S5/E14: Revivifying Consciousness - Part 2
Published July 21st, 2022
Revivifying Consciousness - Part 2
In last week’s podcast Russell walked a classroom full of students through an exercise to revivify their consciousness and then listened to their best moments.
In this week’s podcast, as promised, we shall continue listening to that class, wherein the students share their memory work, and Russell answers their Work questions.
The Three-Story Diagram
Welcome to a series of talks about objective consciousness, an objective Universe, and an objective way to awaken, expanding upon the works of George I. Gurdjieff and Russell A. Smith.
In last week’s podcast Russell walked a classroom full of students through an exercise to revivify their consciousness and then listened to their best moments. In this week’s podcast, as promised, we shall continue listening to that class, wherein the students share their memory work, and Russell answers their Work questions.
Russell: Okay, who else has memory work?
Student: This is from the Three-Story Diagram in The Blueprint of Consciousness, pages 294 and 295.
- Impressions enter from outside, via the five senses, and become recorded in the instinctive center.
- The moving center begins to function in response to these impressions.
- Some of these incoming impressions enter with such force that their entrance not only creates a corresponding reaction in the moving center but also stimulates the registration of the impression in the emotional center.
- Subsequent impressions that are registered in the emotional center, which are similar to, like impressions previously perceived, incite memory, i.e., create a codification in the intellectual center.
- If a man unifies lower centers into conscience, then these incoming impressions, which have been forcibly recorded in the emotional center, will also begin to resound in the higher emotional center.
- The accumulation of impressions that have reached the higher emotional center, if they were perceived rightly, will give birth to objective reason, i.e., the higher mental center will begin to function with impartiality and reason.
- The functioning of the higher mental center, which can impart objective reason to the intellectual center, makes it possible for the intellectual center to be cognizant of various realities without having to actually experience them through sensation.
- The creation of an intellectual construct based on the influence of perceiving objective reason will create, in the emotional center, the requisite belief structure, which it must create in order to support the given intellectual model.
- If a man does not awaken conscience, there will be no impartation of reason to his intellectual center; but rather, he will be conditioned by false truths implanted in his intellectual center from outside, thus giving him a false intellectual model of reality.
- These false truths—false models, e.g., “Snakes are slimy!” will, unfortunately, create in his emotional center the requisite “false belief structures”, which it must inevitably create in order to support them. Thus, false personalities are born.
- The establishment of these false belief structures, along with the accompanying emotions necessary for their support, will also condition a man’s sensations and movements. Then, if a man (manifesting from some requisite false personality) encounters a real snake . . . and touches it, he may still believe that the snake is slimy, even though it is not.
Russell: Well done.
Student: I got this from yesterday’s written chat that you had with your students in England and Mexico, where you told them:
“Purgatory is simple, it is the state of being awake and having a conscience that sees what you are. That is, that sees both your real self and your inexactitudes, which is not a very comfortable spot to be in.
In order for a man or woman to remove their inexactitudes and their false personalities, they must be shaken to the depths, but most do not want to do that, as their inexactitudes and false personalities constitute their feeling of themselves. However, their false personalities are imaginary things, acquired artificial masks, which form pretend persons that they would like to imagine themselves to be, but they are not.”
Student: This is from Views from the Real World, page 194.
“If you help others, you will be helped, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps in 100 years, but you will be helped. Nature must pay off the debt … It is a mathematical law and all life is mathematics.”
Student: Mine is also from Views from the Real World, page 134; it is about the formatory apparatus.
“I began with one thing and ended by speaking of another. Let us return to what I meant to say about the formatory apparatus.
For some reason those who come to lectures call it also a center. But in order to understand what follows it is necessary to make clear that it is not a center. It is simply a certain organ, although it too is in the brain. Both in its matter and its structure it is completely different from what we call an animate center. These animate centers, if we take them singly, are in themselves animals and they live like corresponding animals. This one is the brain of a worm; that one the first brain of a sheep. There are animals which have something similar. Here brains of different degrees of fineness are collected together in one. There exist one-brained organizations and two-brained organizations. So that each one of these brains in an individual organization acts as a moving factor – as a soul. They are independent.”
