Inexactitudes in Beelzebub’s Tales

This post is a continuation of the theme I have been exploring in relation to this statement I made:

“Beelzebub’s Tales and the entire All and Everything was written in such a way that it contains self-guards against involution according to Law. For that Mr. Gurdjieff invented lies, contradictions, inexactitudes, conjuries, and fairy tales. Anyone attempting to tramp with all that will fail miserably.”

In the previous post the matter of lies, contradictions and fairy takes was examined. This post is about inexactitudes.

The idea of inexactitude is introduced in the chapter on Art of Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson (BTTHG or The Tales). The content of this chapter is centered on the works of the “Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism,” an initiate society formed with the principal aim of finding ways to transmit to posterity the knowledge they and other initiates from more remote times had found during their initiate works for the benefit of humanity. The members of the “Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism” found a very ingenious way of doing things. They would put the knowledge not in places we would expect the knowledge to be but rather in places where would have never expected it to be. And this places they called inexactitudes according to law. That is to say, they would place intentional inexactitudes in all the several forms of cultural expressions they would use and in these lawful inexactitudes they would place the knowledge they wanted to convey. They also called these intentional inexactitudes lawful “otherwises.”

There are several lawful inexactitudes in BTTHG and all of them are in accordance with the wise provisions of the Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism.” The intent of this post is to examine what may be considered as the two most important inexactitudes in the book, namely, the one having to do with the Saint Buddha and His teaching on Objective Divine Reason and the one having to do with the Most Saintly Ashiata Shiemash and His teaching on Objective Divine Conscience. These two teachings occupy a central role in the teaching in BTTHG. Mr. Gurdjieff, following the instructions of the members of the “Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism,” made sure that these two central teachings are pointed to through two lawful inexactitudes.

Inexactitude Relative to Saint Buddha

The inexactitude relative to Saint Buddha is given in terms of the fact that the Buddha of Beelzebub’s Tales is not the historical Buddha. Saint Buddha is found in Beelzebub’s Tales for the first times during the third descent and first visit of Beelzebub to India. In fact, by the account in the book (p. 233), the teaching of Saint Buddha was already well established during Beelzebub’s first visit to India. It is obvious from this account that the Buddha in The Tales is not the historical Buddha. Beelzebub’s first visit to India took place during the flourishing of the country Maralpleicie and the existence of the city Gob. This country and this city had entirely disappeared covered by sands during the third catastrophe to the planet as it is accounted for during the fifth descent. Chronologically, the Buddha in BTTHGs existed around 1500 years B.C., about the time in which the phenomenon known as the transmigration of the races took place. This fact is further corroborated by the chronology of The Tales. We are told in the fourth descent that the ship occasion descended on the “Red Sea” and that Beelzebub witnessed the construction of an observatory in the “outskirts of Cairo.” Historically, this construction took place around 1500 B.C. In any case, we know that the historical Buddha was born around 600 B.C. By the way, the birth of the historical Buddha took place at about the same time that the “Building-of-the-Tower-of-Babel” was proceeding in Babylon. But in the chronology of BTTHG, this event takes place much later than Beelzebub’s first visit to India. This is a proof that the Buddha of The Tales is not the historical Buddha. Saint Buddha in BTTHG constitutes an inexactitude and for that matter, a lawful and intentional inexactitude.

 Inexactitude relative to Ashiata Shiemash 

The inexactitude concerning Ashiata Shiemash is easier to show. The key is this paragraph on page 353 of The Tales:

 “All the sacred Individuals here before me, especially and intentionally actualized from Above, have always endeavored while striving for the same aim to accomplish the task laid upon them through one or other of those three sacred ways for self-perfecting, foreordained by OUR ENDLESS CREATOR HIMSELF, namely, through the sacred ways based on the being-impulses called ‘Faith,’ ‘Hope,’ and ‘Love’”(B.T., p. 353).

But the ways of “Faith,” “Hope” and “Love” are specifically and unambiguously identified in the book as the way of the full-of-faith Saint Lama, the way of the full-of-hope Mohammed, and the way of the full-of-love Divine Jesus. Furthermore, no Sacred Individual in the book before Ashiata Shiemash is identified with any of these three ways. It is obvious that Ashiata Shiemash is a prophet from the present and from future and not from the past. This is further corroborated by the fact that Ashiata Shiemash introduces the way of Conscience after having determined that the ways of “Faith,” “Hope,” and “Love” had deteriorated as valid ways of self-perfecting. How could Ashiata Shiemash have made this determination if the three ways had not yet been introduced when He made the determination, at least not in the context of The Tales? The only plausible answer is that Ashiata Shiemash is from the present and from the future. Observe that I am not saying that an organization of initiates like the Ashiatan organization or “Ashiatan renewals” never existed in the past. Even official history acknowledges periods of enlightenment in the course of humanity’s historical development. What I am saying is that Ashiata Shiemash, as He is presented in The Tales, is from the present and the future and not from the past. As in the case of Buddha, Ashiata Shiemash in the book constitutes an inexactitude. And also as in the case of Saint Buddha, as I will show, it constitutes a lawful and intentional inexactitude.

