(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Gurdjieff talked about these things in great detail, and clearly his understanding of the problem was deep and profound. Not only that, we will soon see how closely Gurdjieff's view is to very modern research in neuropeptides - the "Molecules of Emotion."
From: In Search of the Miraculous
“ It is possible to think for a thousand years; it is possible to write whole libraries of books, to create theories by the million, and all this in sleep, without any possibility of awakening. On the contrary, these books and these theories, written and created in sleep, will merely send other people to sleep..."
"There is nothing new in the idea of sleep. People have been told almost since the creation of the world that they are asleep and that they must awaken. How many times is this said in the Gospels, for instance? "Awake," "watch," "sleep not." Christ's disciples even slept when he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane for the last time. It is all there. But do men understand it? Men take it simply as a form of speech, as an expression, as a metaphor. They completely fail to understand that it must be taken literally."
"...The question of will, of one's own will and of another man's will, is much more complicated than it seems at the first glance. A man has not sufficient will to do, that is, to control himself and all his actions, but he has sufficient will to obey another..."
[Comment - The will in both cases is the same. What is different is the alignment of will.
In those cases when a person assigns the proxy for free will to another human being, then, the intentions underlying that assignment permit one to do the will of another human being. If the latter human being has an STS (service to self) orientation, then, the acts of the one who follows such an individual also will take on an STS quality - especially if the underlying intention was rooted in STS motivations and aspirations. If, on the other hand, one uses one's will to intend to align oneself to someone who is STT (service to truth and, through truth, service to others), then, in following the guidance of such an STT oriented person, one moves in a different direction which entails, among other things, gaining control of oneself.]
(From Gurdjieff) "I mentioned before about fate and accident in man's life. ...Fate exists, but not for everyone. Most people are separated from their fate and live under the law of accident only. Fate is the result of planetary influences which correspond to a man's type. A man can have the fate which corresponds to his type but he practically never does have it. This arises because fate has relation to only one part of man, namely to his essence."
[Comment - Gurdjieff is wrong here. Not only does fate exist for everyone, it cannot be avoided.
If a person is separated from a fate of Self-realization, this is because the person has made choices to move in that direction ... to go astray from spiritual realities. There are no accidents in such events - we either choose to move toward truth or away from it.
Again, contrary to what Gurdjieff maintains, fate is not the result of planetary influences. At best, planetary influences may give expression to what is already Divinely written and in accordance with which the planets make their movements in appointed paths.
Fate has a relation with every part and dimension of a human being, not, as Gurdjieff contends, just with essence. All of life is a series of rizq-transactions (fate/apportionment transactions) during which either: (1) human beings choose which part of their potential fate will be manifested at any given time, or, (2) Divinity apportions something - whether felicitous or problematic - which surfaces within a human beings life - sometimes from without and sometimes from within.]
(From Gurdjieff) "It must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality. Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is "not his own." "Not his own" means what has come from outside, what he has learned, or reflects, all traces of exterior impressions left in the memory and in the sensations, all words and movements that have been learned, all feelings created by imitation - all this is "not his own," all this is personality."
[Comment - The life of a human being is something more than essence and personality. All that takes place within the life of a human being marks the intersection of: (a) the fixed form potential which constitutes our created possibilities; (b) the free will choices we make as an expression of part of that fixed form potential, and (c) the Divine Himma (aspiration) which determines what rizq transactions will occur in the context of such possibilities/potential and choices.]
(From Gurdjieff) - "...A small child has no personality as yet. He is what he really is. He is essence. His desires, tastes, likes, dislikes, express his being such as it is."
[Comment - First of all, essence - even in a young child - is not a matter of desires, instincts, tastes, predilections and so on, as Gurdjieff asserts above. The sorts of things to which Gurdjieff is alluding in relation to a young child is not an expression of essence, for the most part, but, rather, of the body's wiring/circuitry together with the machinations of the lower nafs. For the most part, there are only bits and pieces of essence (e.g., certain aspects of consciousness and receptivity to spiritual influences) showing through this wiring.
Essence is the primordial spiritual potential of an individual. It awaits and needs to be awoken, and, normally speaking, this can only be done with outside assistance and guidance.
