My work is not inner-considering

[tlz]

From time to time, I have asked myself, why was the information of the Fourth Way revealed to the general population early in the 1900s?

Earlier today, I was reading The The Cs and Gurdjieff,, from which I was reminded of the conversation with Gurdjieff:

During one conversation with G. in our group, which was beginning to become permanent, I asked: “Why, if ancient knowledge has been preserved and if, speaking in general, there exists a knowledge distinct from our science and philosophy or even surpassing it, is it so carefully concealed, why is it not made common property? Why are the men who possess this knowledge unwilling to let it pass into the general circulation of life for the sake of a better and more successful struggle against deceit, evil, and ignorance?

This is, I think, a question which usually arises in everyone’s mind on first acquaintance with the ideas of esotericism.

“There are two answers to that,” said G. “In the first place, this knowledge is not concealed; and in the second place, it cannot, from its very nature, become common property. We will consider the second of these statements first. I will prove to you afterwards that knowledge” (he emphasized the word) “is far more accessible to those capable of assimilating it than is usually supposed; and that the whole trouble is that people either do not want it or cannot receive it.

“But first of all another thing must be understood, namely, that knowledge cannot belong to all, cannot even belong to many. Such is the law. You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material. It is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time. It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities. Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a very large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected. Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

“But if, on the contrary, large quantities of knowledge are concentrated in a small number of people, then this knowledge will give very great results. From this point of view it is far more advantageous that knowledge should be preserved among a small number of people and not dispersed among the masses.

And to some extent, I understand the line of thinking expressed in the foregoing passage, however, it does not fully explain why Gurdjieff did what he did, and helped to make this information available to the general population.

In a similar way, there is the information given by the Cassiopaeans. Yes, Laura asked, and of course the approaching Wave.

But is there more to it than that?

And, I guess, I sort of answered my question. It's the Wave (duh)!

But then, I paused and made some espresso, and paced around the apartment for a few minutes, and thought, is that all there is?

And then I remembered that following the passage quoting the conversation between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, Laura quotes from Amazing Grace.

Quote from: Amazing Grace
The child I was carrying at the time my grandmother died was born in the Spring of 1985. The entire pregnancy was spent mourning for my grandmother.

FWIW, I was born about 91/2 months (290 days) after Gurdjieff died. I do not remember when it was that I first considered the possibility, but I'm fairly certain that it was during my brief association with the FOF. It is not something I think about often. And furthermore, I do not have much knowledge about reincarnation, and how it may or may not work.

A little background on my introduction to the Fourth Way.

I experienced a negative passage in late October of 1970, which caused me to search for an understanding of what had happened. A few months later I came across the Fourth Way on the bottom shelf in a bookstore, and started reading. On page 3, when the concept of self-remembering was introduced, I realized it was the book that I'd been looking for, as I had terribly forgotten myself on that dark and rainy night of the previous October.

The following afternoon (of the "event"), after I had gotten rid of the Jehovah's Witnesses that had knocked on my door, I went back inside and put on some music -- Sweet Baby James. I laid on the bed and closed my eyes and tried to center -- a concept that I had come across in my reading during my preparation pass the test to become a CO. I simply tried to watch my breathing while being aware of my body. After a few minutes (with my eyes still closed), I began to see brightly-colored, geometric, wire-framed images. I became fascinated with the spectacle, and then they disappeared. I tried it again (centering), and a few moments later, the images reappeared, and again, once identified, disappeared. Tried a third time, didn't happen, has never happened since.

My work is not inner-considering. Thanks for your time.

 

[Renaissance]

And to some extent, I understand the line of thinking expressed in the foregoing passage, however, it does not fully explain why Gurdjieff did what he did, and helped to make this information available to the general population.

Do you think it should not have been made available? If the Work cannot become the common property of the general population, then why not make it available to those who can use it?

FWIW, I was born about 91/2 months (290 days) after Gurdjieff died. I do not remember when it was that I first considered the possibility, but I'm fairly certain that it was during my brief association with the FOF. It is not something I think about often. And furthermore, I do not have much knowledge about reincarnation, and how it may or may not work.

I'm not really clear on what you're stating here. Are you speculating about being Gurdjieff reincarnated?

My work is not inner-considering.