 Why Are They Lawful and Intentional Inexactitudes

I will now show why the two inexactitudes I am addressing are lawful and intentional, as dictated by the wise provisions of the “Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism.” I claim that these two inexactitudes are lawfully placed in what I call the fundamental Law of Seven of Beelzebub’s Tales. What is this fundamental Law of Seven or fundamental octave of the book? I say that it is formed in part by the six descents. Each descent is a Stopinder in the fundamental Law of Seven of the book. And the center of gravity of each Stopinder is the particular and specific cause for each one of the six descents. In this way we have six Stopinders and six centers of gravities. Each center of gravity is different from the other and each Stopinder of the law has a specific subjective property, all in accordance with the operational characteristics of the Law of Seven.

Saint Buddha is placed in the third Stopinder (third descent). We know that according to the operational characteristics of the Law of Seven, this Stopinder is critical in the sense that it is through this Stopinder that the evolutionary process receives forces, coming from outside the concentration, which helps the concentration to continue with its evolutionary process. Saint Buddha and His teaching of Objective Reason, it is my contention, provides the outside help for the evolution of the material in the book to continue to yet higher centers of gravities and Stopinders.  The very saintly Ashiata Shiemash, on the other hand, is placed in the fifth Stopinder (fifth descent). Observe that I am not saying that Ashiata Shiemash, or for that matter Saint Buddha, exist during the fifth descent. I am saying that He and His teaching are presented during the fifth descent or fifth Stopinder. This is even more significant as far as the fundamental Law of Seven of the book is concerned. We know that according to the operational characteristics of the Law of Seven the subjective action of the fifth Stopinder is the only one that can give results “opposite to each other.” That is why Ashiata Shiemash and His teaching of Objective Conscience had to be placed in the fifth Stopinder of the Law of Seven of the book. How else could Lentrohamsanin, who is the opposite of Ashiata Shiemash, have been introduced in the book? Everything in the book is written according to the Law of Seven.

Concluding Remarks

Both Saint Buddha and Ashiata Shiemash constitute both intentional and lawful inexactitudes, all in accordance with the wise provisions of the Club-of-Adherents-of-Legominism. In these two intentional and lawful inexactitudes Mr. Gurdjieff placed the most fundamental teachings found in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, namely, the teaching of Saint Buddha on Objective Divine Reason and the teaching of Ashiata Shiemash on Objective Divine Conscience. As it is always the case with BTTHG, what is presented in one part of the book is used in another part.

Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson is a Work of Objective Art.

Regards,

Will Mesa

Advertisements

About willmesa

I have been studying and working with the ideas of G.I. Gurdjieff exposed in his Opus Magnum Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson. The intention of this blog is to share these ideas with people around the world. For more information about me, please search in Google for Will Mesa
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Inexactitudes in Beelzebub’s Tales

  1. Hey thanks for your writings and efforts with the Tales Will. Im going to be starting writing on wordpress as well. Feel free to check it out.

  2. Tom Schultz says:

    Will, the question I would pose is this – how does it help people to publish this sort of interpretation? Even if it were true what you’ve written, how would it help anybody? Mr. Gurdjieff evidently chose not to explain everything to people. Evidently he didn’t want to inform the fictitious consciousness with information. That’s very clear from his introduction to Beelzebub. He wrote this book for the subconscious. Which consciousness, in you, do you think you are writing from? The real or the fictitious? It’s a question. Interpret this: “…it was forbidden under oath from Above to the beings of our tribe to communicate true information to any one of them on any occasion whatsoever. “This interdiction upon the beings of our tribe was made it seems on the initiative of the Very Saintly Ashiata Shiemash.” This interdiction on the beings of our tribe was made chiefly because it is necessary for the three-brained beings of your planet to have ‘knowledge-of-being.’

    “And any information, even if true, gives to beings in general only ‘mental knowledge,’ and this mental knowledge, as I have already once told you, always serves beings only as a means to diminish their possibilities of acquiring this knowledge-of-being.”

  3. in out says:

    All forms of Buddhism agree there are many buddhas throughout the ages.
    The Buddha of Tibetan Bon Buddhism lived 17,000 years ago!

  4. in out says:

    http://www.viewzone.com/buddahyearx.html
    The link here places our famous shakyamuni/Gotama/Siddhartha at 1700BC due to a mix-up between two rulers named Ashoka who lived in different periods.
    I don’t have a clue as to the truth of the matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s