I will stop there and pick it up again next week.
Russell: Very good. Any other memory work?
Student: Mine is from Life is Real Only then when I Am.
“The factors of the first two totalities are formed by themselves, in conformity to laws, as a result of chance causes not depending on them, while the factors of the third totality are formed exclusively by the intentional blending of the functions of the first two.”
Russell: Very good.
Student: This is from your writing, Russ, Beelzebub’s Last Wish, chapter two, page 11.
“The two were inseparable, and spent the next several dianosks recounting wonderful memories of the common journey they once shared. At one point during this reflection, Ahoon became silent; and, after drooping his shoulders and lowering his head, he uttered in a tone of remorse, ‘I tried to get back in time for your grandfather’s ceremony. I personally wanted to be there; but I could not. I was, of all places, on the other side of the universe, helping my sister’s son move.’
Do not allow yourself to become so melancholy, said young Hassein, compassionately to his old friend. I have learned that the greatest joys in life come from helping others; and I know, beyond any doubt, that if you could have made it…you would have been there! Besides, if grandfather were here, he would probably say something like, ‘only a fool lets the outside…get on the inside’.
Ahoon regained his posture. Then, looking up at Hassein, he confidently uttered with an air of pride. ‘No…It appears that you are not the growing egoist that I once accused you of being; but instead it seems, you have matured…not only in stature, but even in the sense that some of your grandfather’s wisdom may have actually rubbed off.’
I am humbled by your very kind remarks, said Hassein; but enough about us and about our reminiscence of the past. We must turn our attention to the here and now, and the task at hand. I am sure the captain could use our help, for there is still much to do. Ahoon agreed; and the two men set about busying themselves with various shipboard duties.”
Student: I would like to be last.
Russell: Okay, who would like to go next?
Student: I would. Mine is from The Fourth Way, page 260.
“Question: Does giving up self-will involve giving up your own judgment? Answer: It depends in what. Generally it means giving up childishness, inefficiency and lying. You have mistaken ideas about what giving up will means. First, you think it is a final action: that you give up will and have no more will. This is an illusion because we have no such will to give up. Our will lasts for about three minutes. Will is measured by time. If once we give up three minutes of will, tomorrow another three minutes will grow. Giving up will is not one action, it is a continuous process. A single action means nothing. The second mistake is not remembering certain principles to which you give up will. There are many principles in order to follow which you have to give up your will. The third thing is to avoid thinking in extremes; imagining the most difficult cases. Start with simple, ordinary cases. Giving up will only means remembering about the work. This way you learn how to create will; it is the method of developing it.”
Student: Mine is from page 9 and 10 in The Blueprint of Consciousness:
“My Higher then told me the following story about a man who was desperately trying to awaken. Wishing. Praying. Seeking.
“One day, that man was walking through a forest, his eyes were on the heavens, his thoughts were on his God, his mind was on his quest, and his prayers were on his tongue. However, he was not watching where he was walking, and in sandaled feet, his toe struck a root. He had kicked the root with such force, the pain was excruciating. So, he grabbed his toe and started hopping around on one foot.
“At that moment - that event (coupled with his search, his quest, his wish, and his prayers) caused his machine to align, and the man to awaken. It was glorious, and he became enlightened.
“After that, everyone who met the man recognized his Being, and questioned who he was and what he was studying. Eventually, he told them of his quest, his wish, and his prayers, and how he had kicked the root and awoke.
“Soon, a school formed around the man (a school based on his quest, his wish, and his prayers) with hundreds of students walking through the forest, in sandaled feet, all trying to kick a root just like he had done, in hopes that they too would awaken.
“But no one ever did!
“When the man died, his school died.
“I repeat, you cannot pass on a subjective way!”
I like that!
Russell: I do too.
Well, it looks like it’s your turn ma’am.
Student: Great, mine is from The Fourth Way, page 265.
