Questions about Beelzebub's Tales

[Vivitskaia]

I was in a Gurdjieff group in Stockholm 1993-2003. Since 1996 I am connected with the Two Rivers Farm Gurdjieff community. I wish to make contact with other people who are willing to try to "fathom the gist" of Beelzebub's Tales, as we are urged to do after having undergone the necessary preparation.

From a question it is possible to increase understanding and to make a connection. Is there a question?

 

[Snowalker]

Questions

I wish to make contact with other people who are willing to try to "fathom the gist" of Beelzebub's Tales, as we are urged to do after having undergone the necessary preparation.

I am currently working with a Gurdjieff group where we read Beelzebub's tales every meeting as well as books by J.G. Bennett. There is also the Cass Chat group where there is a focus on the work and an opportunity to discuss issues that relate to it.

 

[Vivitskaia]

Questions

What are you getting from Beelzebub's Tales?

 

[Snowalker]

Questions

Reading Beelzebub does not teach me in the way I normally associate learning. It isn't until long after I've read a passage or chapter that I come to realize that I have a deeper grasp or perspective on a particular issue. I understand that many students will read the entire book many times before they are able to grasp what Gurdjieff is trying to convey. I don't think the book is meant to be read intellectually but rather with the other centers. In other words we don't need to understand what we've read in order to benefit from the experience.

Jim

 

[Ryan]

Questions

Hi Vivitskala, and welcome to the forum.

My own personal impression of "Beelzebub's Tales" is that the book is a potent repository of symbolically encoded knowledge. Although I have not completed reading it (there are many other books I have had to prioritize over it), there are many parts I would love to spend greater time studying in depth. One example:

"I must first tell you that I learned about the history of this society through what are called 'teleoghinaras,' also found in the atmosphere of your planet Earth As you probably do not yet know exactly what a 'teleoghinara' is, try to transubstantiate in the corresponding parts of your common presence the information concerning this cosmic actualization.
"A 'teleoghinara' is a materialized idea or thought, which after its arising exists almost eternally in the atmosphere of the planet where it appeared.
" 'Teleoghinaras' can be formed from being-contemplation of a quality such as only those three-brained beings have and can actualize who have coated in their presences their higher being-bodies, and have brought the perfecting of the Reason of these higher being-parts up to the degree of the sacred 'Martfotai ' And a sequence of being-ideas materialized in this way concerning a given event is called a 'korkaptilnian thought-tape.'
"The 'korkaptilnian thought-tapes' concerning the arising of the learned Society of Akhldanns were, as I found out much later, intentionally fixed by a certain eternal Individual, Asoochilon, now a saint, who became coated in the common presence of a three-brained being named Tetetos, who arose on the continent of Atlantis and existed there four centuries before the second great transapalnian perturbation.
"These 'korkaptilnian thought-tapes' are never destroyed as long as the given planet remains in the same 'tempo of movement' as at the moment of their arising, and they are subject to none of those transformations, whatever the cosmic cause, to which all other cosmic substances and crystallizations are periodically subject. And however long a time may have passed, every three-brained being who has acquired in his presence the ableness to enter into the being-state called 'soorptakalknian contemplation' can perceive these 'korkaptilnian thought-tapes' and become aware of their contents'

"And so, my boy, I myself learned the details of the arising of the Society of Akhldanns partly from the texts of these 'teleoghinaras' and partly from numerous data I gathered much later when I made my usual detailed investigations concerning a highly important fact that interested me.

It seems to me that here Gurdjieff is describing some form of "channelling". It also seems similar to what other sources have described as tapping into the "Akashic Record". In this thread, Laura's discussion on Gurdjieff makes reference to the following part in the Third Series:

I must also mention that, when I took the oath not to apply in life this inherency of mine, I made a reservation that my oath should not concern the application of it for scientific purposes.

For instance, I was very much interested then, and even now my interest has not entirely vanished, in increasing the visibility of distant cosmic centers many thousand times through the use of a medium, and in the cure of cancer by the power of suggestion.

J. H. Reyner, a student of Maurice Nicoll, wrote an interesting book called "No Easy Immortality", in which he discusses knowledge of the Fourth Way with an "Angelic Source". Here is the foreword of the book:

Although I had always had an innate belief in the survival of the spirit any speculation as to its nature appeared of purely academic interest. Death, I felt, would open the doors in its own good time.
I found plenty of interest in life and was even more fortunate in meeting Maurice Nicoll, who taught me how to try to live more consciously, as he himself had been shown by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. There came a time, however, when I realised that this was not enough and that it is necessary to pay for one's experiences if they are to be significant.
This acknowledgement appeared to establish a communication with a superior level of intelligence from which a wide range of new ideas began to be received. In particular, I was shown that the hereafter of legend is not a mythical future state but is a realm to be inhabited at this very moment.
However, this cannot be done without appropriate payment. Hence it is both relevant and practical to try to discover the pattern of this real world so that one can learn to make proper use of its possibilities. To the extent that this can be done it seems that we make some small return for the privilege of existence.

