Gurdjieff's Primitive Cosmology

[Keit]

When gurdjieff says we are feeding the moon , he is referring to the whole of a mans life, which if his soul has not grown , then feeding the moon is about all he achieves.

The question is, how exactly does this "feeding" happen according to G's cosmology? And considering the fact that this cosmology is materialistic?

For example, there was a recent discussion about water being transferred from Mars to Earth, and a giant electric ark was described in ancient accounts. That's what begs the question about this "feeding the moon" notion. It does makes sense from a hyperdimentional point of view, but if G's cosmology is materialistic, than it should have a similar proposed explanation of the process. Right?

 

[mkrnhr]

It also reminded me what Petterson said about "righteous" people. Paraphrasing, that there is nothing "righteous" about an "innately good" person, but that it has to be a choice by someone who has inner-darkness too. Well, not sure G would fit the description of a "righteous man", but he certainly was capable of inflicting much harm on others and at some point decided/made a promise to the self not to do it.

More precisely, he made a promise not to inflict harm for purely personal anymore, but only in the sake of "study". That's perhaps what he meant to convey through the "struggle of the magicians", the struggle of the two aspects within.

 

[Laura]

As for the materialistic cosmology, it makes his "us being food for the Moon" very hard to grasp. Without adding the hyperdimentional aspect to it, that is. If it was purely materialistic and a matter of exchange of vibrations and energy, considering ages of unconscious suffering and bloodshed, and that all this energy supposedly went to the Moon, we should have discovered microbes there already, if not a flourishing ecosystem! ;)

That's why it is important to read this book.

According to Gurdjieff, living systems are supposed to "feed" cosmic systems. They do this in one of two ways: by the fine matter they produce from their bodies while meditating etc, or by a material energy that is released when they die. You really have to read this book which lays out the story and what Gurdjieff said in other places on the topic.

Of course, we have all been reading it as a metaphor for 4th density, thanks to the input of the Cs. But that is definitely NOT what Gurdjieff understood himself or meant.

There are a few things he wrote about that can be interpreted as him talking about 4th density, and that certainly provides a better explanation, but that isn't what G meant.

Also, G must be counted among those who believed that anything that was "higher" than man was, by necessity, good. So, even though he describes the "archangels" as being the ones who installed the "organ Kundabuffer", they did it in good conscience, for a good reason that just happened to turn out to be an awful mistake. So, they uninstalled it, but humans were already "spoiled" by it, and thus, now, all responsibility for being morons and evil falls squarely on human beings. Never mind that the "good archangels" did this to humanity.

He had no conception of positive and negative being necessary at the most fundamental levels of being in order for anything to come into existence, and being represented across all densities one way or another. Thus, he could have no real conception of psychopathy or 4 D STS, and so on.

For Gurdjieff, atoms only come into being at the level of planets (third order suns) and "evil", of course, only comes into being at the level of humanity.

The fact that his "perfect god" couldn't have been so perfect if he created a universe for himself that was gradually diminishing and thus necessitated the creation of the imperfect and mechanical universe where life comes into being to "feed the system" and keep his "home" from shrinking to nothing, never seems to have occcurred to him.

 

[genero81]

I think this will prove to be a quite significant find to our overall understanding. I mean we know already that students of G are missing the boat, that much was obvious. Now maybe we can surmise why. It's a surprise to me to find out G was strictly a materialist. I would have sworn he was hinting at hyper-dimensional influences.

 

[Phill4]

**I don't intend to add noise, so excuse if I do it**
I just had a comment parenthesis about Hydrogens and how I looked at it, never reached as far as too accounting cosmology into the mix and as Laura said I laid out the information assuming that he referred to densities as we understand them,
I spent some time about a year ago, studying the table of Hydrogens, as others it was unintelligible and hard to read, but I gave it a chance and reviewed it hoping to extrapolate some useful information, So i read it from top to bottom again , and right off the bat I knew , that he knew there were unknown factors to it. I knew that I couldn't take too literal the definitions of the moon, since yes the moon does get energy from us, yes, but perhaps not the type of psychic form of energy that he described or in the form he described to directly affect the evolutionary cycle from moon to planet.. After all how does psychic energy provide for an atmosphere and water.. So factually , I saw no connection there.

