François said:
Ok, fine, this is more clear to me now, regarding the words "close" and "open"!
There are 34 occurences of the name "Gurdjieff" in the sessions (by search program). Not all of them are interesting, being passing remarks by one or other attendee; the following are the most interesting.
4 March 95
Q: (L) Georges Gurdjieff
proposed the idea that the earth is, in a sense, food for
the moon. What he meant was, what he had learned from
these ancient teachers was that earth was a food source
for some level of being, and that possibly these beings
had encampments or bases on the moon, but that earth was
eventually to become a star and that then the moon would
become an inhabited planet as the earth was, and so on...
Is this a fairly...
A: Close.
7 May 95
Q: (L) One of the persons who talks of the ocatave cycle is
Gurdjieff, the Sufi teachings, several of the great
philosophical teachings talk about the octave effect.
There is the cycle of seven and the next cycle is at a
higher level and is called an octave like the segments on
the musical scale.
A: Who are we?
Q: (L) The Cassiopaeans.
A: Yes, now, we have volunteered to assist you in your
development, yes?
Q: (L) So, throw all that other crap out the window?
A: If there were a level eight, do you think we would have
failed to mention it at this point?!?
Q: (J) Good point. (SV) They forgot! (J) Oh, by the way,
did we mention level eight?! (T) Well, maybe these other
people are perceiving the recycling as moving into another
octave rather than just doing it all over and over. They
just haven't got the information straight yet. A: There
are many who speak, and some who speak the truth! Q:
(J) Yeah, but which ones are speaking the truth? (L) The
truth is out there! But why Seven? What is the
significance of the number seven?
A: Why not?
Q: (T) Could there as easily have been eight or nine or six?
A: Is there "significance" to anything?
Q: (L) Only the significance we give it, I guess.
A: And if so, what is that?
Q: (T) Well, it is interesting to me because it means there
was a structure to the way things were set up. There must
have been a reason it was selected this way as opposed to
another way.
A: Really?
Q: (T) It didn't just happen. Nothing just happens! (J)
Now, hold on a second, base 10 is because we have 10
fingers.
A: Who says?
Q: (T) You did.
A: Oh yeah?
Q: (L) Are you saying, essentially, that it is the way it is
because things are just arbitrarily that way?
A: No, we are trying to teach you how to complete the puzzle.
Q: (T) So the reason it is what it is and why is something we
have to figure out.
A: And you have to figure out what is reason?
Q: (T) The reason for what? (J) For the seven.
A: No. No. No. Pay attention, please. What is reason?
Q: (J) As in reasoning?
A: Much of your learning to this point is based upon
assumption of definitions of reality.
Q: (L) And, all of our assumptions are completely wrong?
A: Not all.
Q: (J) Anything that is rooted in 3rd density doesn't apply
in most of these things and that's where we have to let
go.
A: Logic is subjective.
Q: (L) Is symbolic logic as is used in mathematics
subjective?
A: No.
Q: (L) But you always come up with different things using
math than mentation. Okay. Well, we opened a can of
worms here. (T) We do that every time. (J) Worms are us!
[Laughter]
A: Ongoing project.
Q: (T) Teaching us is an ongoing project. (J) We are a can
of worms. (L) Is there any point in time when these
communications will end?
[Tape ends abruptly and snaps off to surprised laughter at
the synchronicity.]
Q: (L) Was that a symbolic answer to that question?
A: Open.
3 July 99
Q: (A) Okay, if it is sincere, then it means I should answer him. Last question: I was thinking about what is the most important for me at the present, and I think that I want to understand and implement this concept of densities; to implement it into physics and mathematics. But, it seems to me that I am completely alone with that. I would like to know where should I look, because certainly other people have already tried to do it. I don't want to start from scratch if there is something that I can look at or study before I really jump into this difficult project. Were there people, scientists... where to look?
A: Study the works of Gurdjieff and Jung, for starters. Also, Vallee is on a similar path, and a little ahead of you. He would be most approachable, if you can convince him of your sincerity.
Q: (A) Vallee? Okay, I finished my questions...
10 July 99
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
A: Okay.
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
20 August 2001
Q: (L) What is the general approach that all of us should take to Vincent? Should we try to explain anything to him?