While I claim no knowledge or abilities such as these, I find such writings evoke hints of possibilities. It is my thinking at this point that Gurdjieff likely knew much more than he let on to his students, and his writings (such as Beelzebub's Tales) may hold the clues to unlocking this knowledge - provided that we "make our usual detailed investigations concerning highly important facts that interest us."

It is also very likely that Gurdjieff's knowledge was complete only up to a certain point, and we must also look elsewhere for data and clues that hold the keys to forming a complete picture of objective reality.

If you are not familiar with Laura Knight-Jadczyk's "Wave Series", then I suggest reading through it to get a good idea of the background of this forum and the sott.net website, and purpose.

Again, welcome to the forum! :)

 

[ael]

Questions

I was in a Gurdjieff group in Stockholm 1993-2003. Since 1996 I am connected with the Two Rivers Farm Gurdjieff community. I wish to make contact with other people who are willing to try to "fathom the gist" of Beelzebub's Tales, as we are urged to do after having undergone the necessary preparation.

From a question it is possible to increase understanding and to make a connection. Is there a question?

I have a question. Why did Gurdjieff use the word Beelzebub in the title of the book, especially considering the negative meanings/connotations it has in Christianity?

 

[Ruth]

Questions

I have a question. Why did Gurdjieff use the word Beelzebub in the title of the book, especially considering the negative meanings/connotations it has in Christianity?

Perhaps to make you question? It seems to me that the act of questioning (especially oneself) is quite a potent tool. And is an active process and aid to thinking.

 

[Vivitskaia]

Questions

Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson was written for us, Gurdjieff's grandchildren, who were not in direct contact with him. Gurdjieff was able to re-formulate the Truth, the same truth that is found in all esoteric teaching, to suit us, our times, our culture, our location.

Beelzebub is the fallen angel, Lucifer. He made a mistake in his youth and paid for it by being sent to our solar system. There, he had the opportunity to observe us from the removed distance of Mars. He atoned for his error of judgement and eventually grew the precious horns that Moses also attained.

We see everything upside down, as a result of the consequences of the organ Kundabuffer. We are topsy turvy. So we associate Beelzebub with the devil, bad things, evil. This is the first obstacle that I encounter when I hear about the book. If there in something in me of sufficiently strong magnetism I will pass this first test and perhaps begin to read the book. Then I have a chance to begin to uncover the sunken Atlantis within.

As I understand it, Beelzebub's Tales speaks from higher centres to higher centres. As I work on myself and time passes I begin to rise towards and connect with this higher part of myself and to see and recognise more and more. It is awakening.

Wishing you well,

Vivitskaia

 

[Laura]

Questions

Well, let's look at this little problem. In my opinion, there's a real possibility that the "god" that the man around whom the Jesus myth accreted WAS talking about in terms of the "heavenly father" and the "kingdom of god" was "Beelzebul."

In "Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God," Michael L. Humphries analyzes the "Beelzebul controversy" and draws some fascinating conclusions, though he doesn't go as far as I have in the above statement. When reading his analysis, it occurred to me that it was obvious that the god of the real "Jesus" WAS Beelzebul.

Walter Bauer proposes:

Perhaps - I repeat, perhaps - certain manifestations of Christian life that the authors of the church renounce as "heresies" originally had not been such at all, but were the only form of the new religion - that is, for those regions they were simply "Christianity." The possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the majority, and that they looked down with hatred and scorn on the orthodox, who for them were the false believers.

That's pretty much the attitude the Cathars had toward the Catholic Church - that the church was the false religion. They also claimed that the god of the Old Testament - the Jewish Yahweh/Jehovah - was the evil demiurge. We notice that Christianity has adopted this god as the "father of Jesus."

So, clearly, something is wrong with Christianity as we know it.

Norman Perrin wrote:

The central aspect of the teaching of Jesus was that concerning the Kingdom of God. Of this there can be no doubt and today no scholar does, in fact, doubt it. Jesus appeared as one who proclaimed the Kingdom; all else in his message and ministry serves a function in relation to that proclamation and derives meaning from it. The challenge to discipleship, the ethical teaching, the disputes about oral tradition or ceremonial law, even the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins and the welcoming of the outcast in the name of God - all these are to be understood in context of the Kingdom proclamation or they are not to be understood at all.