At first he explains how all three forces interact with one another, ok, then he creates the diagram from absolute down, ok, then he cuts off the first 3 triads.

I understood from what the C's have explained from 6D being non material so kept this in mind, that perhaps it refer to a form of "matter" that was too fine or how he probably related his empiric experience to the assumption of materiallity.

Finer to me indicated more like the idea of energy transformation and transmutation, so I worked with these parameters and how one level of matter serves as foundation and as a medium for higher hydrogens.

Here are some examples I came up with in trying to make fit observations within the system of hydrogens

I was thinking that if a metal bar contain a potential of expressing "finer" hydrogens, it can only be through their properties, say hitting the metal will produce a specific type of sound which is the result of all properties and forces applied, and like wise, the sound it generates being in itself a hydrogen, contains properties within itself to generate other forms of "finer" hydrogens or as I was thinking expressions of energy transmutation as it interacts with other influences.

For example, sound transmits phonons, and the air vibrates, but further we have words which are concepts that travel through sound as the medium, in which case that would be a "finer" hydrogen than sound.

Concepts are not material per see, I had the discussion with materialistic people of about the soul and the mind/thoughts and how that does not exists because it is not physical, well if thoughts are non existent how do they exist, is the obvious question that follows.
We agree that it is a conglomeration of electrical signals and internal reactions expressed in a point in time. Like having one thought is having all elements in place at a point in time, like an orchestra playing a symphony, so therefore the specific sound that comes out is the result of the specific conditions and "position" of the elements in a specific time.. In which case the brain is the coarser hydrogen and the thoughts are the finer ones.
So I was left with the question of the idea of the interaction of a higher influence with a lower influence, more along the lines of the interaction of densities and higher/lower worlds.

So my conclusion is that energy transfer and transmutation, from Einstein's idea of relativity and from G. hydrogens as well as what we know about hyperdimentional realms, was that energy DOES have a process of transformation which require a medium for expression stability (such as our life and existence in 3D). and as said before, contains within itself the seed of its own transformation.

What always bugged me was HOW this happens,, say in human beings (being a conglomeration of multifaceted systems) , and I found there way too many factors that we miss constantly about our experience , though support our existence, that we are in the outskirts of our perception trying to make our way back.. and that is when I started looking at the subject perception more seriously and the limitations in the human perception from the point of view of biology, psychology, and how it leads to the potential for hosting a soul and thus have soul functions.


I agree that he was limited to what he had , and that he couldn't have had achieved what he did had he not have enough encounters with his dark nature, meaning, that how I picture G. looking at himself is by having the negative and positive aspects of himself always present with him, one in each pocket.

Will definitely read the books!!, hope I didn't add any noise.

 

[Laura]

I think the table of hydrogens and all that goes on about that, along with the absurd cosmology, is just G wiseacreing. He didn't have a clue and was trying to sound all scientific on the one hand, and to appear to be obviously "burying the whole dog" under myths which were obviously silly so as to reinforce the impression that it was really scientific.

One example of a big contradiction is that Beelzebub tells his grandson that the reason for organic life is to "feed the moon" etc, and that this is done by meditating or dying.

Then, after the kundabuffer was installed to prevent humanity from committing mass suicide upon perceiving reality as it is, there is a complaint about how absurd humans behave, alternately breeding to overpopulation and then killing each other off in wars... never mind that it was said that dying fed the moon! In many things, G seems to want his cake and eat it too.

 

[Altair]

The idea of humanity as "food for the Moon" may have been "borrowed" by G. from other sources. Here are some interesting quotes from The Zelator:

...The Sleepers are the human slaves of the Moon goddess, Selene. One makes the choice: either one sleeps to Selene, or awakes to Isis.