A: No.
Q: Will he ever get it?
A: Most likely not.
Q: That's a shame. (A) We don't know. It's "most likely not." (L) Well, I know, but "most likely not" it would really, really take a big event in his life to... does he WANT to get it?
A: No.
Q: Well. (A) It's not the right question because it assumes there is a "he" and there are 20 of "he's." He's not an "I." He's a typical example of what Gurdjieff said, there is no Master, there are several of them, and they want to serve different gods. We ask "he, " but there is not even a major "he." There is "he" on Thursday and "he" on Wednesday. There is "he" in the night and "he" in the day. That's it.
A: True.
26 Feb 02
Q: (A) Okay, so there is this general -what Gurdjieff calls worlds - he had a very good description. (R) Okay so my question would be if consciousness, for example us three in this room, are we interacting with reality through 7th density which uses these frequency awareness boundaries? Right so it's kind of a middle step. I'm not sure how to phrase it.
A: 7th density interacts with divisions through you.
30 March 02
Q: (A) I have a test question for Cassiopaeans. Which is true of the following two possibilities: a) In certain circumstances energy can create consciousness. b) In certain circumstances consciousness can create energy.
A: B: consciousness can create energy.
Q: (V) And isn't light also information?
A: Light is utilization.
Q: (V) Okay, light is utilization. How is that done? Is this a process? Maybe I would understand it better if it said "the utilization of light."
A: What would you utilize light for?
Q: (V) Well, to raise consciousness. To raise awareness.
A: How would light raise consciousness?
Q: (V) If light is energy, I mean, if light is information...(A) Light is not information. It's not what you learn in physics. You can use light to send information. (V) Why does it have to be about physics? (L) What else can it be about? Physics is concerned with the most fundamental questions of reality. (A) What is light? What do you know about light? What is light for you may be another definition of light. (L) This is what they've said before: They've said that light is produced by utilization of knowledge. That light is an energy expression of gravity. They've also said that light is an expression of the utilization of knowledge. So we come to the idea that knowledge is gravity in a certain sense. In other words knowledge consists of all things that could or could not be in all contexts, in all realms, in all dimensions, in all universes, that the sum total of everything is like this non-existent, non-dimensional point of everything that could ever exist. It's almost like this zero point from which all potential could erupt given the proper circumstances. We're getting into something where there's not many words to describe it. There's a huge limitation here that if you don't know math, your words can only take you so far because as precise as you can get with your words, you can't get as precise as you can get with numbers. Numbers say things that words cannot, and they say it in a way that communicates directly to some part of the mind that bypasses this word processing organ. Well I don't want to say bypasses, I mean it goes to a place that's higher than a word processing organ, so to speak. Another interesting thing is all the knowledge that we can gather is like gravity, and collecting gravity is like becoming heavier. But then when you utilize it, you share it and there is a burst of light and this is the utilization. In other words utilizing your knowledge is doing something with it. And that goes back to that thing that Gurdjieff said that for those in the higher esoteric circles, at that inner level their understanding is immediately expressed as action. Understanding and action are like two sides of the same coin. And then of course there's other levels where they have understanding but they have no action. We've all seen that in the gurus who sit around and contemplate their navels saying they understand everything but they're not doing anything. They just sit there contemplating their navel. Until one can do and act based on their understanding it is not utilized and they then have not produced light unto the world. A simple example is - We can sit here and collect 700 pages of gravity of information, or knowledge and until we utilize it, until we do something with it, until we share it, it's not light... we've just collected it and it's gravity. But the minute we start writing it, the minute we start processing it through us into our reality in some way, we write web pages or we do some activity or we do as the C's say, "You will do what you will do" and that's entirely a function of your understanding. (V) Of light as utilization. (A) Light when it stops it becomes matter. Maybe it is so that, at another level, when consciousness hits something, it becomes light. (V) What is it hitting? (A) For instance a consciousness is hitting another consciousness. So, there is a reaction. And as a result of this reaction, light is created which carries somehow the information, the knowledge of the interaction. (L) So we end up almost coming around in a circle. (V) So what you're saying then is light is not the first. (A) No we know already that consciousness creates light. We've got this answer, consciousness is more primitive. There are these levels of matter/reality I would say, okay? (V) Okay. I had it backwards in my head. I thought light was more primitive than consciousness. (A) Light is very close to matter, you stop light and you get matter. (L) Matter is nothing but congealed light. Another thing: light is an energy expression of gravity. It's an energy expression. That suggests that gravity is energy unexpressed. And when it expresses it's light. And when it expresses here and then it expresses there we have these units of consciousness which are unexpressed energy prior to light. When gravity is expressed it is consciousness - perhaps manifesting as some other range of the EM spectrum - and then the next level of the expression is when one consciousness energy and another consciousness energy interacts with each other and then light is produced. Possibly. (A) Another possibility is that consciousness is the organizing principle. Light is something that is already organized. (L) What if consciousness is an unstable gravity wave. (A) We don't know what that is. We don't even know what are gravity waves. (L) The bottom line is, we're probing into realms that have been probed and probed and probed for ages with no definitive results. (A) Oh, we'll find out. (B) The sad thing about it is this whole process is cluttered with so much misdirection and semantics. (L) Yeah, and the battle factor.
