The fourth way is still more difficult. In order to give the fourth way a right valuation a man must have thought and felt and been disappointed in many things beforehand. He ought, if not actually to have tried the way of the fakir, the way of the monk, and the way of the yogi previously, at least to have known and thought about them and to be convinced that they are no good for him.
It is not necessary to understand what I say literally. This thinking process can be unknown to the man himself. But the results of this process must be in him and only they can help him to recognize the fourth way. Otherwise he can stand very near to it and not see it
"But it is certainly wrong to say that unless a man enters one of these ways he has no more chances. 'Ways' are simply help; help given to people according to their type. At the same time the 'ways' the accelerated ways, the ways of personal, individual evolution as distinct from general evolution, can precede it, can lead up to it, but in any case they are distinct from it.
"Whether general evolution is proceeding or not is again another question. It is enough for us to realize that it is possible, and therefore evolution for people outside the 'ways' is possible.
Speaking more correctly there are two 'ways.' One we will call the 'subjective way.' It includes all four ways of which we have spoken. The other we will call the 'objective way.' This is the way of people in life.
You must not take the names 'subjective' and 'objective' too literally. They express only one aspect. I take them only because there are no other words."
"Would it be possible to say 'individual' and 'general' ways?" asked someone.
"No," said G. "It would be more incorrect than 'subjective' and 'objective' because the subjective way is not individual in the general meaning of this word, because this way is a 'school way.' From this point of view the 'objective way' is much more individual because it admits of many more individual peculiarities. No, it is better to leave these names— 'subjective' and 'objective.' They are not altogether suitable but we will take them conditionally.
"People of the objective way simply live in life.
They are those whom we call good people. Particular systems and methods are not necessary for them; making use of ordinary religious or intellectual teachings and ordinary morality, they live at the same time according to conscience.
They do not of necessity do much good, but they do no evil.
Sometimes they happen to be quite uneducated, simple people but they understand life very well, they have a right valuation of things and a right outlook. And they are of course perfecting themselves and evolving. Only their way can be very long with many unnecessary repetitions." [...]
"It often seems to people of the 'way,' that is, of the subjective way, especially those who are just beginning, that other people, that is, people of the objective way, are not moving. But this is a great mistake.
A simple obyvatel may sometimes do such work within him that he will overtake another, a monk or even a yogi.
"Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision—'obyvatel'—as though there could be nothing worse.
But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp.' Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime we will talk about the obyvatel.
I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the objective way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way'
And finally there are different types of obyvatel.
Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as the other people round him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master, who makes money, and is perhaps even close-fisted. At the same time he dreams all his life of monasteries, for instance, and dreams that some time or other he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then, when his children or his grandchildren are grown up, he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery.
This is the obyvatel of which I speak.
Perhaps he does not go into a monastery, perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel can be his way.
"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down on the obyvatel and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel.
This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and their inadaptability.
A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel.
I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia'— artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him.
Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of work.
A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"
"What does obyvatel actually mean?" asked somebody. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"
"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked.
"Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"
"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such."
"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"
"Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse."
"A good deal is incomprehensible to you because you do not take into account the meaning of some of the most simple words, for instance, ' you have never thought what to be serious means.
Try to give yourselves an answer to the question what being serious means."
"To have a serious attitude towards things," someone said.
"That is exactly what everybody thinks, actually it is exactly the reverse," said G.
"To have a serious attitude towards things does not at all mean being serious because the principal question is, towards what things? Very many people have a serious attitude towards trivial things. Can they be called serious? Of course not.
"The mistake is that the concept 'serious' is taken conditionally. One thing is serious for one man and another thing for another man. In reality seriousness is one of the concepts which can never and under no circumstances be taken conditionally.
Only one thing is serious for all people at all times. A man may be more aware of it or less aware of it but the seriousness of things will not alter on this account.
"If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people who are turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can be only one thing that is serious for him—to escape from the general law, to be free.
What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death?
Only one thing: How to save himself, how to escape: nothing else is serious.
"When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a 'tramp' or a 'lunatic,' I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the 'ways' and the possibilities of 'liberation' or 'salvation' better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.
"People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves—or they are lunatics, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say."
"To what category do politicians belong who speak contemptuously about 'obyvatel,' 'obyvatels' opinions,' 'obyvatels' interests'?" someone asked.
"They are the worst kind of obyvatels," said G., "that is, obyvatels without any positive redeeming features, or they are charlatans, lunatics, or knaves."
"But may there not be honest and decent people among politicians?" someone asked.
"Certainly there may be," said G., "but in this case they are not practical people, they are dreamers, and they will be used by other people as screens to cover their own obscure affairs.
"The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows that things 'do themselves' simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general, do anything. This for him is not being serious. And an understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious."