Burton Mack writes:

The concept of the kingdom therefore functions like a "skeleton key" whereby all seemingly loose threads are gathered into a unifying whole; and comprehension comes only to the reader who knows this to be true. [...] Crossan effectively argues on behalf of a sapiential or ethical understanding of the kingdom as represented by a first-century Mediterranean Jewish peasantry. The kingdom constitutes a present reality characterized by social and cultural engagement with ruling powers ... resistance against oppression.

I don't know why it doesn't occur to biblical scholars such as Mack, to consider the hyperdimensional hypothesis and compare Jesus to the Siberian Shaman who has access to the "kingdom."

The Beelzebul controversy has been going on for a long time. Nobody really understands the meaning of the accusation that "He [Jesus] casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons."

The designation of Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons (Satan) is difficult to trace to any other source. According to one scholar quoted by Humphries:

The derivation of the name is disputed, and is in any case unimportant for the meaning of the text, since Beelzebul is simply a popular name for the prince of demons. The name dos NOT occur in Jewish literature, but appears to represent the same figure as Belial in the intertestamental literature. (Marshall)

Humphries does not agree with this easy tossing away of the importance of the etymology of the name. He points out that Marshall says 1) the name is absent in the Jewish literature, and thus disputed; BUT 2) is said to represent a popular name for the ruler of demons! That is contradictory.

The precise explanation of the name Beelzebul is, apparently, without documentation prior to the composition of the biblical text. It appears later in the writings of Origen, Hippolytus, and "The Testament of Solomon."

The correlation of Beelzebul with the "ruler of demons" (Satan) is actually quite problematic. Hippolytus, in fact, distinguishes between Beelzebul and Satan and Origen makes no connection between the two at all.

The brainwashed type of Bible scholar (the true believers with an agenda) tend to assume that Beelzebul was a well-known lord of demons, but that is, in fact, not the case. It is not established that Mediterranean Jews customarily regarded Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons." This designation only occurs in later Christian literature.

Humphries argues a connection between Beelzebul and the Canaanite-Syrian deity zbl bl ars, or "the prince, lord of the earth".

Beel is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Beel from the Hebrew Baal, meaning "owner," "lord," or "prince." The problem is with the "zebul" part.

The majority of New Testament texts read "Beelzeboul" but the Vulgate and Syrian text cite the alternate: Beelzeboub. This leaves open the possibility that there was an association between Beelzebul(b) and the ancient PHILISTINE deity Ball zebub (Baal muian in the Septuagint "Lord of the flies"). Some scholars propose that Beelzebul and Baalzebub are one and the same. The more likely possibility is that Baalzebub represents a pun ("lord of the flies") on the original name of Baal zebul whose rule was not limited to the region of Philistia.

The reading of this name that seems to be gaining support translates the name as: LORD OF HEAVEN. This thesis was developed by W.E.M. Aitken and Lloyd Gaston. Each took a different approach to analyzing the word ZEBUL, and arrived at the same conclusion that ZEBUL signifies the DWELLING OF GOD, whether heaven or a temple.

This conclusion came from analyzing rabbinic literature. According to Rosh ha-shanah 17a: "There is no zebul except the temple, for it is written: 'I have built thee a beth zebul.'"

In Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, it is said that ZEBUL is the name of one of the SEVEN HEAVENS.

According to Hagigah 12b, ZEBUL is the fifth heaven ...

These reading apparently derive from the saying in 1 Kings 8:13, where BETH ZEBUL represents a parallel expression for Yahweh's eternal dwelling, and from Isaiah 63:15, where ZEBUL designates the heavenly throne of Yahweh. Habakkuk 3:11 uses ZEBUL as the "dwelling place of the Sun and Moon." Aitken draws the conclusion:

This makes it clear that ZEBUL was understood specifically of the dwelling of God, whether that was though of as the temple on earth or the heavens; in later ages when the temple has disappeared it was still used of heaven.

Additional evidence was provided by another scholar, Gaston, who pointed out that the Septuagint texts of 1 Kings 8:13 and Isaiah 63:15 translate ZEBUL with the Greek OIKOS, meaning "temple."

So, it seems pretty certain that Beelzebul means Lord of Heaven or the one that dwells in the dwelling place of God.

So, how did he come to be known as the Lord of Demons???