A couple of things. Are you saying that you're work doesn't involve inner-considering, or that your work is to not internally consider? If it is the former, such a statement sounds an awful lot like inner considering... and how does this statement and title of the thread relate to your post?

 

[tlz]

And to some extent, I understand the line of thinking expressed in the foregoing passage, however, it does not fully explain why Gurdjieff did what he did, and helped to make this information available to the general population.

Do you think it should not have been made available? If the Work cannot become the common property of the general population, then why not make it available to those who can use it?

My question is: why release the information with Gurdjieff in 1915 or thereabouts? Were there no people in the general population before that time that could have used the information? Movable type printing, had been around for about 500 years by that time. Who decided to let it out in 1900 (or whenever it was)? And why? I guess whoever it was, must have had knowledge of the Wave?

FWIW, I was born about 91/2 months (290 days) after Gurdjieff died. I do not remember when it was that I first considered the possibility, but I'm fairly certain that it was during my brief association with the FOF. It is not something I think about often. And furthermore, I do not have much knowledge about reincarnation, and how it may or may not work.

I'm not really clear on what you're stating here. Are you speculating about being Gurdjieff reincarnated?

Yes, I was inner-considering about speculating, thus didn't say it as such.

My work is not inner-considering.

A couple of things. Are you saying that you're work doesn't involve inner-considering, or that your work is to not internally consider? If it is the former, such a statement sounds an awful lot like inner considering... and how does this statement and title of the thread relate to your post?

I do inner-consider, and have tried to get over that, for many years. Inner-considering is what "set me off" on that night in October. Have been doing it for as long as I can remember.

Why do I post this? Why not? It could be. If so, so what? Simply thought I'd mention it -- grist for the mill. May I ask, would it be more appropratiate to keep it to myself? If so, remove the post. Either way is fine with me.

 

[anart]

Yes, I was inner-considering about speculating, thus didn't say it as such.

So, you think you are the reincarnation of G.I. Gurdjieff.

I do inner-consider, and have tried to get over that, for many years. Inner-considering is what "set me off" on that night in October. Have been doing it for as long as I can remember.

Why do I post this? Why not? It could be. If so, so what? Simply thought I'd mention it -- grist for the mill. May I ask, would it be more appropratiate to keep it to myself? If so, remove the post. Either way is fine with me.

You appear to be quite satisfied with your current state of being - one characterized by inner considering and a palpable level of self-importance.  At this point, I'm curious as to why you joined this forum, since your cup appears to be quite full? No offense is intended by this question at all - just wondering.

 

[Renaissance]

Just to be clear, are you thinking that Gurdjieff chose to release his fourth way teachings to the public in the 1900's because
a. the approaching Wave
and
b. because you feel you're Gurdjieff reincarnated?

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=tlz]FWIW, I was born about 91/2 months (290 days) after Gurdjieff died.[/quote]

Just curious - how many other people in the world were born that day?

 

[Laura]

Generally, unless there is some incredible trauma and a life plan was left unfulfilled, the available "evidence" suggests that people do not reincarnate that "fast." I do know of a couple of cases "suggestive of reincarnation" with a good bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the individuals involved fit this category. One is an individual who, allegedly, died in Viet Nam and another is quite small and allegedly died in the WTC collapse. This child is very conscious of that event and has given details of it even as a toddler. The other one also was very conscious of the Viet Nam war and gave details that were unknown, but later confirmed. But in the case of this individual, who is now an adult, the consciousness and awareness faded with time.

In Amazing Grace, I wrote about the odd coincidence that occurred prior to the birth of my last child that is similar to the single fact that tlz is citing as his "theory anchor". A bit of background: After my fourth child was born, I was bedridden for a long time due to injuries that occurred during the delivery. I had gestational diabetes, a kidney infection almost the entire time of the pregnancy, and the doctor was pretty sure I should never have another baby. I also had developed endometriosis and adenomyosis, very painful and distressing conditions. I was told after an intervention D&C that I would have to have a hysterectomy. So, that's where we pick up here:

A couple of weeks later I experienced the worst pre-menstrual cramping of my life. I knew it was now time to schedule the hysterectomy the doctor had said I would need. It had been nearly a year since the D&C, and I had bought that much time, but I was no longer willing to suffer two weeks of complete incapacitation every month. So, in December of 1988, I waited for the results of the lab tests done as pre-op work for the surgery.