...In this injunction lies the whole secret of initiation, for it is a command insisting that the initiate must remain free of the soporific influence of the dark Moon (see here). The true initiate-alchemist must not fall back into being one of the multitude of Sleepers.

The initiation centres have always recognized that Mankind is in thrall to the Moon – that ordinary men and women are sleeping under the influence of the lunar powers. This is sometimes symbolized through the typical lunar symbols of the serpent – the Egyptian snake, Apep (plate 22), or the alchemical serpent, wrapped around the human form. It is usually portrayed as possessor of the spine of man or woman ..., yet which belongs to the Moon. This may account for „the fact that serpents entwine in the hair of the Moon-goddess Hecate: one of the most widespread of beliefs is that certain snakes are the dead, returned to the Earth Plane. The snakes in the hair of Hecate are a sign of the extent to which the serpent still whispers imaginative words into the thinking of Mankind. These imaginative words are pictures derived from the Moon, the realm of imagination.“

„In Greek mythology, we learn that Endymion – the archetypal human – is put into a hypnotic sleep by Selene, the Moon-goddess, in order that she can work her sexual will upon him. “

„Let us glance once more at the symbolism of the famous three-day pig. We are the pig, awaiting sacrifice. We are in thrall to the Moon: we are all sleeping Endymions, who must render to the Moon that which bears the imprint of the Moon. Let us presume that the sacrifice of the three-day „pig is symbolical of the three day …

„The primaeval terror of the Moon among the ancients was not entirely unrealistic: in those days, there was a different consciousness which allowed men to perceive cosmic realities that are now hidden from us. You will never understand why the ancient stone circles were built if you do not familiarize yourself with the Dark Moon.“

Interesting is the symbolic connection between Moon and snakes.

 

[Altair]

Then, after the kundabuffer was installed to prevent humanity from committing mass suicide upon perceiving reality as it is, there is a complaint about how absurd humans behave, alternately breeding to overpopulation and then killing each other off in wars... never mind that it was said that dying fed the moon! In many things, G seems to want his cake and eat it too.

Here is another quote from The Zelator related to this idea:

„But the pig. Let us glance once more at the symbolism of the famous three-day pig. We are the pig, awaiting sacrifice. We are in thrall to the Moon: we are all sleeping Endymions, who must render to the Moon that which bears the imprint of the Moon. Let us presume that the sacrifice of the three-day „pig is symbolical of the three days… that we spend in the sphere of the Moon after our death. As you know, in traditional Christianity, this period is called Purgatory. In esotericism, it has other names, with which you will all be familiar. The three-day pig is a symbol’ – he emphasized the word – ‘of this period we must spend in Purgatory.“
...
„It would be possible to point to vast documentary sources for this belief that the Moon is the cosmic centre of purgatory – it is indeed encapsulated in very many symbols in Christian doctrine and symbolism. On what may be the most obvious level, the very idea that demons have horns is probably a throw-back to the idea of the crescent of the Moon, their natural homeland: they are, so to speak, branded with the C of the crescent.“

 

[Menna]

The bottom line is this: a LOT of what Gurdjieff thought, wrote, and taught has to be simply tossed out because it is tainted at the very foundation by his truly primitive cosmology which is one variation on the Zoroastrian "revelation". Reading Collingwood juxtaposed against Tamdgidi on Gurdjieff is a huge revelation!

I know that others who have studied G came across information that resonated with them more than other information. I know I felt it. I dismissed the non resonating information as "I just don't get it" or "I will come back to that idea" Now there is an answer to this and it is in this post.

I don't think this discovery discredits G as he found out a whole hell of a lot of useful esoteric information with limited resources. It is like he built a 3 story house with just a hammer and nails but the foundation is shaky however the house is livable. I view this as a chance for us to climb the ladder the right way.

