Beelzebub's Tales:Second Pass.

[RflctnOfU]

So, I'm reading Beelzebub's Tales. I so far find it useless in guiding one along a path of spiritual growth. I don't think I'll continue much past the 100 or so pages I've completed. It occurs to me that Gurdjieff might be playing a joke on the readers. I have read stories of how he would set up wild goose chases for students to test their level of discernment and critical thinking. My initial impression is that this book is just such a ruse, fantasy disguised as esotericism, and not the other way around. I think he even left clues that it is just such a ruse, and starting with the instructions to read it three times, so as to waste as much time as possible.

The first chapter is a rambling, narcissistic rant. I am giving Gurdjieff the benefit of the doubt that he is a teacher of wisdom, crazy wisdom perhaps, but wisdom. With that to his supposed credit, it seems obvious to me that first chapter is intended to impress the reader to read the whole thing, regardless of how much it might be nonsense. The repeated assertions that his writing style is unique and not to be compared to conventional writing, is the clue. How can one possible get anything from a book when the writing is totally obfuscated? The arrogance of his unique way of being, as guided by his grandmother, is another clue. Once impressed with his erudition, you now have to double-down on his imperative to not be like everyone else. What would everyone else do, at least, those he disparages? They would not read the book. With that hypnotic suggestion, he has all but convinced the reader to read the book, because nobody else will, because they can't understand it, because nobody can, and not because the readers are obtuse, because the writing is deliberately nonsensical. And, once convinced that only specially developed people will bother to read the book, only those brave enough to ignore the explicit warning not to read it, only they can understand it, and then they also must read it three times. And for what, to learn that humanity is trapped in all manner of habitual conditioning, physical, emotional and mental? That's spirituality 101, and it doesn't need 1000+ pages times 3 reads to understand.

OK, so that's my criticism. Maybe I've missed the point, but the first 10% of the book I find totally useless, except for the first chapter which I find the true value of the book, as it gives the fair warning for those who would take the good advice.

So, can anyone who has read it, even once, not necessarily three times, tell me one useful thing that was learned as a result of reading it?

Reverse order reply follows.

I could tell you many useful things learned as a result of reading it, but I shall limit myself to one --- The practical utility of understanding of the law of three/Triamazikamno. I have observed within myself the manifestation of this law when struggling with the text - making it 'real' to me in a way that the theory alone cannot do. (I have read the book through cover to cover at least six times, with studying individual sections many times scattered throughout the cover to cover reads.)

It seems as if you are looking for an external justification to continue this line of work. I mean no disrespect in saying that, btw. It is my opinion that this text is an objective work of art. The ideas presented are scattered throughout, and a familiarity with the whole is required before the pieces "fall into place", at least according to my own experience.

Regarding the first chapter, it is indeed, in a literal sense, a rambling, narcissistic rant. Without reading between the lines, however, the point(s) will be missed entirely. If you think it is a 'grand ol' joke' being played on readers, that is your prerogative, and more power to you. Apparently, G has successfully 'ruffled your feathers' a bit? The Tales is certainly not for everyone, and if you don't get anything of substance from reading it, or have an intuitive 'itch' regarding its contents, I would advise you to spend your 'personal currency', time, on other pursuits from which gains can be had. One last observation...perhaps "spiritual growth" is something other than you conceive it to be?

Regards,

Kris

 

[obyvatel]

Hi ge0m0,
Here is a post from Laura specifically regarding her take on Beelzebub's Tales.

I have read the book. I think one's background and experience influences how much one gets out of the book. Personally, I have benefited more from correlating much of the stuff said in Beelzebub to discoveries in psychology, cognitive science, non-linear dynamics, some eastern esoteric texts etc.

Here is one discussion thread on a specific, easy to relate to (I think) topic of Beelzebub's Tales.

 

[Mark]

OK, so that's my criticism. Maybe I've missed the point, but the first 10% of the book I find totally useless, except for the first chapter which I find the true value of the book, as it gives the fair warning for those who would take the good advice.

For what it's worth I'm reading an older version before the manuscript was edited in later years, published E.P. Dutton, 1964. I have a reprint of that edition.

So, can anyone who has read it, even once, not necessarily three times, tell me one useful thing that was learned as a result of reading it?