Essence contains within it everything which is necessary for spiritual development in the way of faculties of spiritual understanding and knowledge. However, there is a need for one, or more, catalytic agents to help this potential unfold. ]
(From Gurdjieff) "But as soon as so-called "education" begins, personality begins to grow. Personality is created partly by the intentional influences of other people, that is, by "education," and partly by involuntary imitation of them by the child itself."
"In the creation of personality a great part is also played by "resistance" to people around him and by attempts to conceal from them something that is "his own," or "real."
[Comment - Our imitation of others is never involuntary. It is the result of choice. In such instances, we choose to align our beings with another human being in a certain way - whether this be in the form of a mannerism, behavior, opinion, attitude, inclination, idea, or value.
Moreover, much of personality is not a matter of just what others put upon us, but of what, on the one hand, we permit, for our own reasons, to be placed upon us, together with, on the other hand, how we choose to resist or respond to what others attempt to place upon us.
Not everything to which personality gives expression is necessarily unrelated to essence. When a child exhibits integrity, kindness, compassion, sincerity, honesty, courage, and steadfastness with respect to others, all of these are colored with an individual's essential hue and manifested in a person's unique manner which is a reflection of personality - the persona which is woven from the fabric of experience and essential fixed form potential that was bequeathed to us through being created by Divinity. When a person resists the efforts of others (whether family, friends, community, institutions) to sway one away from seeking or serving the truth, part of this resistance is a function of personality which - as persona - is in the service of essential potential.
In the previous quote, Gurdjieff alluded to instances in which steps are taken by an individual to protect that which is real or essential within one by use of one's persona or personality to resist the forces without and within which seek to undermine what is real. Such resistance of the persona is an expression of the individual's awareness (however vague this may be) with respect to the presence of essence before Divinity.]
(From Gurdjieff) "Essence is the truth in man; personality is the false. ...As personality grows, essence manifests itself more and more rarely and more and more feebly and it very often happens that essence stops in its growth at a very early age and grows no further. It happens very often that the essence of a grown-up man, even that of a very intellectual and ...highly "educated" man, stops on the level of a child of five or six. This means that everything we see in this man is in reality "not his own." What is his own in man, that is, his essence, is usually only manifested in his instincts and in his simplest emotions. There are cases, however, when a man's essence grows in parallel with his personality. Such cases represent very rare exceptions especially in the circumstances of cultured life. Essence has more chances of development in men who live nearer to nature in difficult conditions of constant struggle and danger."
[Comment - Personality is not necessarily false. If personality - that is, the individual's unique way of creating a persona through which to engage the world - is in the service of truth, then, that person's personality will reflect essence in important ways. Personality is false only when it is used to serve falsehood. Everything depends on the choices one makes with respect to the possibilities of one's fixed form, created potential.
Again, Gurdjieff is incorrect to maintain that essence is manifested "in his instincts and in his simplest emotions." Gurdjieff is confusing the dimensions of fixed form potential which lay down the blueprints or architectural form of our biological nature/wiring/circuitry with the nature of our primordial essence which is of a spiritual, not a material/physical nature.
Moreover, essence does not necessarily have "more chances of development in men who live nearer to nature in difficult conditions of constant struggle and danger." Whatever our circumstances may be, these circumstances have been arranged by Divinity and they contain all that is necessary for spiritual development.]
(From Gurdjieff) "Culture creates personality and is at the same time the product and the result of personality. We do not realize that the whole of our life, all we call civilization, all we call science, philosophy, art, and politics, is created by people's personality, that is, by what is "not their own" in them."
[Comment - Culture gives expression to the collective interaction of the fixed form, created potential of human beings. The dynamics encompassed by such interaction are complex and multi-directional ... sometimes flowing from others to the individual, and sometimes flowing from the individual to others.
Culture does not create personality, for the capacity to form a persona already exists within an individual. A culture establishes an array of choices from among which an individual chooses - whether in the service of truth and essence, or in the service of falsehood and non-essential dimensions of that person's fixed-form created potential.
