a Mullah Nasruddin Tale

It is inherent in any Nasruddin story that it may be understood at any of many levels - as a joke, a moral - or as something a "little extra" which can bring the consciousness of a potential mystic a little further along the way to Realization."

"Once, the people of The City invited Mulla Nasruddin to deliver a khutba. When he got on the minbar (pulpit), he found the audience was not very enthusiastic, so he asked "Do you know what I am going to say?"
The audience replied "NO", so he announced
"I have no desire to speak to people who don't even know what I will be talking about" and he left.

The people felt embarrassed and called him back again the next day. This time when he asked the same question, the people replied "YES"
So Mullah Nasruddin said, "Well, since you already know what I am going to say, I won't waste any more of your time" and he left.

Now the people were really perplexed. They decided to try one more time and once again invited the Mullah to speak the following week. Once again he asked the same question - "Do you know what I am going to say?"
Now the people were prepared and so half of them answered "YES" while the other half replied "NO".
So Mullah Nasruddin said "The half who know what I am going to say, tell it to the other half" and he left!"

I wonder if, to Gurdjieff, Nasruddin was the quintessential Obyvatel??? He certainly loved to tell his stories.  

The Good Householder (Part III)

“On another occasion in connection with the same question G said: “A good deal is incomprehensible to you because you do not take into account the meaning of some of the most simple words, for instance, you have never thought what to be serious means.
“To have a serious attitude toward something.” Someone said.
“That is exactly what everybody thinks, actually it is the reverse.” said G. “To have a serious attitude towards things does not at all mean being serious because the principal question is, towards what things? Very many people have a serious attitude towards trivial things. Can they be called serious? Of course not.

“The mistake is that the concept ‘serious’ is taken conditionally. One thing is serious for one man and another thing for another man. In reality seriousness is one of the concepts which can never and under no circumstance be taken conditionally. Only one thing is serious for all people at all times. A man may be more aware of it but the seriousness of things will not alter on this account.”

“If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can be only one thing that is serious for him – to escape the general law, to be free. What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death? Only one thing: How to save himself; how to escape: nothing else is serious.

When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a ‘tramp’ or a ‘lunatic’ I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the ‘ways’ and the possibilities of ‘liberation’ or ‘salvation’ better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.
People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves – or they are ‘lunatics’, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say.”
“To what category do politicians belong who speak contemptuously about ‘obyvatel’, ‘obyvatels opinions’, ‘obyvatels interests’?” someone asked. “They are the worst kind of obyvatels,” said G., that is, obyvatels without any positive redeeming features, or they are charlatans, lunatics, or knaves.”
“But may there not be honest and decent people among politicians.” someone asked.
“Certainly there may be,” said G. “but in this case they are not practical people, they are dreamers and they will be used by other people as screens to cover their own obscure affairs.”
“The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows things that ‘so themselves’ simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general do anything. This for him is not being serious. And an understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious." Gurdjieff, ISOM

~

Steadily Toward Home

Freer and freer,
Slowly
Savoring each step
To get the fullness of
the flavor and the taste
of the madness and sorrow
66 years in exile wrought.

I move toward my WISH.
Into FREEDOM.
HEART FULL,
I move toward Home
And You,
My Beloved of Beloveds.

~ LL 10 April 2011

The Good Householder: Part II

OBYVATEL Part II: ISOM pages 362 - 363

"People of the objective way live simply in life. They are those whom we call good people. Particular systems and methods are not necessary for them; making use of ordinary religious or intellectual teachings and ordinary morality, they live at the same time according to conscience. They do not of necessity do much good, but they do no evil. Sometimes they happen to be quite uneducated, simple people, but they understand life very well, they have the right valuation of things and a right outlook. And they are of course perfecting themselves and evolving. Only their way can be very long with many unnecessary repetitions."

   "I had for a long time wanted to get G to talk about repetition but he always avoided it. So it was on this occasion. Without answering my question on repetition he continued."

" It often seems to people of the 'way', that is, of the subjective way, especially those who are just beginning, that other people, that is, people of the objective way, are not moving, but this is a very big mistake. A simple obyvatel may sometimes do such work in him that he will overtake another - a monk or even a yogi."

"Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of an 'inhabitant', without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision -'obyvatel'- as though there could be nothing worse. But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from that point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp'. Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime, we will talk about the obyvatel. I do not wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the subjective way; nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way'. And finally there are different types of obyvatel. Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as other people around him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master who makes money, and is perhaps even close fisted. At the same time, he dreams of monasteries, for instance, and dreams some time or other that he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then when his children are grown up; he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery. This is the obyvatel of which I speak. Perhaps he does not go into a monastery; perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel is his own way."

"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down at the obyvatel, and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel. This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives - who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are the ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and their inadaptability. A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the 'way' than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel, I call 'tramps' all the so called 'intelligentsia' --- artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him. Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of the work. A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"

"What does an obyvatel actually mean?" asked someone. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"

"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked. "Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"

"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "you still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism [or anything else] are psychopaths for him and he looks on them as such."

"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"

 "Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse."

The Good Householder: External Considering in the Work

 “Right external considering is very important in the work. It often happens that people who understand very well the necessity of external considering in life do not understand the necessity of external considering in the work; they decide that just because they are in the work, they have the right to not consider. Whereas in reality, in the work, that is, for a man’s own successful work, ten times more external considering is necessary than in life, because only external considering on his part shows his valuation of the work; and success in the work is always proportional to the valuation and understanding of the work.
Remember that the work cannot begin on a level lower than an obyvatel, that is, on a level lower than ordinary life. This is a very important principle which, for some reason or other, is very easily forgotten...”
ISOM (In Search of the Miraculous, PD Ouspensky) Page 153-154