it get this way? Where did we go so wrong as a culture, as human beings?

We are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckolded husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.

Denial is a complex "unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality." Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well as completely subconscious. An individual who is deliberately and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual level of lying, concealment and deception. What we are dealing with - in terms of the "Evil Magician" or the Predator of Don Juan - is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and "institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation, whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, etc.

Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite of denial. "Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people are actively aroused by certain information. This information can be 1) factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective; it is obtained by impartial procedures; 2) personal and narrative truth including "witness testimonies."

I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments - including epistemological relativism - about the existence of objective truth, are generally a social construction and might be considered in the terms of the hypnotized man who has been programmed to think that there "is no truth."

Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our lives.

There are different kinds of denial. First, there is literal denial which is the type that fits the dictionary definition, the assertion that something did not happen or does not exist. This most often occurs in very painful situations where there are conflicts of love: the wife would say that the husband could not have molested his daughter, therefore the child must be making it up. This also seems to apply to denial of the state of our manipulated reality. Our love for our parents, our need for their approval, is often transferred to our peers, our employers, and the State. To think about stepping outside of the belief system that makes us "belong" is just too frightening. It assaults our deepest sense of security.

The second kind of denial is "interpretative." In this kind of denial, the raw facts that something actually happened are not really denied - they are just "interpreted." If a person is reasonably intelligent, and is faced with evidence of phenomena that do not fit into the belief system of one's family, culture, or peer group, there is nothing to do but to interpret - to rationalize it away. "Swamp gas" and the Planet Venus given as an explanation for UFOs are good examples. Another is Bill Clinton's "But I didn't INHALE" interpretation of his marijuana use. And then, there was the famous "I didn't have sex with Monica" interpretation.

The third kind of denial is termed by Cohen as implicatory denial where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are the psychological, political and moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement. For example, the idea that America is being run by a madman with designs on the entire planet is recognized as a fact, but it is not seen as psychologically disturbing or as carrying any moral imperative to act.

Studies have established five different contexts of psychological denial:1) perception without awareness, 2) perceptual defense 3) selective attention, 4) cognitive errors and 5) inferential failures.

In States of Denial, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen remarks that "the scientific discourse misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon [...] a product of sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives."

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were "activated" in a manner that was "acceptable" to his "ego survival" instincts.

The survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming as to what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

Suffice it to say that, under ordinary conditions of reality, we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS. There are thousands of different little "hypnotic suggestions" that have taken hold of us from infancy on, that determine, in any given moment, what we believe or think or think we believe or believe we think.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the "subject" due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

And it is in this sense that the "whole world is established inside of the devil."

"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.

Esoteric studies teach us that we live in what is called the "Mixtus Orbis." That is, the whole world is established inside of the Devil.

And the C's suggest to us that we live in a world of lies and truth and that our REAL WORK here - in order to achieve higher awareness - is to engage in exercises in discerning the lies from the truth.

Knowledge Protects.

To be continued


You are visitor number .