Can We Work with Beelzebub’s Tales?

I have been severely criticized by many in the Gurdjieff community for sharing with others my observations on Beelzebub’s Tales. It is the opinion of many in this community that the book should not be commented upon. It can be read and studied either individually or collectively in groups but commentaries on the book should not be shared. This, for example, is the position of the so-called Gurdjieff Foundation. Of course, this is only a position based on an opinion. There have been many very good commentaries on the book by astounding disciples like Orage and Bennett and I know I have personally been benefited by them. In any case, this is a matter that is not resolved and that will probably never be resolved. I will keep commenting on the book because I feel sharing is an important part of the living teaching Mr. Gurdjieff left to humanity. But more importantly for me now is the question which severs as the basis for this particularly sharing: Can we work with Beelzebub’s Tales?

I am convinced that the answer to this question is affirmative. Yes, we can work with the book. Otherwise I have wasted my time and a great part of my life because during the past 35 years I have been working with the book and I know many others who have been and still are working with the book. I am convinced that the book has the magic of bringing a real change in us and I am convinced that bringing a real change in us is one of the fundamental aspects of the living teaching Mr. Gurdjieff left to humanity. In fact, I am convinced that this change in us comes almost automatically as one gets deeper and deeper into the material in the book. In the very same language used in the book, it takes place subconsciously. The book has this magic and this promise.

Of course, all this can be my personal opinion and my own justification for spending so many years working with the book. But is there any objective reality as far as my own opinion is concerned? In order to answer this question objectively I will refer to the only source that can served as basis to answer this question: The book itself. In this sense, we are very fortunate because this question is addressed at the very beginning of the book, on page 24 of the first chapter to be more exact. So, I will quote a paragraph on page 24 which contains the secret to the aim of the book. One may say that in this paragraph is contained the gist of the book.  Here is the famous paragraph on page 24:

“Now that you have become familiar with the story of our common countryman, the Transcaucasian Kurd, I consider it my duty to make a confession to you. Before going on with this first chapter, which serves as an introduction to all that I plan to write, I wish to inform your so-called “pure waking consciousness” of the fact that, in the chapters following this warning, I shall expound my thoughts intentionally in such a sequence and with such logical confrontation that the essence of certain real ideas may pass automatically from this “waking consciousness,” which most people in their ignorance mistake for the real consciousness, but which I affirm and experimentally prove is the fictitious one, into what you call the “subconscious”— which in my opinion ought to be the real human consciousness— in order that these concepts may mechanically bring about by themselves that transformation which in general should proceed in the common presence of a man and give him, by means of his own active mentation, the results proper to him as a man and not merely as a one- or two-brained animal.”

The promise is very clear and concrete. “I shall expound my thoughts intentionally in such a sequence and with such logical confrontation that the essence of certain real ideas may pass automatically from this “waking consciousness,” which most people in their ignorance mistake for the real consciousness, but which I affirm and experimentally prove is the fictitious one, into what you call the “subconscious”— which in my opinion ought to be the real human consciousness— in order that these concepts may mechanically bring about by themselves that transformation which in general should proceed in the common presence of a man and give him, by means of his own active mentation, the results proper to him as a man and not merely as a one- or two-brained animal.” There is no question about it. Exposure to the material in the book, the promise goes, will automatically and mechanically bring a change in us. Our ordinary fictitious consciousness will be replaced by the “subconscious” or real consciousness in such a way that we will again become normal three-brained beings.  This will happen mechanically and automatically as we are exposed to the material in the book. That is the big promise the author of the book has for us.

In another part of this chapter one with the title the Arousing of Thought, Mr. Gurdjieff tells us that in order to fulfill his promise and intention, he will use the language of mentation by form rather than the language of mentation by thought in the construction of his book. He also tells us that the language of mentation by form is the language of the subconscious while the language of mentation by thought is the language of the intellect. This plainly means that we cannot approach the book with the intellect alone. We must do it with feeling and sensation too. This is equivalent to saying that work with the book is three-centered and not one-centered. If we do it this way, then the promise is that the material in the book will penetrate our subconscious through the language of mentation by form and will thereby change us.

Another way of addressing the question under consideration is to say that Beelzebub is a real teacher with a very distinctive reality and personality. Mr. Beelzebub can guide us. His reality and personality are the language of mentation by form.


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.