Science, philosophy, art, and politics all reflect the dynamics of the Divine passion play as individuals make choices about which dimension - the essential or the unessential - of one's potential is to be manifested in a given cultural context. Sometimes the contributions an individual makes to science, philosophy, and so on via the mediating personality are a reflection of essence, and sometimes they are not.]
(From Gurdjieff) "The element that is "not his own" differs from what is man's "own" by the fact that it can be lost, altered, or taken away by artificial means."
[Comment - Whatever is lost, altered, or taken away is never by artificial means. Either Divinity causes the lost, alteration, or change, or we, through our choices invite such loss, alteration, or change to come into our lives if God so wishes. ]
(From Gurdjieff) "...In Eastern schools ways and means are known ...to separate man's personality from his essence. For this purpose they sometimes use hypnosis..."
[Comment - The goal should not be to separate personality from essence. The goal should be, if necessary, to redeem personality by inducing it to act in the service of truth, rather than falsehood.
Personality is not something which should be destroyed. Personality, when it exhibits some form of spiritual pathology, needs to be re-constituted so that it becomes an ally, not an adversary, with respect to one's spiritual quest.
While the techniques of hypnosis may be able to bring to the surface essential and non-essential dimensions of fixed-form, created potential, such techniques are not constructive ways to assist an individual with the reconstruction of personality. Through hypnosis, there is a tendency of individuals to becomes more vulnerable to all manner of suggestion - both within and without the hypnotic trance, and this renders the spiritual reconstuction of personality more difficult, not less so.]
(From Gurdjieff) "If personality and essence are separated by one or another means, two beings are found who speak in different voices, have completely different tastes, aims, and interests, and one of these two beings often proves to be on the level of a small child. ...And it happens that a man full of the most varied and exalted ideas, full of sympathies and antipathies, love, hatred, attachments, patriotism, habits, tastes, desires, convictions, suddenly proves quite empty, without thoughts, without feelings, without convictions, without views. Everything that has agitated him before now leaves him completely indifferent. Sometimes he sees the artificiality and the imaginary character of his usual moods or his high-sounding words, sometimes he simply forgets them as though they had never existed. Things for which he was ready to sacrifice his life now appear to him ridiculous and meaningless and unworthy of his attention. All that he can find in himself is a small number of instinctive inclinations and tastes. He is fond of sweets, he likes warmth, he dislikes cold, he dislikes the thought of work, or on the contrary he likes the idea of physical movement. And that is all."
[Comment - Actually, there are very often more than two 'beings' within us. Aside from essence which is always present - irrespective of whether, or not, it is permitted to manifest itself, most of us live a multiplicity of lives which are mediated by an array of personalities or personae. Dissociative identity disorder is not something which just plagues individuals who suffer from a pathologically induced set of multiple personalities, but, rather, we all, to varying degrees, have a host of personalites within us through which we interact with different segments of both society and ourselves.
People who suffer from diagnosed cases of dissociative identity disorder are merely at the extrme end of a spectrum on which we all have a place. Often times, even among those of us who are considered to be 'normal' or 'healthy', very different facets of ourselves show up as we journey through the different social settings of our daily lives.
If circumstances are such that we are able to function effectively despite the crowded nature of our interior lives brought about by the presence of our multiplicity of personalities, then, usually, no one is the wiser about what is going on within us. When circumstances change in ways which render our usual coping strategies ineffective, then, the tensions existing among the different facets of ourselves may begin to surface in problematic ways. (To further explore certain aspects of the dynamics of dissocaition and its relevance to everyday life, please link to: A Fate Worse Than Death)]
(From Gurdjieff) "As a rule a man's essence is either primitive, savage, and childish, or else simply stupid. The development of essence depends on work on oneself."
[Comment - Gurdjieff is just wrong when he claims that: "As a rule a man's essence is either primitive, savage, and childish, or else simply stupid. The development of essence depends on work on oneself."
Essence is nothing but spiritual potential. We become primitive, savage, childish or stupid by the choices we make with respect to seeking either to truncate or encourage the growth of that spiritual potential. When Gurdjieff says that, as a rule, the essence of a man is either primitive, savage, or childish he indicates that he really doesn't know or understand the nature of our spiritual essence.