The results were stunning. I was pregnant.

"This will kill me," I told the doctor.

"Yes, it is not an ideal situation. The risks are very high, and you will have to be closely monitored."

I started to cry. I couldn't have another baby. I was too old; I was too sick, and most of all I was too tired.

"Can't we just forget about the pregnancy test and schedule the surgery?" I pleaded.

He looked at me with sympathy and said kindly, "No, I can't do that. But I can send you to another doctor who can take care of you safely. You can come back and we'll schedule the surgery." He wrote a name and number on his prescription pad, handed it to me, and passed the box of tissues.

I blew my nose, sniffled my way out, and went home. It was just before Christmas.

I was given an appointment date of January 3rd, 1989 for an abortion.

I was miserable all through Christmas. My condition was so bad that even Larry agreed that I couldn't have another baby. We both knew it would kill me.

It was a very depressing Christmas even though we tried to make it as cheerful as possible for the children. The January 3rd date loomed in my mind as more like an execution than anything else, and I wept for this poor child who simply could not be born.

On the day of the appointment, we took the children over and left them with my mother at the Farm. Larry drove me to the doctor.

With me on the table in the famous stirrup position women know so well, the doctor began his work, poking and prodding. The sweat began to bead on his forehead. Nothing was going on but more poking and more prodding. Finally he dropped his instruments on the tray, pulled his gloves off with a snap and dropped them, made some unintelligible remark to the nurse and walked out of the room.

The nurse patted me and said she would be right back. She rushed after the doctor, and in a few minutes returned and told me that I could get up and go home. There wasn't going to be an abortion.

"What?" I was desperate.

"The doctor is unable to anchor the cervix. It keeps slipping. The procedure will have to be done in the hospital under general anesthesia. You can make an appointment with the receptionist." She patted me comfortingly on my shoulder as I finished dressing and I left the room.

That was enough for me. As far as I was concerned, that was as close to a "sign from God" as I needed. Whatever it took, if it killed me, this baby would be born.

***

I had made a momentous decision based on coincidence. Finally, I knew I needed rest, and decided to read myself to sleep. I went to the bookcase to select something that wasn't too demanding, and found an old edition of "Edgar Cayce on Reincarnation". Settling in bed, I began to read the introduction by Hugh Lynn Cayce, the same standardized intro that appeared in most of the Cayce books I'd read.

Then I came to the phrase: "When Edgar Cayce died on January 3rd, 1945..".

I realized with a start that I was reading this exactly 44 years to the day after the event. According to numerology, which I had researched while writing Noah, that equaled an 8. Number 8 signified "reincarnation". It was the beginning of a new cycle of the octave of creation. After 7, which was completion, the 8 was the equivalent of the number 1 of the next higher sequence.

Cayce himself had predicted that he would be born again in 1989 as a "liberator" for humanity, though I didn't remember the precise terms. Naturally, my heart began to beat a little faster. I wondered if it was possible that this child was special in some way.

Was this how the Universe conveyed that information to me?

Well, all mothers have such fantasies or similar ones, so I didn't take it too seriously. Whoever or whatever child came to me would be special.

As it turned out, that was the easiest pregnancy I ever had. If anybody was being "reborn" by it, it was me. For the third time, though, I had a ten-month baby. She also had her own plans about what day she was going to be born. When the first contraction came late in the afternoon on August 17th, we made it to the hospital in record time. After six hours of labor, it was obviously time to deliver. The doctor did a final exam before I was taken to the delivery room. A troubled look came over his face and, after removing his gloves, he came around the bed, put one arm around me, took my hand in his, and said gently:

"You're going to have to hold it for awhile until we can get an anesthesiologist in here. We have to do a caesarean. The baby is presenting sideways. She cannot be delivered this way."

To say I was a bit distraught to have to "hold it" when my body was convulsing and screaming to "do it now!" is an understatement. But, somehow I managed. I watched the clock as the minutes ticked by like hours of agony, and finally they came to take me to surgery. It was just after midnight. My fifth child and fourth daughter was born at 17 minutes after midnight on 8/18/89. You will notice that, numerologically, that is an 8. Funny place, this Universe we live in.

Another little note, this child has a Pisces moon... and Cayce was a Pisces. Also, it was DST, so she was really born on the 17th, and 1+7=8.

