Topic: Active and passive natures of our species

[Michael]

“In certain of the ancient doctrines it is said that ‘When God created man, the same day he also created two spirits for each man, the spirit of God and the spirit of Evil, or Angel and Devil, side by side. The angel he set on the right shoulder and the devil on the left shoulder of man.’

“There are other ancient doctrines in which it is said: ‘When God sent the spirits on to the planets to work, the spirits asked God “What are we to do there?” God divided up the spirits into their separate natures and said: “You on the right hand will try to lead the living into Paradise, and you on the left hand, you shall try to lead the living into Hell.”

“‘And here one of the head ones asked: “What means do you allow us to adopt with the different people?” To this, God answered; “You may have recourse to any method you like, but let the following fundamental difference exist between those methods and means: Let the plan of the spirit on the right hand be to work through man’s activities and let the spirit on the left hand work through what, so to say, ‘does itself’ in man; for the spirit of the right hand, through man’s active nature and consciousness, and for the spirit of the left hand, through man’s passive nature and un¬consciousness.”’

“These two doctrines I refer to are ancient ones. At the same time, part passu with these ancient doctrines, there exists another doctrine right down to the present day, and one that other religions do not recognize.

“The majority of religions breathe, act and live according to holy writ, commandments and precepts.

“At the same time a teaching existed of wise men who tried to realize for themselves every religion, and all legends and all doctrines dispassionately. They did not blindly submit. Before accept¬ing anything, they beforehand realized it for themselves. Whatever they could realize for themselves, they accepted. What they could not, they rejected.

“In this way a new religion was formed, although the material of which it was formed was adopted by other religions. The doctrine I am speaking of is the teaching of the Sufi; this same doctrine respecting the angel and the devil is to the following effect:

“Every action of man, every thought, each of his movements, either proceeds from the angel or the devil. What is derived from all intensive activity takes the form of a second, but much finer organism in the shape of a certain shell or casing, made of real matter, which can be sensed or recognized as being of one sort or the other. Each shell has the faculty of submitting to certain laws and to certain effects.” Gurdjieff went on to speak about breathing exercises, but did not wish these to be referred to in public.

[Nichi]

“Every action of man, every thought, each of his movements, either proceeds from the angel or the devil. What is derived from all intensive activity takes the form of a second, but much finer organism in the shape of a certain shell or casing, made of real matter, which can be sensed or recognized as being of one sort or the other. Each shell has the faculty of submitting to certain laws and to certain effects.” Gurdjieff went on to speak about breathing exercises, but did not wish these to be referred to in public.

I'm confused here, M .. is he saying that both sides, the devil and the angel, each manifest physically apart from ourselves? Almost like tulpas?

[Firestarter]

“Every action of man, every thought, each of his movements, either proceeds from the angel or the devil. What is derived from all intensive activity takes the form of a second, but much finer organism in the shape of a certain shell or casing, made of real matter, which can be sensed or recognized as being of one sort or the other. Each shell has the faculty of submitting to certain laws and to certain effects.” Gurdjieff went on to speak about breathing exercises, but did not wish these to be referred to in public.

This sounds rather black and white to me. I know what he's saying, but I think this is where some of Gurdjieff's Christianity and Sufism was getting in the way. I dont believe 'all' actions are angelic or devilish, or influenced either way. We still retain a human nature which may be apart from such forces. And while I do accept beliefs in angels and the like, I accept that so-called devils are more made of mind, anger, jealousy, rage, or other poisonous things which we may act from, from mind. Basically when we 'shut off' all common sense for ourselves or others. But even this isnt influenced by any devil, just ourselves acting ignorantly.

I just cant accept a black and white doctrine. Its too dogmatic, and surprises me a bit Gurdjieff thot so linear for being as big as he was.

[Michael]

I'm confused here, M .. is he saying that both sides, the devil and the angel, each manifest physically apart from ourselves? Almost like tulpas?

I think he is talking about the etheric shell. He uses specific names for these different bodies - etheric and astral. I forget just now his terms which are usually derived from other languages. But he did have a whole system of affecting the nature of these subtle bodies and what could be done with them. To my knowledge he never spoke about it directly in any detail.

Towards the end of his life, he destroyed a lot of his writings, as he said he was unable to find anyone to who was able to receive the knowledge, and he felt it was too dangerous to leave lying around. This is why he wrote Beelzebub so obscurely - to hide his knowledge so that only those who were meant to have it would find it.

I am not aware of anything he said about tulpas, but I would expect he knew about them very well.

[Michael]

This sounds rather black and white to me. I know what he's saying, but I think this is where some of Gurdjieff's Christianity and Sufism was getting in the way. I dont believe 'all' actions are angelic or devilish, or influenced either way. We still retain a human nature which may be apart from such forces. And while I do accept beliefs in angels and the like, I accept that so-called devils are more made of mind, anger, jealousy, rage, or other poisonous things which we may act from, from mind. Basically when we 'shut off' all common sense for ourselves or others. But even this isnt influenced by any devil, just ourselves acting ignorantly.