The presence of primitiveness, savagery, and childishness are all marks that a person's essence has been attended to inadequately, if at all. Primitiveness, savagery, and childishness are indicators that essence is being held hostage to other, unessential dimensions of being which are being given preferential treatment, and, as a result, the redemption or reconstruction of personality - which would permit essence to be attended to properly - cannot proceed.]
The work we need do on ourselves is to curb the influence of nafs (the seat of rebellious tendencies toward truth), dunya (the world created by the collective dynamic of interacting nafs), shaitan (satanic forces), and unbelievers while seeking to align ourselves with forces which are able, God willing, to help nurture our spiritual potential. Personality must work in harmony with essence to accomplish this.]
(From Gurdjieff) "In order to enable essence to grow up, it is first of all necessary to weaken the constant pressure of personality upon it, because the obstacles to the growth of essence are contained in personality."
[Comment - Whether, or not, one's personality is an obstacle to the growth of essence, depends on the nature of the choices one has made during the process of shaping, coloring, orienting, directing and forming that personality. If one has made the wrong choices - that is, choices which are not aligned with STT (service to truth) - then, the personality will be a source of constant problems for the devlopment of one's essential, spiritual potential.
However, if one has made the right choices (or, maybe, more right choices than wrong ones), then, a redeemed and re-constituted personality which is in the STT can be a staunch ally in the project of Self-realization. There are aspects of personality which, by the Grace of God, are rooted in essential qualities, and these facets of personality become aides to assisting a person to struggle in the direction of essence in a more fully realized fashion. Without such co-operation, the essence is, more or less, a prisoner within the compound which has been created by the unredeemed dimensions of personality.]
(From Gurdjieff) "As has been said earlier, in the case of less cultured people, essence is often more highly developed than it is in cultured man. It would seem that they ought to be nearer to possibility of growth, but in reality it is not so because their personality proves to be insufficiently developed. For inner growth, for work on oneself, a certain development of personality as well as a certain strength of essence are necessary. ...An insufficiently developed personality means a lack of... knowledge, a lack of information, a lack of the material upon which work on oneself must be based. Without some store of knowledge, without a certain amount of material "not his own," a man cannot begin to work on himself, he cannot begin to study himself, he cannot begin to struggle with his mechanical habits, simply because there will be no reason or motive for undertaking such work."
[Comment - It is not necessarily the case that the essence of a less cultured individual is more highly developed than the essence of a more cultured person. However, a less cultured individual often carries less cultural baggage so, to some extent, it may be easier for aspects of essence to manifest themselves than might be the case in someone who weighed down under the veils of cultural biases, assumptions, values, ideas, beliefs, attitudes and opionions.
Knowledge and information, in and of themselves, are not enough for spiritual transformation. Aside from the fact that not just any sort of knowledge or information will do in such a project, one requires assistance from a spiritual catalyst - someone who, God willing, can assist one to accomplish what, on one's own, one could never do.]
(From Gurdjieff) "It does not mean that all the ways are closed to him. The way of the fakir and the way of the monk, which do not require any intellectual development, remain open to him. But the methods and the means which are possible for a man of developed intellect are impossible for him. Thus evolution is equally difficult for a cultured or an uncultured man. A cultured man lives far from nature, far from natural conditions of existence, in artificial conditions of life , developing his personality at the expense of his essence. A less cultured man, living in more normal and more natural conditions, develops his essence at the expense of his personality. A successful beginning of work on oneself requires the happy occurrence of an equal development of personality and essence. Such an occurrence will give the greatest assurance of success. If essence is very little developed, a long preparatory period of work is required and this work will be quite fruitless if a man's essence is rotten inside or if it develops some irreparable defects. Conditions of this kind occur fairly often. An abnormal development of personality very often arrests the development of essence at such an early stage that the essence becomes a small deformed thing. From a small deformed thing nothing else can be got."
[Comment - All conditions of life - whether acculturated or not - which prevent human beings from realizing their essential potential are problematic and artificial (that is, opposed to one's essential, primoridal nature. A person who is uncultured but steeped in the ways of sensory pleasures, instinct, habits, likes, dislikes, opinions is no closer to the realization of essential potential than is a cultured person who adopts the ways of his or her surrounding culture.