Now, with all of THAT coincidence, I should be sure that the child is the reincarnation of Cayce, right? Wrong. I don't think that at all even if she is mysterious and creative and psychic. If anything, I suspect she is one of my children from my previous life in Nazi Germany who died in a concentration camp. There is a lot more intuitive/circumstantial evidence to suggest that.

What I DO think is that all of these interesting coincidences were just simply a message of encouragement from myself in the future - hang on... there IS meaning.

But isn't that miraculous enough?

 

[tlz]

No offense is intended by this question at all - just wondering.

No offense taken, hope the following helps you to see more clearly.

Yes, I was inner-considering about speculating, thus didn't say it as such.

So, you think you are the reincarnation of G.I. Gurdjieff.

To think I was the reincarnation of Gurdjieff would imply that it is something that in in my consciousness on a more-or-less continual basis, or at least it seems to me that would be the definition of thinking that I am something or the other? This thought is not one that is present in my mind, nor has noticeable influence over my day-to-day life or as a part of my being. When a person thinks that they are something or another, it also would indicate some level of certainty. I do not believe my post indicated any certainty on my part. I stated that it was merely a possibility that I am not afraid to discuss. In addition, I provided a very clear linkage as to why I was mentioning this -- the association between a subject that I had been searching and reading within this forum, and the coincident quote by Laura regarding her daughter and her deceased grandmother.

You appear to be quite satisfied with your current state of being - one characterized by inner considering and a palpable level of self-importance.

I am not clear as to how you come to this observation? Perhaps because of what I wrote about in my introduction in the Newbie's forum? But again, I'm not clear how what I described could be or should be construed as being "satisfied with my state of being"?

Selling my house, which I had owned for 23 years, located in a beautiful mountain ski resort, where I had lived for 30 years for 60% of what I had previously assumed it was worth was not an easy decision, nor a joyous one. Like many others in the U.S., I had counted on that being a part of my retirement, and to be forced to sell, years sooner than anticipated, and for considerably less that I'd imagined was quite a shock.

Selling my business, a business started by my older brother in 1968, and which I had been a part of for 30 years and had been the owner of for 5 years, for a sum that was equal to 2 years of my salary was also not an easy decision to make. I put my life into that business and to have it snatched away by some predators was another shock as well.

Giving away virtually all of my possessions and moving to a 3rd-world country -- is that what you perceive as creating self satisfaction? My ex-wife is Filipino (21 years my junior) and by far the finest woman I'd ever been with. Certainly that was a reason to come to the Philippines, but the greater reasons were to escape from the U.S. and to live somewhere with a lower cost of living. But, I fail to see the satisfaction in seeing ones country disintegrate as is happening in the U.S. or the satisfaction of being out of work and forced to live at a much lower standard of living.

As to "a palpable level of self-importance," what indicates to you that it is obvious that I am oozing self-importance? We come to this forum as incomplete beings, fragmented, alone, unfulfilled and seeking understanding through the messages from the C's and with the tools of the Work. I assume that networking means being honest and open and endeavoring to creating something greater than the individual nodes of the network. We all bring individual abilities and disabilities, skills and shortcomings, ideas and identification -- is it better to put our cards on the table, or hide behind the fear of implying delusions of grandeur. I do not expect you or anybody to believe such nonsense, I certainly don't. But I am also going to struggle to speak my mind, regardless of what someone may or may not think of me after listening to what I say. Maybe I have something to contribute,maybe not, I guess you all can decide.

At this point, I'm curious as to why you joined this forum, since your cup appears to be quite full?

Yet again, I fail to see how you could view my "cup appearing to be quite full"? I joined this forum to try to better understand what is going on in the world at this time.

To quote Bob Chapman:

"America’s government, Wall Street, banking, the whole financial sector and major corporations are rife with fraud. ... Karl Marx has to be howling in laugher.

"... Fraud is everywhere and it continues unabated and un-prosecuted. A crime syndicate runs America. JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup run our government. ...

" ... The people who caused this are the Fed, banking, Wall Street and rating agencies, which are still in charge, and they are not even being investigated. There obviously are no rules. They are what the participants want them to be. As a result of these policies we are in worldwide depression."

