I started writing on Substack

Agreed, thanks @luc for this piece.

Upon reading it, was left with a question in the mind though. As it concerned the Work and what we do on Forum, in part at least, thought to post it here instead as a comment on the Substack.

What was said in the article, and even its title right away, seemed to be in opposition to the G's Work as presented in ISOTM by Ouspensky, and even to things elaborated in Gnosis trilogy by Mouravieff, namely to having an or the Aim, or simply a goal.
Is what you suggest in the article really contrary to the Work?

And as a side question, maybe not directly related to the above, Mouravieff in Gnosis put a rather strong accent on the need to have "ardent desire" while climbing the Staircase in pursuit of reaching the Second Threshold ("reaching the threshold" in itself represents again sort of a goal or an aim).
Is that "desire" in the same category as desires that we're encouraged to let go so to purify our intents, as written in the accompanying text for month September on FOTCM 2025 Calendar?

Yeah, it can sound contradictory, and part of the problem is that different people need to focus on different aspects at different points in their journey.

Of course, we sometimes need to set ourselves "hard goals" like quitting an addiction or some other disastrous habit, things like that. Also, a broad "esoteric goal" like aligning with truth and the will of the universe, of being of help to the cosmos, etc. is necessary.

But problems arise when you get caught up in dreams about imaginary futures that make you comfortable, in thinking about what you "should" do all the time instead of paying attention to the real, to the energies that can guide you in your decisions, etc. This can really block the energy. To give a practical example: I often used to beat myself up because in my head I decided I "should" be doing this or that (say finish some work or whatever) when in fact it wasn't the right moment, and the universe gave me an opportunity (and the right energy) to do something else. Then later at some point the energy changed, and I could finish the work effortlessly and even with joy.

Another aspect is the danger of thinking purely transactionally, in terms of expediency. Like, "what can I get out of this", "will this make me more rich", "will people like me more if I do this" etc. Such goals too can block the natural flow of energy.

As I said in the article, of course goals and utility have a place in this life of ours. But they should be in line with reality, with what reality tells us, which can be very difficult and subtle to figure out. Just slapping a "rule" or some abstract goal on it can, again, block our ability to see and perceive what's actually going on.

The Cs recommended having a "happy go lucky" attitude, and stressed the importance of patience over and over again, which I think is part of what I'm getting at here. There's also this quote by Ark:

FORGET "I should", forget it all. Replace it by "I LOVE TO DO ...." and skip completely the TIME issue. If you need five lives to accomplish what you WANT, let this be the first of those five. And then, without any "time obligation" or "should stressing" - start it. First step first. And ENJOY it. And LOVE yourself - take care of yourself. This is the only thing that the Universe (God?) wants from you, I think. "

All of this can easily be misunderstood to suit your whims of the moment, sure. But Gurdjieff's (or rather Ouspensky's rigid interpretation of Gurdjieff) can also be easily misunderstood and mess things up. Perhaps a good idea is to be curious about it all, experiment with those mindsets, and observe what reality/the universe is telling you while you do it.
 
Yeah, it can sound contradictory, and part of the problem is that different people need to focus on different aspects at different points in their journey.

Of course, we sometimes need to set ourselves "hard goals" like quitting an addiction or some other disastrous habit, things like that. Also, a broad "esoteric goal" like aligning with truth and the will of the universe, of being of help to the cosmos, etc. is necessary.

But problems arise when you get caught up in dreams about imaginary futures that make you comfortable, in thinking about what you "should" do all the time instead of paying attention to the real, to the energies that can guide you in your decisions, etc. This can really block the energy. To give a practical example: I often used to beat myself up because in my head I decided I "should" be doing this or that (say finish some work or whatever) when in fact it wasn't the right moment, and the universe gave me an opportunity (and the right energy) to do something else. Then later at some point the energy changed, and I could finish the work effortlessly and even with joy.