There are two kinds of nature and Gurdjieff tends to confuse the two. One modality of nature concerns all of our biological wiring and circuitry. The other modality of nature gives expression to one's primordial, essential Self.
The former, biological nature is not necessarily any closer to spiritual potential than is a person who has adopted some cultural form of being in the world. Indeed, both the so-called 'natural' human being as well as the cultured human being have the same struggle - namely, to overcome the tendencies of nafs or ego or the carnal soul to resist merging horizons with the Truth.]
(From Gurdjieff) "Moreover, it happens fairly often that essence dies in a man while his personality and his body are still alive. A considerable percentage of the people we meet in the streets of a great town are people who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead."
[Comment - Essence can never die, even when it remains fallow as a result of our own bad choices. There is difference between, on the one hand, a human being whose essence has been left unattended or covered over with biological and cultural veils, and, on the other hand, a human being who is said to have a dead essence - in fact, the latter is a contradiction in terms since essence gives expression to the presence of the Creator in our fixed-form potential that constitute the possibilities of our lives - both in this world and the next.]
(From Gurdjieff) "It is fortunate for us that we do not see and do not know it. If we knew what a number of people are actually dead and what a number of these dead people govern our lives, we should go mad with horror. And indeed people often do go mad because they find out something of this nature without the proper preparation, that is, they see something they are not supposed to see. In order to see without danger one must be on the way. If a man who can do nothing sees the truth he will certainly go mad. Only this rarely happens. Usually everything is so arranged that a man can see nothing prematurely. Personality sees only what it likes to see and what does not interfere with its life. It never sees what it does not like. This is both good and bad at the same time. It is good if a man wants to sleep, bad if he wants to awaken. [Ouspensky, quoting Gurdjieff, 1949]"
[Comment - The whole foregoing Gurjieffian analysis of personality and essence seems rather simplistic, problematic, and, in certain instances, just wrong. The road to spirituality is not an Olympics for prodigious acts of concentration, intellectual prestidigitation, code breaking, or the like. The road to spirituality requires one to, first and foremost, be brought to the realization that there is much more to the human being than “normal” life attests to (that is, one must be stirred awake or prodded to wake up).
Secondly, the road to spirituality requires a willingness for a person to align herself or himself with those forces, teachings, individuals, and practices that may be able to help one to become receptive to the Divine currents which are working within us and around us and through us to help wake up from the dream we call life. Unfortuately, the problem many of us face today is that locating the sort of individuals with whom one should align for spiritually constructive results and the sort of individual who one can trust to fulfill their spiritual, fiduciary responsibilities is becoming harder and harder to accomplish.
The chief obstacle in the way of such spiritual unfolding is the presence of nafs. The activity of the unredeemed nafs seeks to hold spirituality hostage to the aspirations, agendas, desires, habits, likes, dislikes, inclinations, and emotions of the rebellious tendencies toward truth which live within us. Consequently, it is not just mechanical habits which must be countered but a whole array of currents which are antagonistic to, and resistant toward, the way of truth.
We are asleep because of the way nafs mesmerizes or hypnotizes our consciousness and misdirects attention away from spiritual potential and possibilities. Culture helps to keep us asleep because, for the most part, culture is nafs writ large and on a collective level is just as interested in undermining the process of spiritual awakening as is the individual nafs.
Yet, at the same time, there are thematic elements within culture or society which give active expression to various dimensions of spirituality in the form of: books, mystical teachers, certain kinds of anomalous altered states of consciousness, and various historical events. Moreover, there is a spiritual potential within us which is capable of resonating with such expressions of essential truth.
Personality is not just a matter of what is imposed on us and false. Personality is shaped by a combination of forces, ranging from: the machinations of nafs, to: developmental history; acculturation; the dynamics of social relationships, and, as well, a variety of spiritual currents - some from without and some from within. Personality is generated as a hermeneutical construct as multiple levels of our being (physical, emotional, social, intellectual, moral and spiritual) engage the life world of experience.
Not everything in one’s personality is necessarily false. Some of it is rooted in essential potential.