I learned that G writes in a way that the puts the reader into a position of needing to pay close attention and actually contemplate, correlate, and contemplate more and more. And the reader needs to be prepared to struggle against his/her preconceived ideas and expectations.

Added: Some of his writing I found very entertaining, made me laugh out loud when it appeared he was making big fun of readers, or other people he mentioned in his stories. I also wondered why in some instances he took pages to say what could be said in maybe half dozen words.

 

[Martfotai]

[quote author=m]
I learned that G writes in a way that the puts the reader into a position of needing to pay close attention and actually contemplate, correlate, and contemplate more and more. And the reader needs to be prepared to struggle against his/her preconceived ideas and expectations.
[/quote]

All the serious BT scholars I've met (those who have spent many years or even decades 'fathoming the gist') all have one thing in common; a uniquely developed attention which is able to hold seemingly contradictory data sets without jumping to conclusion. It strikes me as the ability to really hold a question, without necessarily rushing to fill that space with answers to ease the head-brain.

Also, a person might ask what's to be learned by doing one-legged squats, and certainly another could reply that "oh, it's just an exercise which develops x, y and z muscles." To know this, however, does nothing in regard to the intention of the exercise itself, which is NOT for the mind. Beelzebub's Tales is similar in the regard that it's much less about anything a person could tell you, or what you could read in a cliff-notes, but what a person experiences for themselves, through their own efforts of understanding. That's what Gurdjieff wanted for us -- to be our own selves, to make up our own minds, to think and feel and sense for ourselves. In that regard, the ONLY correct response to should a person read or not read the Tales (or anything for that matter) is, do you wish to know FOR YOURSELF? Laura says she does not find it practical -- and that's her call (even though she herself has not read the entirety of the book, but relies on her husband and others to interpret) -- but practicality has many levels. Sometimes, the least practical exercise "in life" is the most practical exercise we can take for our Work. What RflctnOfU said about the Law of 3 is VERY pertinent in this regard -- just how clearly do you see your own resisting force? your buffers?

 

[Horseofadifferentcolor]

So, I'm reading Beelzebub's Tales. I so far find it useless in guiding one along a path of spiritual growth. I don't think I'll continue much past the 100 or so pages I've completed.

For what it is worth I have felt the same about this book. I am not entertained by it, nor do I feel like I am learning anything. I even put it in my bathroom so to give the book a captive audience. I find myself staring at the wall more rewarding I have tried over and over to read this book and I do not get very far. I find myself discarding it for more productive reads. The reading list here is a large list that I am still working my way through. Maybe someday I will be knowledgeable enough in other ways to be able to come back and get the meat out what this book is about, but as it stands now it seems like there are more pressing ways to use my time.

 

[Deleted member 9511]

I don't get the impression you'd be open to what 'useful thing was learned' since you have obviously made up your mind after 1/10th of the whole. The Tales were written for a very specific type of person, and I don't think that person is you. And that's okay! But it would really be a waste of time to try and convey any understanding contained in the book -- to ask is missing the point entirely.

Instead of simply putting it aside, however, I suspect you will cover it in all your theories, obfuscating not the book but yourself from yourself

First, an admission. In a way I did pick a fight on this one, but really only in the spirit of the "rascal" that I understand Gurdjieff to be.

Second, please know that I have not made up my mind on just about anything. I read another 20 or so pages today. Some I liked, such as the chapter on time, other parts, not so much. It just seems too made-up to me. I imagine Gurdjieff was taking the creative-non-fiction approach - covering objective topics in a narrative style, and adding his own puzzling nature to the mix. Maybe you're right about it not being for me, but I can be obstinate, so I will probably read the whole thing...eventually. With respect to conveying understanding being a waste of time, I was wanting to network a bit while continuing to read. I do enough naval-gazing as it is, so I thought it would be worthwhile to get some feedback from folks who have read the book.

Third, can you please clarify your last statement, because I read a disdainful slant in it. I trust that's not the case, though if so, back to my first point. I accept that I started it. ;)

 

[Deleted member 9511]

I could tell you many useful things learned as a result of reading it, but I shall limit myself to one --- The practical utility of understanding of the law of three/Triamazikamno. I have observed within myself the manifestation of this law when struggling with the text - making it 'real' to me in a way that the theory alone cannot do. (I have read the book through cover to cover at least six times, with studying individual sections many times scattered throughout the cover to cover reads.)

