79. There is an enigmatic statement which may be from Gurdjieff. In context, Nicoll says “In this space, in this psychological or spiritual world, there are definite places where it is possible to receive help. I do not think, as we are, that it is possible to be in two places at the same time, either in the world of physical space or the world of psychological space. In this connection the Work says merely that it is impossible to cross a river in two boats. When one comes in contact with a teaching that comes from a particular psychological place, that has been reached by others who have labelled in the past, then if the teaching is valued and followed it leads to that place where, on the way, one begins to get help.” .” (997, 1 February 1947, 247th commentary)
I am fairly sure that Nicoll means that one can only follow one spiritual path at a time. That is, the ideas and methods of one system. So, one cannot be both a Sufi and a Zen priest simultaneously. This would explain why he keeps insisting that the Fourth Way is esoteric Christianity: he identifies them as one in a way he does not for any other path, although he is willing to benefit from an understanding of them. It may be analogous to a modern psychologist hearing that an astrologer made a comment about how people learn, and thinking that was a good idea, and then elaborating that from within his own discipline. He may completely foreswear astrology, but benefit from this one insight and assimilate it into his system.
I suspect that this may be why Gurdjieff was so apparently antagonistic to Christianity as it was known early on in his career: perhaps he wanted people to obtain a sound grasp of his system before they could return to Christianity, as otherwise they might lose both – like a man trying to cross a river in two boats, there is a good chance he would fall into the drink.
But even if my speculations on that are wrong, this enigmatic comment does reinforce one idea: that I have to be balanced and stable in a certain “psychological place” so that I may develop.
80. This next quote is from Gurdjieff, but it is introduced by a quote from Ouspensky and then what follows is so lengthy and connected that is must be from an earlier draft of In Search of the Miraculous:
On one occasion, Mr Ouspensky was speaking of various attempts made by the conscious circle of humanity to raise mankind to a higher level of being. He said in so many words: “But for the work done on mankind by conscious men we would be nothing but barbarians. Always behind culture is the threat of barbarism and always conscious men are sowing, at intervals, influences into the world to lift man above the state of barbarism. These efforts take different outer forms, and can only be given at times, but always are the same eventually.” He said G. had spoken of teachings in the past based on faith, on hope and on love. G had said: “All these systems have had their influence on mankind at different periods of history. Faith, hope and love have all been tried. But if you were to ask me about this system, I would answer you by saying that it is based on consciousness. … For this reason I begin by saying that Man is not yet conscious, although he believes he is. … Western psychology as contrasted with eastern psychology, starts from the idea but man as he is is fully conscious and that there is no further state of consciousness possible for him. This is where Western psychology is at fault. …
At some other time G. spoke of hope as a basis of teaching. “People,” he said, in so many words, “may base themselves on hope. They hope for afterlife, or they hope that some promised Messiah will come and do everything for them. But they do all this in a state of sleep. They do not understand that all real teaching about Man and his possibilities refers to the actual state of Man now – as he is and what he can become – and not to some future state or some eventual progress. For that reason if you ask me what this Work promises, I will answer you by saying that it promises nothing. A man must begin by realising what he actually is now. … he has to work on himself here and now, and not hope that he will be given it in some other existence. So this system promises nothing. But if a man works, he will get something. Let us say, he will receive leather with which to make shoes. But he must make the shoes himself, so that they fit him. They must be his own shoes – not borrowed shoes.” .” (1003-1104, 22 February 1947, 250th commentary)
Likewise, at p.1299, “G. once said: “I have good leather to sell – but you must make your own shoes.”
I have admitted some material, as shown by the three stops.
81. Again, it sounds like this is from Gurdjieff, but Nicoll is not explicit: “One can use life or be used by it. When a man is used by life, he is food, used by a plane below that Earth. … when a man uses life consciously, he becomes food for a plane above the level of the Earth. The reason is that if a man lives more and more consciously he develops, whereas if he is used by life he does not develop. The illustration employed in the work is that if an acorn lies and rots on the ground it is eaten by pigs, but if it grows into a tree it has another destiny. Oak can be used – eaten – to make a house, but not acorns.” .” (1006, 1 March 1947, 251st commentary)
to be continued