Another aspect is the danger of thinking purely transactionally, in terms of expediency. Like, "what can I get out of this", "will this make me more rich", "will people like me more if I do this" etc. Such goals too can block the natural flow of energy.

As I said in the article, of course goals and utility have a place in this life of ours. But they should be in line with reality, with what reality tells us, which can be very difficult and subtle to figure out. Just slapping a "rule" or some abstract goal on it can, again, block our ability to see and perceive what's actually going on.

The Cs recommended having a "happy go lucky" attitude, and stressed the importance of patience over and over again, which I think is part of what I'm getting at here. There's also this quote by Ark:



All of this can easily be misunderstood to suit your whims of the moment, sure. But Gurdjieff's (or rather Ouspensky's rigid interpretation of Gurdjieff) can also be easily misunderstood and mess things up. Perhaps a good idea is to be curious about it all, experiment with those mindsets, and observe what reality/the universe is telling you while you do it.
Thanks. :flowers:
I also now understand better your reply on Substack some time ago about a break in writing there.
 
The idea of "having no goals" also ties nicely with Ibn al-'Arabi's The People of Blame and The Station of No Station, last two sections of the last chapter Seeing with Two Eyes of The Sufi Path of Knowledge by W. C. Chittick.
FWIW.

The People of Blame said:
By manifesting all the divine names without a trace of Lordship and thereby displaying perfect servanthood, perfect man becomes, one might say, totally ordinary. In him, nothing stands out, since he flows with all created things in perfect harmony and equilibrium. He is like a tree or a bird in his ordinariness, following the divine will wherever it takes him, with no friction, no protest, complete serenity, no waves. He is so much at ease with the continual flux of secondary causes that he remains unnoticed by his contemporaries. There may be outstanding spiritual masters who attract disciples through their teachings and miraculous gifts, but the most perfect of the masters are never even noticed except by those whom God chooses and guides. In respect of this characteristic, Ibn al-'Arabi calls the most perfect of the gnostics the "People of Blame". Though the name "People of Blame" has historical precedents in Sufism, Ibn al-'Arabi defines the term and describes those who deserve it in terms specific to his own teachings.

Ibn al-'Arabi said:
The People of Blame are the masters and leaders of the folk of God's path.
[...]
They are the sages, those who put things in their proper places. They do things well and put the secondary causes in their correct locations, while negating them in the places from which they should be negated. They violate nothing of what God has arranged in His creation, leaving it just as He has arranged it. Whatever is required for this world, they leave for this world, and whatever is required for the next world, they leave for the next world. They look at things with the same eye with which God looks at things. They never confuse realities.
[...]
Hence the People of Blame place secondary causes in their places, but they do not depend upon them. The disciples of the People of Blame, who are the Truthful, undergo constant fluctuation within the stages of Manliness. But the disciples of others undergo constant fluctuation within the frivolities of the ego. The measures of the People of Blame are unknown. None knows them but their Master, who was partial toward them and singled them out for this station.
(II 16.15)

In the following passage Ibn al-'Arabi contrasts the "People of Blame" with two other types among the Men of Allah, the "worshipers" and the "Sufis." It is especially noteworthy that in this passage, as is frequently the case in his writings, the Shaykh employs the term "Sufi" not as a generic term for the seekers and finders of God, but as a designation for a particular type of spirituality which entails a certain amount of outward show and self-satisfaction, and thus denotes certain friends of God who are less than perfect.

Ibn al-'Arabi said:
[...]
For the common people, the worshipers are distinct by their mortification, their keeping away from people and people's states, and their avoidance of mixing with them in body. So they have their reward. The Sufis are distinct in the eyes of the common people by their claims and their miraculous breaking of habits, such as reading people's thoughts, and having their prayers answered. ... They do not refrain from manifesting anything that will lead people to know about their nearness to God since, they suppose, they witness nothing but God. But a great knowledge escapes them. Moreover, this state of theirs is not safe from deception and being led on stage by stage.

