Friday, August 22, 2014

The root is love

 I wake up every morning wondering about God and my relationship to Him.

 This isn't a relationship of the mind; it is a relationship of the whole Being, and it always begins with the incorporation — the embodiment — of energy within sensation. There is a deep, heartfelt, honest, and inescapable vibration that emanates from heaven, and enters the body: this is a force one cannot argue with. It asks questions; and at the root and heart of those questions is always, every time, love. There isn't really anything but love; and yet despite the fact that it runs the universe and is the engine that drives life itself, I forget that quite often.

So it's in the morning that I try to sense what life is and remember this love that begins everything. When I try to do it with my mind, conceptually, I dream up fabulous universes and before you know it arguments ensue; thought juxtaposes things, and as soon as juxtapositions arise, there is conflict.

In sensation, and in Being, there is no conflict; only a quiet sense of wonder that asks who I am and why I am here.

Readers who follow these essays know that, when I am in the country (and not boxed in some hotel room in Shanghai) I get up very early and walk the famous dog Isabel. This is always at dawn and often in darkness; and there is a quietness and majesty on every path to the river, as well as the ones along it. There are times when I wish I could erase everything but nature and the presence of God within it; this is, of course, impossibly impractical, but there is a wish for the perfection of God and the expression of His will that pervades all of creation, and it is only in the quiet time, alone, that I can begin to remind myself of this premise, from which all of the roots, tendrils, trunks and branches of my life emerge.

I'm reminded of how small I am. I've mentioned it before; Peggy Flinsch once began a sitting in the 1980s in New York City — it was a Thursday morning, she sometimes came in at 7 AM to sit with us then — by saying, "we are tiny little creatures." Anyone who knew Peggy will know how absolutely objective and incisive the inflection with which she said that was; it was an uncompromising truth, and it went into us all, I think, like a sword, although I can speak only for myself.

This is the whole point of the Gurdjieff work — to understand that we are tiny little creatures, that we are nothing.

The whole point of real inner understanding is to understand one's insignificance; this can touch conscience in a way that arouses real feeling, whereas the arrogance of our ego is merely a ball peen hammer with which we put dents in ourselves and everyone around us.

 When I sense myself, and I sense the love that has created us, there is no doubt something more real is born. It is always in touch with this mystery of life; and it is in touch through the body, not through the mind.



  1. so, yes we are tiny little creatures...but nevertheless we have that impt function of being conduits for a higher/divine energy that can operate on this level and we actually need to be present and quite strong and tuned for that :) Ravindra does get this across well and at the end that was mme's whole message...all the early concepts and language were one can also see in Shaw's 'The Next Attention'.
    AND to be good little conduits we have to develop that higher body/mesh that mme refers to quite specifically...with exercises :) All the stuff about peace on earth and relatedness requires the development of a subtle body (soul) that sometimes needs mentioning along with all the parabolic ecumenicalism :)

  2. On this subject, see upcoming posts 8/30 through 9/2: sensation and angelic presence.

  3. Thank you Lee....and apologies for my absurd comments...I just can't help it....but I get by with a little help from my friends.... :) ;)

  4. Interesting to see Michel de S's comment quoted by Ravindra about never seeing transformation ( or something like that) in ordinary life but only in 'special circumstances'. If that is true, not only is the foundation in trouble, but all of us...but u can see his 'arrogance' in The Next Attention: all those 4th way ideas on supermarket shelves...(takes on to know one) :)
    Perhaps he (and mme) set the bar too high (all those religions that don't Really understand - unlike us gurdjieffians)...producing a v. high fall-out rate - as Azize has noted...

  5. And Pauline de Dampierre's comment that 'v few' people (like 2 or 3!?) understood mme de Salzmann....presumably Pauline did understand (she certainly knew mme since the 1940's at least). It does raise the question as to the clarity of the message...Mme certainly certainly emphasised the goal of being able to actually 'do' rather than be 'done'. Mme ended up emphasising being a conduit for divinity....????????????????????

  6. correction: Gurdjieff rather than mme emphasised being able to do....but it's 2 ends of a stick - u need to be without quotation marks in order to be able to be a conduit...
    excuse the confusion :) An edit function would be good on comment boxes....

  7. of COURSE one should be a conduit for divinity. why else exist?

    1. Yes, altho it does seem to be more clearly stated by mme than g...but it doesn't really long as we get hold of the stick....
      I just need to read more carefully before hitting the button :)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.