I view this as a transition for G followers and the working members of this forum a chance to continue on the right path a path that resonates and is easier to understand.

This discover of Collingwoods information is huge. Thank you laura. it looks like I will have to study this book and mesh it with the rest of G's information.

 

[bjorb]

I haven’t read everything about Gurdjieff, Including the now must-read books Laura shared.

But since the shortcomings of Gurdjieff are discussed. I got a few of my own. Not that I want to create noise, but it has been on my mind for a while.


Gurdjieff spoke so much about false personalities, mechanical behavior, Ego etc. I find him a bit lacking about the alternative. (Real I)

In short The Work is about developing one's conscience and learning to best act upon it.

Now correct me if I’m wrong.

But so far that I know, Gurdjieff was never super involved into geopolitics, politics etc. Nor did he really encourage his pupils to do the same. I don’t get that. A real I acts on one's conscience first and foremost. And that means getting involved in one-way or another while trying to relief the suffering of others and humanity.

Exposing the evil machinations of our World is what comes natural if you do The Work.

It’s a biggy, learning to carry the mantle of responsibility is part of The Work. Did Gurdjieff actively encourage his pupils to head in that direction? Since Doing so seems like essential practice to stimulate the real I.


I don’t know, perhaps the 4th way teachings are incomplete in a sense.

 

[PerfectCircle]

Heh, mixed feelings I get, I must confess.
Indeed, I felt strange for someone as him not talking about other realities. I also found confusing "food for moon" stuff you mention here as well.
On the other hand, he was a genius for what he did and how he did it. I've always admired him for that.
His knowledge of human psychology and how people do things using mainly motorical center can be said to be priceless for one's development. I'd still recommend him to anyone who is in "waking up" phase.

Now that the Collingwood's book "The idea of history" has arrived to me, I am eager to read it.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Me too I think it is a very refreshing work, very interesting, I am just at the beginning but I like it. He makes me think about all the books of history I have read or classes of history I have follow at school or University, makes me think about how little I know about how history is, the concept of history, how history is teached to us. Now this is a new look of all of this, and I think he is fascinating, his mind and fascinating how he teach us about the subject of history that is like an ocean, making us go gradually, step by step in a new sort of thinking, opening our mind, he is there guiding us with a machete in front of us, cleaning the path and permitting us to walk in the forest with him. He is a good teacher, I think so and a good writer with so much knowledge.I feel lucky to know him and I am very grateful for it.

What you wrote here reminded me of something I read recently, loreta. From Alfred Whitehead's "Aims of Education" (this bit was written about 100 years ago):

In training a child to activity of thought, above all things we must beware of what I will call "inert ideas" — that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilised, or tested, or; thrown into fresh combinations.

In the history of education, the most striking phenomenon is that schools of learning, which at one epoch are alive with a ferment
of genius, in a succeeding generation exhibit merely pedantry and routine. The reason is, that they are overladen with inert ideas. Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful — Corruptio optimi, pessima. Except at rare intervals of intellectual ferment, education in the past has been radically infected with inert ideas. That is the reason why uneducated clever women, who have seen much of the world, are in middle life so much the most cultured part of the community. They have been saved from this horrible burden of inert ideas. Every intellectual revolution which has ever stirred humanity into greatness has been a passionate protest against inert ideas. Then, alas, with pathetic ignorance of human psychology, it has proceeded by some educational scheme to bind humanity afresh with inert ideas of its own fashioning.

And this one:

The only use of a knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present. No more deadly harm can be done to young minds than by depreciation of the present. The present contains all that there is. It is holy ground; for it is the past, and it is the future. At the same time it must be observed that an age is no less past if it existed two hundred years ago than if it existed two thousand years ago. Do not be deceived by the pedantry of dates. The ages of Shakespeare and of Moliere are no less past than are the ages of Sophocles and of Virgil. The communion of saints is a great and inspiring assemblage, but it has only one possible hall of meeting, and that is, the present; and the mere lapse of time through which any particular group of saints must travel to reach that meeting-place, makes very little difference.