One theory suggested is that this was a Jewish thing, a rendering of Baalshamaim, the Jewish name for Zeus Olympios. Baalshamaim was a pagan sky god whose cult was a source of rear and hatred for loyal Palestinian Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes whom the book of Daniel labels the "abomination of desolation." The argument is:

1) since Baalshamaim is a foreign deity, he is a demon ("for all the gods of the nations are demons" psalms 95:5)

2) Since he is the god of heaven, he is the chief rival of Yahweh, and therefore must be Satan, the ruler of demons.

3) Because Yahweh is the only TRUE god of heaven, therefore, no other deity can carry that name - Baalshamaim) and therefore an alternate designation is necessary: ZEBUL replaces SHAMAIM.

It is also thought that the principle target of the text could have been the early Jesus people, keeping in mind that Jesus identified himself with the "master of the house" which they took to be threats toward the Temple.

Of course, all of the above assumes that we are discussing a real, historical event, and it is not really clear that this is the case! The Q document gives no indication of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding his behavior toward the temple. The charge that Jesus sought to destroy the temple is a much later story wrapped around Jesus - the same as the claim that he was the "son of god."

Moreover, there is another possible interpretation for ZEBUL: elevate, exalted, height, glorified.

That, of course, fits better with my notion that what was being discussed as the "kingdom of god" was actually an understanding of hyperdimensional realities.

There is quite a bit of discussion of this word and its possible etymology in the book referenced above.

Bottom line is, to the Jews, all other gods were demons, so, if there was any historical reality to this event, what it means is that the basis of the accusation was that Jesus cast out demons by the power of some foreign god.

As I suggest, maybe he did.

The point is that this was a charge of "deviance." The accusation is saying: "He is not one of us, he is not a Jew, he is not a child of Israel, but a child of Beelzebul." And, since Jesus was said to be a Galilean, from the North, this makes perfect sense. The charge was intended to label Jesus as an outsider: he does not belong.

Jesus retort is introduced with a statement that he is able to discern the strategy of his accusers - that they intend to label him as a deviant. The charge of Black Magic is intended to defame, to diminish, to label Jesus as an outsider and to garner support against him. Being labeled in this way is supposed to draw lines, to create in others the impression of us vs. them.

The response is in two parts.

The first part is his remark about the disasters that befall those who are divided: the charge of demon collusion to cast out demons is absurd because everyone knows that a divided kingdom falls.

This does not, of course, address the deeper charge of deviance; it only attacks the surface logic of the accusation. The accusers are, essentially, caught in a trap for the issue of the unity of the demonic kingdom was not even in their minds.

Since this is a chreia - an elaboration tale that was created to exemplify what Jesus WOULD or MIGHT have said in such a situation - one scholar suggests that it was based on some knowledge of the real Jesus, that it is possible that when Jesus was once reproached for exorcising demons by Beelzebul, he retorted: "Devil against devil? some strategy!" This is a clever bit of sophistry similar to the numerous Cynic chreiai.

However, he does not counter the charge of deviance!!!

What he does is point out that when the accuser's own sons perform exorcisms, they are not charged with demon collusion so, what the accuser grant to their own sons - that they are performing exorcisms by the power of god - must also be granted to Jesus, or the sons will also be held up to question. In other words, the practice of exorcism itself precludes demon collusion.

This does not, of course, necessarily mean that there were Jewish exorcists because we must remember that this is a chreia, not a historical account, but rather a clever story created by later Jewish Christians within a Jewish context. The implication is actually deeper. Humphries writes:

The force of the arguments aims to locate oneself within the Israelite field, to designate and legitimate one's ethos thereby. The discourse is not about distinguishing between valid and invalid exorcisms, but about being for Beelzebul or for Yahweh, for Satan's kingdom or Yahweh's kingdom, an outsider or an insider. [...] It is also quite clear... that Jesus' response turns the tables on his accusers. Insofar as they refuse to recognize the power of the kingdom in his exorcisms, they find themselves in danger of standing outside the kingdom. No one belonging to the kingdom of God could identify Jesus' exorcisms, or any exorcism for that matter, a s satanic. If the accusers do not accept the "quality in common" ... if they do not grant to Jesus what they grant to their own sons, then it is precisely this failure of recognition that renders the accusers themselves as deviant. And so a sharp distinction is indeed established. The exchange between Jesus and his accusers constitutes a battle over who represents the legitimate expression of Israel.

Clearly, to my mind, the individual writing this story understood himself as an "insider" of Israel and sought to use this method to draw Jesus in as an insider as well. This suggests strongly that Jesus WAS an outsider to Israel, was NOT a Jew, and Beelzebul WAS the name of the deity Jesus "promoted" originally.