Yes, this didn't just happen yesterday, and it is clear now that it has been an ongoing process, probably since time began. I joined this forum to try to better understand the current and probable future events -- knowledge protects.

Generally, unless there is some incredible trauma and a life plan was left unfulfilled, the available "evidence" suggests that people do not reincarnate that "fast." I do know of a couple of cases "suggestive of reincarnation" with a good bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the individuals involved fit this category. One is an individual who, allegedly, died in Viet Nam and another is quite small and allegedly died in the WTC collapse. This child is very conscious of that event and has given details of it even as a toddler. The other one also was very conscious of the Viet Nam war and gave details that were unknown, but later confirmed. But in the case of this individual, who is now an adult, the consciousness and awareness faded with time.

Thanks for that information. I feel better already <smile>

 

[anart]

Yet again, I fail to see how you could view my "cup appearing to be quite full"? I joined this forum to try to better understand what is going on in the world at this time.

It's rather simple, actually, your posts thus far indicate that you do not question yourself or your understanding. A small example is how you started this post:

hope the following helps you to see more clearly.

Instead of considering the possibility that what I said was true, you immediately set about to help me 'see clearly' - to correct my impressions. Whether my impressions are correct or not is not the point - the point is that you don't question yourself or your thinking.

Further data is spread throughout your other posts, quite liberally, actually:

Being essentially a loner and an inner-considering machine, I am not sure how much I'll contribute to this forum.

Yes, I understand your quibbles with the phrase, "being in the moment," (indicating that pointing out your lack of understanding was merely a quibble - not a substantive topic)

Why do I post this? Why not? It could be. If so, so what?

If so, remove the post. Either way is fine with me.

All of which exhibits a 'I am what I am, take it or leave it' attitude as opposed to an openness and willingness to learn about the self via the mirror of others perceptions - in other words, a full cup. This is not terribly unusual, it just 'is what it is', as it were... though as it is, it stops cold any real progress in the Work (of course whether that even matters or not is dependent on what your real Aim is in the first place).

Then there is this:

I joined this forum to try to better understand the current and probable future events -- knowledge protects.

My reasons for joining this forum are very simple -- it's obvious that something is happening, and from my perception the Cassiopaeans are the best guide to understanding whatever it is that is occurring.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the bulk of what this forum does is work to understand the self - each of us - something which you seem to not be very interested in since you don't question your own thinking and perceptions about yourself. It might seem like a small point, but, ultimately, the knowledge that is most powerful is knowledge of the self, but one must first have 'room in their cup' for that knowledge, and at least a willingness to put aside their own self-importance and accept that there are parts of themselves that they do not see at all. This is no small task, of course, and certainly not for everyone, which is probably as it should be.

Usually, if not almost always, when faced with parts of ourselves that we do not recognize as ourselves, we balk, get defensive, get angry or indignant, or try to correct others who are giving us those impressions - those reflections of the parts of ourselves we keep most hidden from ourselves to protect our own image/false personality. This is, at its base, what this forum strives to do, though it uses all aspects of this reality in order to 'get at that' in different ways. I hope this explanation has helped, or at the very least, not further confused things.

 

[Oxajil]

But I am also going to struggle to speak my mind, regardless of what someone may or may not think of me after listening to what I say.
Maybe I have something to contribute,maybe not, I guess you all can decide.

I think it's great to speak your mind. But it kind of sounds like that you're saying: "I'm saying this and you can interpret it all you want, I don't care!"
Rather than "This is what I have to say and I'm open to what you think of it. Open to possibilities, to growth and development."
That's what I think when I read the above, but I could be wrong of course..

 

[Gawan]

And to some extent, I understand the line of thinking expressed in the foregoing passage, however, it does not fully explain why Gurdjieff did what he did, and helped to make this information available to the general population.

In a similar way, there is the information given by the Cassiopaeans. Yes, Laura asked, and of course the approaching Wave.

But is there more to it than that?

And, I guess, I sort of answered my question. It's the Wave (duh)!

But then, I paused and made some espresso, and paced around the apartment for a few minutes, and thought, is that all there is?

Hi TLZ,
reagarding these questions, there are two Podcasts which might give you an very good overview what was Gurdjieff and what is today Lauras work about:

In search of the miraculous Part 1 and 2

Which brings it than back to you and as already asked by "anart" and answered by you, what is your aim?