13 July 02
Q: We have recently been working with some material from Boris Mouravieff. We can see many relationships between that work and so many of the clues and hints scattered throughout the C's transmissions. What seems to be important is his information about the Centers - three lower and three higher that are not "seated" in the body. Then, he talks about the difference between "A" influences and "B" influences, and the necessity for assimilation of "B" influences in order to fuse the "magnetic center" which then enables the soul - or higher centers - to "seat" in the body. Is the information from Mouravieff about these matters fairly accurate?
A: Not just fairly. It has been preserved from the time of the "Fall."
Q: Mouravieff states clearly that this teaching is a "thin thread" of an oral tradition, and that the monks themselves - in various locations - admit that it has not only not been put into writing, but has not ever even been "gathered together" in a single place. This is, of course, problematical, but it seems that Mouravieff has made a sincere effort to present the material of the Tradition itself, even if he has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to weave through it some of the occult traditions of Europe that have been so very popular for so long, particularly the synarchic views of Guenon and so forth. In seems that, in this respect, Mouravieff has interpreted many things in an "A influence" sort of way. And then, there is Mouravieff's presentation of the "worlds." It seems to be very similar to the teaching about "densities," though without the balance of STS and STO.
A: If it is understood in the original context of hyperdimensional realities. Also, there are some distortions and gloss on the subject of the "worlds" and
"notes." But even this is only minor.
Q: Mouravieff says that there are two kinds of humans - he calls the "pre-Adamic" and "Adamic," (discussed in book III). The idea is that pre-Adamic human types basically have no "soul" nor any possibility of growing one. This is a pretty shocking idea, but there have been recent scholarly discussions of this matter based on what seems to be clinical evidence that, indeed, there are human beings who are just "mechanical" and have no "inner" or "higher self" at all. [See: "Division of Consciousness"] Gurdjieff talked about this and so did Castaneda. Are these ideas Mouravieff presents about the two basic TYPES of humans, as far as they go, accurate?
A: Indeed, though again, there is a "Biblical Gloss."
Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?
A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of density.
Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.
21 March 2008
Q: (Joe) Your dream about talking to Gurdjieff and what he said? (L) I don't remember what he said in the dream. (Chu) that to tell Joe that it was like a torture. (L) Okay, I remember. So you want to ask about that dream? (Joe) Well it was just a follow up to that question, if what he told you was accurate. (L) okay, did I really meet Gurdjieff in my dream? That was really a cool dream.
A: Pretty much. You are a member of the same soul group.
30 May 2009
Q: (L) Okay. Is there any particular goal for her to focus on at the present time?
A: Getting well will be facilitated by focusing on others as the reason to get better. Giving her life to dogs didn't give much to the world nor did it bring much return except subjective illusion. As Gurdjieff said, you get back what you give to life.
4 Sept 2011
Q: (L) Did Paul of Tarsus belong to any philosophical school or mystical group?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was it one of the mystery religions?
A: Similar to them but older. There are traces here and there. You have been doing well reconstructing this. You could say that this communication is part of same.
Q: (L) Is this what Gurdjieff referred to as esoteric Christianity?
A: Yes.