 

[Vivitskaia]

Questions

Thank you for that, this is very interesting.

"Philology more important that philosophy" G.I. Gurdjieff

In my understanding, the origins of Satan lie with Seth in ancient Egyptian mythology, who dismembered his brother Osiris and spread his parts far and wide. Isis then re-membered him and impregnated herself with his phallus, giving birth to Horus (consciousness). Seth had red hair and fur and hooves. Pan (All) is clearly also related to this. Isis, Osiris and Seth were siblings, a divine trinity. In order to remember myself I must first forget myself. For God to become self-conscious, he must first create unconscious parts (us). We can then, through our own efforts and self-awareness, ascend the Ray of Creation back to God who is our home. In the beginning was Tum. He beheld himself (became self-conscious) and begat Atum.

The idea of the evil demi-urge startled me when I first read the gnostic gospels. I understand it in terms of the Ray of Creation, worlds within worlds, each subject to an increasing number of laws and therefore more hellish and less divine. Who is God for me - the Sun, the Galaxy, All Galaxies, the Universe? They are all God for me - I cannot (I do not have the being for it) concern myself with such gradations of divinity.

What are your thoughts on Eden - this too puzzled me in the gnostic gospels? I see the Fall as the descent into formatory thinking, counting only to two (right and wrong, good and evil). The ancient Egyptian royal crown was comprised of a snake, coiling across the crown of the Pharaoh (Christ) along the pattern of the two halves of the brain. The snake is the symbol of formatory thinking, in my understanding, as it has a forked tongue and two sexual organs. The winged serpent, in ancient Egypt and elsewhere (Quetzacoatl) symbolises ascending beyond formatory thinking, metanoia.

Jesus - the man
Christ - what I might become through Work on myself (higher centres, man no.7)
Pharaoh - Royal (higher) principle, like coronation of St. George, who has conquered the dragon

I sense that I am in danger of becoming too head-brain based. Have you experienced Movements?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Questions

Eliade thought the ancient myths symbolized a cosmogony which saw Nature as the expression of the Divine. This implied the (later) Hermetic maxim "As above, so below". By studying a part of nature, conclusions could be reached about a larger part of nature. So, the various myths about a Sky God and Sea Goddess (e.g. Marduk and Tiamat) could be seen as both ancient cosmogony and as descriptions of our own human condition. In a macrocosmic sense consciousness "fell" into primal matter (the first division of being and non-being), i.e. the prima materia/mater/Earth-Mother/black virgin of the alchemists. But the pre-Fall state (i.e. higher consciousness) lies hidden (in potential) and dormant in matter and the work of the alchemist is to take over the function of Time and find that essence of consciousness (the Philosopher's Stone), to "redeem" matter by first separating it into its component parts, identifying that which is higher, and throwing out the dross with which it was mixed.

This can apply on any scale: The inter-density "evolution" of consciousness from 1st density to 7th density through a progressive identification with higher consciousness and a dis-identification with base matter. Or intra-density "evolution", for example, in the 3rd density world. This would be the Work in Gurdjieffian terms, i.e. the development and refinement of individual essence. This higher state of being within this world can be called the Kingdom of Heaven or God. G called it "higher man" "man 7" "true self", etc. Dabrowski called it secondary integration or "Personality".

Those who achieve this state, and teach others about it, (i.e. those who have "slain the dragon") are of course demonized by those with an interest in keeping humanity at a low level of consciousness. So they become demons, dragons, evil serpents themselves. Gnostic groups "worshiped" a god that opposed the god they were supposed to worship. They could see what worship of yahweh does for the world, being a tool of pathocracy. So their gods became demons, like Beelzebul, apparently.

 

[Vivitskaia]

Questions

Yes, and Beelzebub may yet be turned upside down, become revered again, as a result of the (mechanical) consequences of the organ Kundabuffer. It is probable that Gurdjieff had also this in mind.

 

[ark]

Questions

Yes, and Beelzebub may yet be turned upside down, become revered again, as a result of the (mechanical) consequences of the organ Kundabuffer. It is probable that Gurdjieff had also this in mind.

But what is this "organ Kundabuffer" EXACTLY?

Does anybody know?

I know what Gurdjieff was writing about it, but still I do not know what it is. I wonder if Gurdjieff himself knew.....

 

[Vivitskaia]

Questions

In order to understand more it is necessary to Work on being. How do you Work on being?

 

[Laura]

Questions

In order to understand more it is necessary to Work on being. How do you Work on being?

Good question; how do YOU?