I just cant accept a black and white doctrine. Its too dogmatic, and surprises me a bit Gurdjieff thot so linear for being as big as he was.

He is not speaking about specific angle and evil entities - these are teaching stories.

The critical passage is:

and let the spirit on the left hand work through what, so to say, ‘does itself’ in man

Just think about all those things which 'do themselves' in our lives. Like having children. In fact our entire lives are almost completely full with things which 'do themselves'. We simple acquiesce, tag along and try to make the most out of it. This is what he called passive living.

Just think about every decision we make - we pride ourselves that we make our decisions, but if you look carefully, there are always factors which dictate our decisions. Very rarely does anyone live deliberately.

But he goes much further. His leitmotiv of consciousness was the issue of purpose - he wanted to know what was the purpose of life. Not just his life but of Life itself. Once he had a handle on that, then he set his own purpose and went where he decided to go - even if that was against the dictates of events.

[Firestarter]

Just think about every decision we make - we pride ourselves that we make our decisions, but if you look carefully, there are always factors which dictate our decisions. Very rarely does anyone live deliberately.

Well I can agree with you on this, or him. At least in the beginning our choices arent 'really' our choices. If they were, then we wouldnt be striving for our freedom. So I understand this. What Im saying is, and I understand he was 'using' the mythic to explain, the black and white thinking. Even if a person is say still a slave to his own unconscious processes (which is what we're REALLY talking about), he still will have some free choices in the fray. The evidence? If this were not the case, not a soul individual would be able to get free at all. They would just remain a slave of the unconscious processes all along. they would just live life as programmed, operate that way all along, die. And no one would break free. But alas, people have, and they did cause they took a middle road outa the pulls of the black and white duality, which pulls them left or right, up and down, to the dark or the light, madness or sanity, they find, the ground that makes sense and untethers them.

Now, if you say he was speaking only of those who are tethered I might agree, however, he is not giving the third option, the way out, hes not showing where that exists. If say God did this creation, metaphorically, of the angel, and the devil, the right and left hand, something in the center was also created, had to slip through. For those who dont want to get pulled in the either/or direction.

[Michael]

I think you are getting this around the wrong way. Gurdjieff is famous for the principle of the 'third' force. The restraining force, the agitating force, and then the appearance of the third force - the reconciling force, or what Steiner called the Christ spirit.

What G is talking of here is not the angel as 'good', but the angel as the spirit of freedom. This is a discussion about the 'way out'. It is not a full analysis of G's ideas - he is trying to focus down on one specific issue.

BTW Gurdjieff also spent a long time as a Tibetan Buddhist monk. He learnt a lot from them. Most of his ideas however come from Zoroastrianism, and schools which existed in early Babylon.

[Firestarter]

BTW Gurdjieff also spent a long time as a Tibetan Buddhist monk. He learnt a lot from them. Most of his ideas however come from Zoroastrianism, and schools which existed in early Babylon.

Yes, seems to be the case. Considering Zoroastrianism's influence on christianity and good and evil, the black and white thinking, perhaps this is why i leapt. But it is nowhere near Tibetan buddhisms ideals, tho admittedly all religions have their fair share of some lower astral entities in various ways, influencing mankind.

[Nichi]

I think he is talking about the etheric shell. He uses specific names for these different bodies - etheric and astral. 

This is what got my attention:

a certain shell or casing, made of real matter

.....To my knowledge he never spoke about it directly in any detail.

Towards the end of his life, he destroyed a lot of his writings, as he said he was unable to find anyone to who was able to receive the knowledge, and he felt it was too dangerous to leave lying around.

I understand what might be "dangerous" knowledge, but too bad he didn't leave his writings in tact, for those of us who might be trying to understand. I guess one must be a lover of a mystery, and snatch up every single word which has been left, in order to get at the thing. This isn't a criticism, for I love a good mystery -- but it's good to know at the onset that there will be many unanswered questions.

[Michael]

I could try to pull out the Zoroastrian influences - the good and bad, black/white thing is not one of them - that is more of a popular reference. There was/is much more to Zoroastrianism than that. One influence is that Zoroastrianism is perhaps the only religion that had a theme of how humans feature in the over all purpose for life and the planet. This is a complex subject because although most religions have a cosmology in which they place their religious purpose, still Zoroastrianism went further and saw that our human lives were a factor in task that this earth and the universe was set up to achieve.

I am just reading about this currently, as it was a primary feature for Gurdjieff. The whole nuances of 'purposes' within religions and science is quite intricate, but Gurdjieff had an approach that is not found anywhere else, nor surprisingly even considered worthwhile addressing by most ancient or modern cultures. Seems to be a feature he picked up from no-one-knows-where.

[Ke-ke wan]

Towards the end of his life, he destroyed a lot of his writings, as he said he was unable to find anyone to who was able to receive the knowledge, and he felt it was too dangerous to leave lying around. This is why he wrote Beelzebub so obscurely - to hide his knowledge so that only those who were meant to have it would find it.

While researchig the Seven Hermetic principles I came across this:

"let him read who can."