It seems as if you are looking for an external justification to continue this line of work. I mean no disrespect in saying that, btw. It is my opinion that this text is an objective work of art. The ideas presented are scattered throughout, and a familiarity with the whole is required before the pieces "fall into place", at least according to my own experience.

Regarding the first chapter, it is indeed, in a literal sense, a rambling, narcissistic rant. Without reading between the lines, however, the point(s) will be missed entirely. If you think it is a 'grand ol' joke' being played on readers, that is your prerogative, and more power to you. Apparently, G has successfully 'ruffled your feathers' a bit? The Tales is certainly not for everyone, and if you don't get anything of substance from reading it, or have an intuitive 'itch' regarding its contents, I would advise you to spend your 'personal currency', time, on other pursuits from which gains can be had. One last observation...perhaps "spiritual growth" is something other than you conceive it to be?

Regards,

Kris

Thanks for the reply. I have spent quite a lot of time reading, contemplating, and writing about various ways in which the law of three manifests. It will be interesting to see how Gurdjieff covers it.

See my reply to Martfotai regarding creative-non-fiction. I agree with you on the objective work of art - which would be in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and it would not be a fair assessment if I covered a painting with a cloth with a hole in it.

I read the first chapter, then reread some of it. It definitely ruffled my feathers. And spiritual growth is definitely not something I conceive it to be. I don't think it's something anyone conceives it to be, and it's sure as hell not all rainbows and teddy-bears! I do enjoy hard work, so I'll probably find inspiration in others' respect for the book and make a go of it. That's the whole idea behind my critical post - to get up a bit of a lather about it. ;)

 

[RflctnOfU]

I could tell you many useful things learned as a result of reading it, but I shall limit myself to one --- The practical utility of understanding of the law of three/Triamazikamno. I have observed within myself the manifestation of this law when struggling with the text - making it 'real' to me in a way that the theory alone cannot do. (I have read the book through cover to cover at least six times, with studying individual sections many times scattered throughout the cover to cover reads.)

It seems as if you are looking for an external justification to continue this line of work. I mean no disrespect in saying that, btw. It is my opinion that this text is an objective work of art. The ideas presented are scattered throughout, and a familiarity with the whole is required before the pieces "fall into place", at least according to my own experience.

Regarding the first chapter, it is indeed, in a literal sense, a rambling, narcissistic rant. Without reading between the lines, however, the point(s) will be missed entirely. If you think it is a 'grand ol' joke' being played on readers, that is your prerogative, and more power to you. Apparently, G has successfully 'ruffled your feathers' a bit? The Tales is certainly not for everyone, and if you don't get anything of substance from reading it, or have an intuitive 'itch' regarding its contents, I would advise you to spend your 'personal currency', time, on other pursuits from which gains can be had. One last observation...perhaps "spiritual growth" is something other than you conceive it to be?

Regards,

Kris

Thanks for the reply. I have spent quite a lot of time reading, contemplating, and writing about various ways in which the law of three manifests. It will be interesting to see how Gurdjieff covers it.

See my reply to Martfotai regarding creative-non-fiction. I agree with you on the objective work of art - which would be in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and it would not be a fair assessment if I covered a painting with a cloth with a hole in it.

I read the first chapter, then reread some of it. It definitely ruffled my feathers. And spiritual growth is definitely not something I conceive it to be. I don't think it's something anyone conceives it to be, and it's sure as hell not all rainbows and teddy-bears! I do enjoy hard work, so I'll probably find inspiration in others' respect for the book and make a go of it. That's the whole idea behind my critical post - to get up a bit of a lather about it. ;)

Once again, it seems as if external justification is an object in view with you. I could be wrong on this of course. Regarding reading it...eventually - One thing I will tell you about my own experience (and I am SURE others have shared this). I didn't understand any of the book, beyond the obvious, until about my third time through it (as suggested with G's recommendation. Though that is not to say I have learned everything...I realize how little I understand of the whole). G makes use of the law of association deftly indeed. One needs to have all of the material, or building blocks, in ones head before a picture can begin to emerge. A single idea can be spread throughout many chapters, subtly embedded within the stories told. This is where ATTENTION is needed (plus a bit of repetition [practice makes perfect, no?]). To keep in mind, or at least have immediate access to remembering, the bits and pieces of the picture. Have you read meetings with remarkable men? The story about Brother Sez and brother Ahl illustrate what G was about in terms of communication of his ideas.