Part of the challenge facing us is the need to sort out the false from the real. Attitudes, beliefs, values, motivations, ideas, goals, opinions - all of these must be critically examined - for some of them help to keep us asleep and enslaved, while others are the seeds that, with cultivation, will help awaken us and set us free.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Dear Reader, (Ark wrote this letter)
You missed completely the most important point of the Cassiopaean message. This is, in fact, almost exactly the same as in the teachings of Gurdjieff. Except that Gurdjieff thought that people are not yet ready to accept the naked truth, so he was using allegories. Here is one - it is repeated in the Abduction Series:
There is an Eastern tale which speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where his sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines, and so on, and above all they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and skins and this they did not like.
At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned, that, on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to others that they were eagles, to others that they were men, and to others that they were magicians.
And after this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins. "
And here is another one, also from In Search of Miraculous:
"Man contains within him the possibility of evolution. But the evolution of humanity as a whole, that is, the development of these possibilities in all men, or in most of them, or even in large number of them, is not necessary for the purposes of the earth or of the planetary world in general, and it might, in fact, be injurious or fatal. There exist, therefore, special forces (of a planetary character) which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity and keep it at the level it ought to be. For instance, the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or, to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the MOON. The moon at present FEEDS on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is part of organic life, this means that humanity is FOOD for the moon. "
[Comment - What is the evidence or proof that “it is not necessary for the purposes of the earth or of the planetary world in general” for humanity as a whole to evolve, or that “it might, in fact, be injurious or fatal.” What is the underlying theory of ontology or metaphysics which would come to such a conclusion?
It is one thing to say that as a matter of historical record, most people do not pursue spirituality - and it is quite another to say that it is not necessary to the earth for people to pursue spirituality and may even be injurious? Injurious in what way?
From a mystical perspective, human beings are supposed to serve as caretakers of the earth, and this cannot be properly done in a condition of unawakened and unpurified spiritual potential? Consequently, rather than try to argue that it might be injurious for the generality of humanity to awaken, the duties of care which we have been given by Divinity with respect to the Earth would seem to require such awakening.
What does it mean to be food for the moon? What is the identity of the moon here and what proof is there that this way of looking at things is correct?]
(From Ouspensky) "the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or, to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the MOON. The moon at present FEEDS on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is part of organic life, this means that humanity is FOOD for the moon."
[Comment - What is the metaphysical function of the MOON and why must it be kept fed with human life? Why must preference and deference be shown to the feeding habits of the MOON? On whose authority is this to be done and why must such feeding continue to be done?
What is the nature of the feeding process? What sustenance does the MOON get from this feeding process and why should we be willing to subsidize its tastes at the expense of human beings?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, what is this main message from Cassiopaeans? The message that must be always, ALWAYS, kept in mind?
Here it is: WE ARE FOOD!
Here is is again: WE ARE SHEEP!
There is MOON! It is real and powerful. There is MAGICIAN. Real and powerful. We are hypnotized sheep. The magician, the moon, FEED on us. You can either accept it as a viable possibility, or you reject it as a nonsense.
But if you think that you can admit that there are signs here and there that we might be hypnotized sheep (or something equivalent), then you will want to learn how to escape yourself, and to teach, at least your own children, the art of escaping - if there is such an art.
If you think that sending love and light is the way - this is not what Gurdjieff and Ouspensky were talking about. You miss the point completely. The New Testament is also using allegories (but, notice, the Magician also took part in producing the New Testament). Here is one, the shortest one that is relevant and worth pondering:
"Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who are entering it."
Now read again Ouspensky:
"the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or, to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the MOON. The moon at present FEEDS on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is part of organic life, this means that humanity is FOOD for the moon."
Now replace MOON with ALIENS (as in "Alien Abductions"). Then think again if it feels so right and so good to LAUGH and play with your children, or is it, perhaps, "the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who are entering it."
"He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned, that, on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it."
[Comment - The idea that we may be asleep and need to awaken is one issue. Many Prophets and spiritual teachers have said this.