“Question: The making of effort is what you call struggle. But what do you call it if one does something without being aware of a struggle? Answer: That means it happened. Four kind of things can happen to us – by accident, cause and effect, fate, and will. Struggle must be by will, intention. And you must be aware of your intention. You cannot make effort and not be aware of it. What is important is will-action.”
Russell: Good job everyone. I applaud you all!
Okay. Any questions for the week?
Student: Would you give us some examples of the occurrence in your machine of lines #7 and #8 from the Three-Story Diagram?
Lines 7 and 8 are about the functioning of reason and impartiality respectively.
So let’s see, where do I start?
Most of Gurdjieff: Cosmic Secrets was a result of line #7. That is, they were moments of “direct knowing.” Like in the Disney movie where a very frantic kid stops to slowly put on a motorcycle helmet before chasing down his girl and her fleeing parents from an asteroid. When I saw that, I questioned why they wrote that particular scene into the movie. Almost immediately, the reason of line #7 came in and said, “It will be a stunt driver riding the motorcycle, not the kid!”
When reason happens, you instantly know that what you have heard is the truth, and as such, stop looking for an answer. And with the right answer comes right feeling and action, which is the line #8 part.
So basically, line 7 was my ‘ah-hah’ moments, and line 8 was my impartial actions that followed.
Does that answer your question?
Student: Yes, it does.
Russell: Okay, who else has a question?
Student: Is the Formatory Apparatus its own center?
Russell: No, it is the most mechanical part of our Intellectual Center, which later on appears in the mechanical part of our Higher Mental Center, and as such, it provides us with the weakest form of reason.
Let me explain. The Formatory Apparatus functions by simple comparison. However, it is only capable of comparing two things at a time, which is why we see things in two’s. There are no gradations there. But without it, we would not have reason, as comparing things is the beginning of reason.
Unfortunately, since that weakest form of reason made us superior to the other animals, we were not forced to develop our reason any further, and as such, we did not push our Intellectual Center and our Higher Mental Center past their mechanical parts. As a result, we ended up in a world of ‘yes and no,’ ‘good and bad,’ ‘up and down,’ and two political parties.
Any other questions?
Student: Is true personality a manifestation of essence? I ask because Gurdjieff and also the Apostle Paul said, “Be all things to all men,” which does not seem very feasible to me. That is, if I was captured by Muslims and asked if I wanted to have my head chopped off or proclaim my love for Mohammed, would I say, “I love Mohammed” and be spared, or would I say, “I think Mohammed is a jerk” and have my head chopped off.
Furthermore, it seems to me that ‘being all things to all men’ would change with the situation, as such, it would be more a part of my false personality than of my essence. That is, if a man acted from essence, or from true personality, he would tell his captors, “I think Mohammed is a jerk, so go ahead and cut off my head.” But, if he was going to be all things to all men, then, if he was with Mohammedans, he would act like Mohammedans, if he was with Republicans, he would act like Republicans, and if he was with Democrats, he would act like Democrats. So, the dilemma, as I see it, would be that by doing so, he would be building his false personality.
Does that make sense?
Russell: Somewhat. However, if we consider that essence is our ability to take stuff in, and personality is believing that which we take in, then true personality would be the true things we take in, and false personality would be the false things we take in.
My famous example is to spell cat, which most likely would prompt someone to say C-A-T. That would be ‘personality’ because that is true. However, if they also believed that cats are witches helpers and that black cats are unlucky, that would be ‘false personality’ because that is not true.
As such, there is real personality: data that is truth, and false personality: data that is hocus-pocus, make-believe, and false.
As to your dilemma with the Mohammedans, if the truth was that they would indeed chop off your head if you did not say that you loved Muhammad; and, if you did not want to have your head to be chopped off, then perhaps, you should choose to consciously lie and say that you do love Muhammad. As such, I am pretty sure that would not be an act of your false personality, but rather, an act of your common sense.