In the context of this thread, the above is what we are doing: utilizing and testing ideas, throwing them into fresh combinations. Not merely passively receiving inert ideas into our minds.

 

[John G]

Session Date: July 26th 2014

Q: (dugdeep) We've been kind of looking into the enneagram personality type thing here, and we're just wondering if that's a valid direction. It seems it could provide a lot of material for Work on oneself.

A: About 54 percent validity. Remember that this was essentially just "made up".

Q: [Toronto starts asking another question]

A: As are most human psychological systems in your society.

Gurdjieff does seem to have added his own just "made up" ideas but 54 percent validity is more than zero in spite of humans kind of just adding things for the sake of adding things to justify their time or whatever. Really the law of 7 and law of 3 are just plotting personalities on to a hexagon and triangle not anything related to psychological integration/disintegration. The law of 3 as seen on the Celtic Enneagram can also be a plotting on to a line segment plus origin which is more related to the idea of passive-active with a reconciling middle.

For the 4th Way Enneagram, you can actually see the line segment by thinking of the Enneagram having left-right opposites instead of 180 degree ones (this is the difference between the Celtic and 4th Way Enneagrams) via the 6 and 3 on the left and right with the 9 in the middle. Ouspensky kind of made up using the law of 3 for triple octaves but Enneagram triangle geometry is useful for plotting a triality of octonions (a math thing) as was done by the software I used for the plot I posted here earlier.

 

[Laura]

Here is another quote from The Zelator related to this idea:

„But the pig. Let us glance once more at the symbolism of the famous three-day pig. We are the pig, awaiting sacrifice. We are in thrall to the Moon: we are all sleeping Endymions, who must render to the Moon that which bears the imprint of the Moon. Let us presume that the sacrifice of the three-day „pig is symbolical of the three days… that we spend in the sphere of the Moon after our death. As you know, in traditional Christianity, this period is called Purgatory. In esotericism, it has other names, with which you will all be familiar. The three-day pig is a symbol’ – he emphasized the word – ‘of this period we must spend in Purgatory.“
...
„It would be possible to point to vast documentary sources for this belief that the Moon is the cosmic centre of purgatory – it is indeed encapsulated in very many symbols in Christian doctrine and symbolism. On what may be the most obvious level, the very idea that demons have horns is probably a throw-back to the idea of the crescent of the Moon, their natural homeland: they are, so to speak, branded with the C of the crescent.“

Reading the above with its "echoes" of Gurdjieffian terms that I now can "hear" in juxtaposition, suggests strongly that the author of Zelator was taking off on Gurdjieff.

 

[caballero reyes]

From reply 33 of genero81.-

"I would have sworn he was hinting at hyper-dimensional influences".


From reply 40 of perfectcircle.-.

"Indeed, I felt strange for someone as him not talking about other realities".

----------------- ---------------- ------------------

I also found it strange that G. did not talk about other realities and thought he did not because he kept certain ideas such as Hyper-Dimensionality and some others and communicated particularly to his closest circle of students, as if it were a school of mysteries.
It is also interesting that Ouspensky, who was supposed to be very intelligent, had traveled the world searching for the truth, to finish his search with the "truths" that were communicated to him by G., but in the end, he was not very convinced of the ideas gathered from groups in various regions by the so-called "20th century magician".


I wonder if they were really doing a "Fourth Way" work, but they went astray by obeying some other mission whose nature there are only assumptions and they forgot to continue the truly difficult path to the inside of themselves.
The Cs. speak very clearly about this when they alert scientists and thinkers with ideas of the third dimension, that they lack to add something to their scientific thoughts of the third dimension because they are leaving aside a very important element in the general equation.

BTW. It is well known that there has been a very important Shamanic knowledge in Siberia, but it seems that Ouspensky does not interest him much, or simply ignore it.