Number 120, at the end, is of the greatest practical value. All of these are worthwhile, but that one is significant on several levels.
113. “Gurdjieff, when once asked if war could be stopped, said: “Yes. But Man must change himself so that certain vibrations do not make him violent. Wars are not caused by Man. The sources are extraterrestrial – such as two planets crossing each other and causing a tension, a certain vibration. Mechanical mankind translates this vibration into violent emotions and so war results. If Man became more conscious, he might, instead, receive energy in the form of increased consciousness from these vibrations.” (1238, 30 October 1948, 326th commentary)
This is quite significant, as it has elements both of what Gurdjieff wrote about Solioonensius in Beelzebub and what Ouspensky recorded in In Search of the Miraculous. I do not know whether Nicoll was using the earlier edition of In Search, on which he worked with Ouspensky, or whether this was based on something Ouspensky told him. But I doubt that Gurdjieff had said it to Nicoll.
114. “As Gurdjieff said: “Do not listen to the words – try to hear internally the meaning.” (1243, 14 November 1948, 329th commentary)
115. “When Gurdjieff was in England, either at Harley Street, or Warwick Gardens, he shewed briefly on the blackboard – drawing the three centres, Intellectual, Emotional and Moving – that why people remain in the prison of themselves, and so cannot find a different life of self-change, was because of habits in all their centres. He indicated that it was difficult to change habits of thoughts and habits of emotions, but it was easier to change habits of movement – that is, Moving Centre habits. That is why he taught his exercises which give new movements. At the same time, in relation to what he taught Mr Ouspensky, he also emphasized that the Work itself was to change the mind and feeling of oneself – that is, it was primarily directed to the psychological side of a man or woman – to how they thought and felt, and it was said that unless work on the Intellectual Centre and Emotional Centre accompanied work on the Moving Centre, results could not be expected. In short, a changed mind is more powerful than a changed Moving Centre. And as regards the higher degrees of mental and emotional understanding, the Moving Centre cannot teach them.” (1252, 11 December 1948, 332nd commentary) It is difficult to tell exactly when the quotation from Gurdjieff ends.
116. “On one occasion I asked Gurdjieff, through an interpreter, whether it was necessary for everything to be overcome in oneself. He said: “No,” and seemed then to speak in an indirect way more of the necessity of creating new attitudes to things so that, so to speak, it was comparable to crossing from one side to the other, as when crossing the road. I understood him to mean that if we remain with our present attitudes we are on one side but if we change attitudes we can go to the other side of ourselves. So I gathered that an attitude is always one-sided. He indicated that this was only possible if you took photographs of yourself. I heard at different times later on that taking photographs of oneself was different from merely observing oneself at any particular moment. If your quality of self-observation is sincere and if it is not merely done out of a sense of being told to do it, these observations become linked, collect together, and form gradually a photograph of yourself over a considerable period of time. I think that Ouspensky called this a Time-Photograph or possibly one photograph of your Time-Body. When you have a photograph of yourself in this sense you see yourself as a certain kind of person over many years, perhaps back to childhood, governed by certain attitudes.” (1263, 22 January 1949, 338th commentary)
117. “The only part of us that can get in touch with Real I is Essence. Real I – Master – is fully developed. Essence is not. … G. once said: “Behind Essence lies Real I, and behind Real I lies God.” (1266, 29 January 1949, 339th commentary)
I find it extraordinary that this is the only occasion on which gives the first clause. Usually, he only sites for second part of it. For example, only the next year he wrote this: “… as G. once said: “Behind Real I lies God. But G. added that not all the Ray [of Creation] is represented in us.” (1388, 15 April 1950, 339th commentary)
118. “It is especially due to the Work that O. did in connection with the teaching received from G. that the negative part of the Emotional Centre has been so much emphasized to us. … Now G. taught that the human machine is capable of very great experiences, far beyond those that we ordinarily know.” (1287, 9 April 1949, 348th commentary)
119. “… as G. once said: “to raise humanity to a higher level of being, many different teachings, yet all about the same thing, have been tried. For example … you have some teaching based on faith belonging to a certain period of history, or you have some teaching based on hope, or again, you have a teaching based on love. … This teaching is based on increase of consciousness, and therefore starts with self-observation. The difficulty about self-observation is that people do not observe themselves, although they think they do.” (1303, 2 June 1949, 354th commentary).
120. “Now, take conscious effort as regards for small things of daily life. Whether you go to an Institute or not, you will find it is all the same – not identifying with small things. G. used these at his Institute in France, where my wife and I were. I mean, he used identifying with small things. He did not really arrange things very much, but he knew that if a number of people, not speaking each other’s languages, were together for a short time, there would be plenty of sources of becoming identified and negative. For example, I would say to someone: “Where is that broom I left here yesterday? The answer would be obscure and I would become angry and say that I had left the broom there on purpose and now it was gone. Then at that moment Mr G. would pass, saying by his look: “So you have got identified again, have you?” And one would get angry again.” (1305, 11 June 1949, 355th commentary)
to be continued