Another example: if you were asked to walk along a 2x4 plank that was placed on the floor, you would probably say, “Sure.” However, if that 2x4 placed was placed between two really tall ladders and you were asked to walk along it, you would probably say, “No,” as your true personality would tell you that walking along that 2x4 would be most dangerous. However, if I put up a rail that you could hold on to, your true personality might say, “Okay.” However, if I shined a beam of light that looked like a rail along the 2x4, your true personality would still say, “No,” whereas, your false personality might say, “Sure, after all, it does look like a rail.” That is, unless your false personality was afraid that you would get halfway across the 2x4 and I would turn off the light! [laughs]
In addition, being all things to all men, somewhat sounds like a best moment that was shared by a student earlier in the class, where they told us about the driver at the red light who was constantly letting people in but was not considering those behind him who were already in line.
In order to be all things to all men, one has to see the whole picture. That is, to be kind enough to let some people in, and yet, be kind enough to not hold up the people who are behind him for too long.
If I was that guy, I would read the moment. That is, I would consider how much traffic was behind me and how much traffic was trying to enter from the various driveways. Hopefully, with that information, I would be able to satisfy everyone.
However, in the eyes of some, I may fail. That is, some may honk at me for not proceeding to the light as quickly as possible, and some may curse at me because I did not let them in with the others; but based on my assessment, I did what I believed to be the right thing to do.
Okay, anyone else?
Student: I agree, Russ, in the work, it talks about us being an actor. For instance if I was going to be with people who were not quite as well off as myself, I wouldn’t wear my 3-piece suit; or if I was going to a formal conference connected to my job, I wouldn’t wear my jeans that have holes in the knees.
I would consider the situation and do what was appropriate. So, I would be an actor per the situation. As such, I would not be feeding my ego nor my false personality.
It seems to me that as long as I am not interfering too much with someone else’s life, and as long as I know what I am doing and understand why I am doing it, then it’s okay for me to be those different people and wear those different masks.
Russell: That’s correct. That's what it is. It’s just an act. At every moment, it’s just a performance: You read the traffic and act accordingly.
Student who originally asked the question about ‘being all things to all men:’ What prompted me to ask that question was this: one of my co-workers has a conservative view, and in a conversation, they said some things that I consciously tried to agree with in order to not go against their position. To another co-worker, who has a different political stand, I also tried to consciously agree with them in order to not go against their position.
Well, they found out what I had said to them, and now they say that I am a hypocrite.
So that was the dilemma of me trying to be an actor. That is, of me trying to be all things to all people.
Russell: Well, if I were you, knowing that those two folks might get together, I would have had a different response. Instead of agreeing with them, I would have chosen things like, “That is really interesting.” Or, “Thank you so much for sharing that with me.”
Another student also wished to respond: Yes, I agree. It’s good to find a happy medium about things like that, and simply become a good listener. And if you have to say something, say neutral things like ‘uh-huh,’ ‘oh,’ ‘I heard,’ ‘really,’ ‘they did that,’ ‘oh wow that’s different,’ ‘I’ll check it out,’ etc.
Russell: That's correct. Just say neutral things. It is not like you have to agree with them or anything. All you have to do is navigate the conversation and keep yourself neutral. So next time try saying something like, “Wow, that really gives me a lot to think about.” Such a statement will usually make them very happy because it indicates that their opinion has been heard. And yet, you haven’t agreed or disagreed with anything. That being said, always remember DOGTALE #40: You may not be able to make another man conscious, but you can at least try not to contribute to his sleep.
That concludes today’s podcast.
Thank you for listening.
If you would like to attain a higher state of consciousness that you too can revivify, simply visit our website thedogteachings.com and acquire Mr. Smith’s book, The Blueprint of Consciousness, a 520-page hardback, which is also available as a PDF download.
There, you will be able to listen to other talks, obtain diagrams, animations, supporting videos, and much, much more.
But most importantly, you will be able to awaken!
In addition, you can also find us on Instagram and Facebook under THEDOG Teachings.
Furthermore, we have two ZOOM classes to assist you; one is for purchasers of Mr. Smith’s book, and the other is for those who have obtained the Master Exercises and the Double or Nothing Exercises.
That’s T H E D O G T E A C H I N G S Dot Com.
Again, thanks for listening.
Goodbye, until next time.