That being said, if you don't have the 'itch', or rather, the Being-Need, to get to the bottom of 'George Gurdjieff', and his writings, I honestly think your time would be better spent traveling other avenues.

Regards,

Kris

 

[Martfotai]

First, an admission. In a way I did pick a fight on this one, but really only in the spirit of the "rascal" that I understand Gurdjieff to be.

Well, rattle a hive and you'll likely get stung! At least, don't be surprised if the bees get frisky ;)

[quote author=ge0m0]Second, please know that I have not made up my mind on just about anything. I read another 20 or so pages today. Some I liked, such as the chapter on time, other parts, not so much. It just seems too made-up to me. I imagine Gurdjieff was taking the creative-non-fiction approach - covering objective topics in a narrative style, and adding his own puzzling nature to the mix. Maybe you're right about it not being for me, but I can be obstinate, so I will probably read the whole thing...eventually. With respect to conveying understanding being a waste of time, I was wanting to network a bit while continuing to read. I do enough naval-gazing as it is, so I thought it would be worthwhile to get some feedback from folks who have read the book.[/quote]

The book was not written for the 'conscious' mind to understand, but written in allegory and metaphor, the languages of the subconscious. I put conscious in quotes because G informs us that we see the world topsy-turvy, upside down and reversed. Our subconscious should be our conscious, and what we call our conscious mind, should be subconscious. The book is not written in a way which is largely comprehensible to the mind, but the subconscious mind is always listening, thinking in pictures. G wrote the book for that mind, not the one we use to approach everything in life.

We typically (mechanically) start from the position that 1) we are awake and have continuous attention, 2) we have an "I" and are one, 3) that we have real will. We color everything about our experience with these perceptions, and since they are inherently flawed, we're forced to 'buffer' the incoming impressions in such a way as to protect those ideas about ourselves. Even cursory exercises in self-remembering show another position, that 1) we are asleep with a fractured attention, 2) we have many "I"s, not one, and 3) what we call our will is the result of one desire or aversion manifesting over another, in response to external stimuli.

When we approach the Tales from the first position, trying to understand it with the so-called conscious mind, we actually inhibit an understanding that can arise from the subconscious mind. Remember that G was a professional hypnotist before he was a spiritual teacher.

[quote author=ge0m0]Third, can you please clarify your last statement, because I read a disdainful slant in it. I trust that's not the case, though if so, back to my first point. I accept that I started it. ;)
[/quote]

It's not necessary to paint everything with theories or opinions. When we do, that thing becomes crystallized in our mind as being 'how it is,' we think that we 'know' and because of that, learning stops. The subject of Beelzebub's Tales is you, and your development. Start from the place that you are not who and what you think you are, and the Tales are going to make A LOT more sense.

 

[David]

Well I haven’t read the whole thing, and skipping parts which gave the impression that G had an idea, but lost the plot, continuing on regardless, like the way he drove a car sometimes, and one is like a helpless passenger... though just a reflection of my understanding, or lack there of, ‘stop the car now G let me off here’... which would be the point, I suspect.

Though some of it just seemed like a critique of reality, maybe even reading parts of the book could be said to be a form of conscious suffering or stupid suffering, depending on perspective.

Ultimately... one could say, if anything, that one learned that G had a wicked sense of humour.

Perhaps there’s something for everybody, for the ‘I like and don’t like,’ crew, to the serious work alcoholic, and the ‘I haven’t got a clue’.

Though I’m not to sure about ‘instruction manual on spiritual growth’, what is one expecting, place right index finger to ear lobe, squeeze nose and say nanew nanew, or something like follow the path to sleeping mountain, seek entrance to mountain, through cave with sharp rocks above and below, beyond this entrance is path that is very damp, soft, and slippery, on either side sharp pointy rocks that flatten out as one travels further along, to another opening that lead to transformation. You need not do anything, only follow instruction that I give... it very important lesson, the last one I give... Something like that...

Well I don’t know... perhaps its a book requiring at some stage patience - lots of self control, self observation to catch that inner dialogue, that just might be a program, or ones self importance, spouting expletives... and saying, ‘what is this drool,’ all the time missing some important point to it all, but perhaps something again to be done, another read, with new perspectives.

But I don’t know... I haven't got a clue