However, a would-be causal explanation which stipulates that the reason why we are asleep is because of the programming controls that have been instituted by 4th density STS techno-wizards who can time-travel is quite another matter. Not all individuals who have indicated that human beings live in a state of sleep have agreed with the explanation which has been set forth by the Cassiopaeans. So, in a sense, there are competing theories concerning the answer to the question of why we are asleep.
One can agree with Laura and Company concerning the problem of 'being asleep' which has been advanced by Jesus (peace be upon him), Muhammad (peace be upon him), Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and others. However, one can try to explain why we are asleep, or the significance of this fact, or how to escape this condition without feeling obligated to adopt the perspective of the Cassiopaeans concerning such issues.
Stipulation is not explanation. Stipulation is not proof. Making connections between, on the one hand, Gurdjieff's contention that humanity is food for the Moon, and, on the other hand, the Cassiopaean idea that we food for the Lizzies is interesting, not conclusive.
For further material on the alien abduction phenomena - material which provides a perspective that is somewhat different than the one provided by Laura - please link to: Alien Mysteries]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) I have placed in bold text the words that provide clues to the "circuit dominance" in the above writer [Note: the 'writer' is someone who posted a response to certain aspects of the Cassiopaean communications and with whom Laura and company disagreed]. This is an individual who is dominated by the 3rd circuit under the control of the 2nd! . In Neuro Linguistic theories, it is called "visual." Notice the preponderance of terms relating to eyes and seeing or blindness. The 3rd circuit is also the circuit in which the concepts of time are dominant - linear time - and he evinces fear when he mentions the references to "probability" and "future."
The 3rd circuit is the "thinker," the creator of the "semantic universe," as we will discuss further on, and it tends to categorize everything in the strictest terms of black and white, and wants very much to use its abilities - to "think" and "analyze" and "inform" and "consider" and "teach." This individual fears "audition," as well as anything that is not hard and material, or powerfully based in linear thinking, as is indicated in the remark "shapeshifting story about "353535" which drives her mad the instant she hears it." His remedy for this is "we must think..."
The problem with the 3rd circuit is that it very often is dominated by damage to the 2nd circuit and produces what is called in psychological parlance a "2nd circuit robot." There is good development of the cerebral function, and a desire to use it as the dominant mode. But the anal phase overlay on the phallic phase development is evident in the fact that the above writer has needed constant monitoring and requests to not use profanity on the list.
[Comment - What Laura has done is to set up a simplistic, flawed, unverified paradigm of pseudo-Freudian mumble-jumble and, then, uses that framework to analyze people who differ with her with Cassiopaean-related issues. Even if the person being psycho-analyzed in this fashion had been behaving badly - as reported above - there can be a lot of forces which might lead to the generation of anger, enmity, and bad manners besides an anal phase overlay of phallic development.
I am reminded of an old joke concerning the psycho-analytic approach to things. A person who is arrives at a session early is anxious. A person who is late to such a session is hostile, while a person who is on time is said to be compulsive ... no matter what one does, there is something wrong, and all other considerations are irrelevant.
At certain points, Laura applies her psychological theories rather liberally and seems inclined, at such junctures, to “explain” disagreements as being a function of how her antagonists are suffering from a pathological imprinting trauma visited upon such people in this or that circuit of development. Then, Laura throws in some Neuro-linguistic techno-babble in an attempt to lend credibility to such unproven psychological theories. And, if the foregoing right, left combination is not enough, one can always throw in the kicker which claims that these antagonists are being controlled and manipulated by STS beings in order to try to undermine Laura's work.
Perhaps, Laura and Company have convinced themselves that whenever they pick people apart according to some set of dubious psychological premises they are really acting out of STO motives with respect to those they judge, as well as protecting themselves and their followers from those people who are under STS control. Unfortunately, such an approach establishes conditions which are conducive, potentially, to the development of a delusional system that resists permitting anything to breech the closed-loop 'logic' which is being use to categorize and judge other people.
Laura and company claim they have something which allows them to transcend the “us versus them” group think of religion, and, yet, Laura et. al. have divided the world up into those who are STO aligned and those who are STS aligned, and, at the very least, they proceed to treat with suspicion whoever is not aligned with them. I really don’t see them do anything differently, in this respect, than a lot of fanatical religious-types do.]
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