The People of Blame do not distinguish themselves from any of God's creatures by anything, so they are unknown. Their state is the state of the common people.
[...]
(III 34.28)

The Station of No Station said:
Perfection is an equilibrium in which all divine names play their proper role without the predominance of one name or some names over others. Perfect man acts as God's deputy and vicegerent in every situation, since the perfect balance of the names within him means that God acts through him in respect of Allah, the all-comprehensive name, not in respect of one of the specific names that are embraced by the name Allah. Hence perfect man is not delimited by any specific attributes, since he encompasses all attributes. He assumes the attribute appropriate to the occasion, just as God always discloses Himself in keeping with the receptacle. It is in this sense that Ibn al-'Arabi defines "perfection" in his Istilahat as "being removed from attributes and effects."

Because the perfect gnostic is not defined by any specific attribute, he is able to manifest conflicting and contradictory attributes, just as he is able to believe in every belief. The all-comprehensive name, Allah, brings together contrary attributes. The perfect gnostic, who is the locus of self-disclosure for this name, brings together all opposites. Ibn al-'Arabi explains this while discussing the station of "expansion", whose opposite is "contraction".

Ibn al-'Arabi said:
The final end and ultimate return of the gnostics - though their entities remain immutably fixed - is that the Real is identical with them, while they do not exist. This station is possessed only by the gnostics. Hence they are contracted in the state of their expansion. A gnostic can never be contracted without expansion or expanded without contraction. But when anyone other than the gnostic is in the state of contraction, he does not have the state of expansion, and when he is in the state of expansion, he does not have the state of contraction. Hence the gnostic is known only through the fact that he brings opposites together, for all of him is the Real.
[...]
(II 512.9)

In traversing the spiritual path, the gnostic passes from station to station, never losing a positive attribute after having gained it. One by one, in perfect harmony, he assumes the traits of the divine names. Having reached the highest station, he owns all stations. Having assumed the traits of all divine names, he now manifests the name Allah itself. Just as Allah designates nothing specific, but rather everything - Being and all its attributes - so also perfect man is nothing specific, since he is all things. Each station of the path represents a specific perfection of knowledge and character. Hence, Ibn al-'Arabi calls the highest station which represents no specific perfection "no station".

[...]

The possessors of no station are called by several other names in various contexts. Perhaps the closest synonym, however, is the "Muhammadan".
[...]

Ibn al-'Arabi said:
The highest of all human beings are those who have no station. The reason for this is that the stations determine the properties of those who stand within them, but without doubt, the highest of all groups themselves determine the properties. They are not determined by properties. They are the divine ones, since the Real is identical with them, and He is "the strongest of those who determine properties" (95:8).

This belongs to no human being except only the Muhammadans, as a divine solicitude already given to them. God has said concerning their likes, "But as for those unto whom the most beautiful reward has already gone forth from Us, they shall be kept far from it" (21:101), that is, from the Fire, since the Fire is one of these stations. So in reality, they are kept far from the stations. Hence the possessors of stations are those whose aspirations have become limited to certain goals and ends. When they reach those goals, they find in their hearts other, new goals, and these goals which they have reached become the beginning stages for other goals. Hence the goals determine their properties, since they seek them, and such is their situation forever.

But the Muhammadan has no such property and witnesses no goal. His vastness is the vastness of the Real, and the Real has no goal in Himself which His Being might ultimately reach. The Real is witnessed by the Muhammadan, so he has no ultimate goal in his witnessing. But other than the Muhammadan witnesses his own possibility. Hence he stands in a state or station which, in his eyes, may come to an end, or change, or cease to exist. He sees this as the ultimate goal of knowledge of God, since he has given the property its full due in respect to himself and his Lord.

Jesus is a Muhammadan. That is why he will descend at the end of time. Through him God will seal the Greater Friendship. He is God's spirit and His word, and the words of the Real are never exhausted. So the Muhammadan has no ultimate goal in his mind which he might reach.
(III 506. 30)
 
Back
Top Bottom