31 Responses to Can We Work with Beelzebub’s Tales?

  1. David says:

    I think you are right Will.I can only add this affirmation based on personal observation obviously. What I have found, which your description has helped to clarify, is that having followed the included instructions, after some years, changes have occurred in my presence which I can only describe as “other” than would be expected by the line of efforts I had been following. And these changes seemed to come of their own accord which I found quite disconcerting. The biggest change has been in the nature and quality of Attention.
    In the light of what you have written above, a lot of things make more sense and for that I thank you. It opens up a new direction for intentional work. I would add, that commentaries that describe a means of approach to themes of the book are very useful, while attempts to ‘define’ terms are not. Perhaps this is the fear of the ‘established’ aspects of the teaching. The information presented by Orage and Bennett tends to follow the line of ‘help’ in the sense of direction rather than definition. Even where Bennett gives definitions they are fairly loose.
    Mr Gurdjieff talked about the need for “helper-instructors” in relation to his books. I don’t believe that term was used accidentally.

    • willmesa says:

      Thanks David for your comments. I too share your experience. I also agree with you that terms should never be defined as it is never done in the book. We comment and leave it like that. We do not need a definition for “conscious labors” and “intentional suffering.” The basic condition of the so-called process of Antkooano or perfecting reason naturally is to share all cosmic truths. Yes, indeed, Mr. Gurdjieff spoke of “help-instructors for his book and, as you say, hi did not use accidentally. Thanks again. Will.

    • jonedae says:

      Mr. G. wanted us to think for ourselves. Surely, this means discussing with each other too, yes?
      That is, excessive talking is always wrong, and sometimes, any talking is wrong (at those times), and of course talking includes typing…. but if a person works within those guidelines, and isn’t trying to *change* BTTG, them, it seems inescapable that *some* discussion will occur, and, that it is Ok when it does. BTW I was first contacted by the work in 1976, read BTTG (the first few pages) for the first time that year. That is, I’ve heard many seekers talking, etc., and though I practice “the naive view” deliberately, you I thought would like to know that I”m now what they call “old in the Work”; and on that basis I offer that surely *all* discussion can’t be wrong, about BTTG. The problem comes from this: most are wannabees – see Jae’s post there today – and won’t even *try* to avoid talking/typing/posting. Most of them have a sign on them that says,
      Not A Seeker, but it’s been put on their backs, so (only) they can’t see it, yes?

      • willmesa says:

        Dear Jone, trying to change BTTHG is a sin, as I am sure you know. I always try not to change anything but comment on the material as it is presented and as you well say it, “all” discussions about BTTHG can’t be wrong. I do not want to have a “Not A Seeker” sign hanging on my back. Thanks. Will

  2. jonedae says:

    Again, to connect a little with you Will, and David, et al, here’s the question and reply from Jae’s post today in 4WLA:
    Q: Garrett Baker
    PERSONAL COMMENTS ALLOWED. . . . . . . . . .. Alot of posts are about, kesdjan body, attention, self-remembering, parkdolg duty etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Very well, what are you going to do after you crystaliz kesdjan body ? , Mental, how can we be sure the room of the master, is not empty ? . . . . . . . . This lateral octave beginning in the Sun is not part of the Ray of Creation. . . . . . . . . . . . It is a sort of womb, a place of birth, a place where Self Consciousness & Will may be attained. . . The only known place in the Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . As above so below. . . This lateral organic octave, seems to be an experiment, for Self evolving Sun Absolutes. . . . . . . We must pay for our existence to the DO & ?SI? of this octave. . before we can be birthed into the real Ray of Creation and join Our Father , Sun Absolute. . Yes ? . . No . .? . . . . . .

    A: Jae Kamel -as people begin to grow into the Work, Garrett, they learn ways to contain energy. As a result of this, and other changes, and as a result of the seriousness which allowed them to start in the Work, such people talk less. That includes writing less, posting less, spending less time online, blogging less, all that. So, the answers you’ve recieved above, and more particularly the posts you referred to, are from consumers and spectators. Those undergoing the kinds of transformations you alluded to with your question, generally are more sober and mature, and least of all would they want to go out in public, which FB is, and spill their knowledge of Work Ideas, methods, and so on. Most folks you’ll see here are wannabees. Those who argue with this point, attack the messenger, become defensive, etc., are the ones who are proving to you that they are wannabees. -Since you asked.

    • jonedae says:

      -Most all of the posts before and after mine were, of course, merely foolish; but here’s one that he answered, doing his Duty again to Garrett and the others:
      Q: Garrett Baker Thank you, Jae Kamel , what were the posts I reffered to ? . Will you expand on your post, ? . . .
      2 hours ago · Like
      Geovani Geo He is a spammer. The link is pure unrelated ruibish
      A: Jae Kamel @Garrett, what was meant was, talking less generally, and on some occasions not at all. Talking includes, typing, posting, and all this. So you’d know.
      4 minutes ago · Like · 1
      Jae Kamel Jone BTW is as old and serious as I am; we’re both Polymaths (that’s how we met). Her blog, originally about the Omnipresent Okidanokh and the Plasma Sciences, Mr. Geo can’t understand, and further can’t recognize what it it, or about, and so that’s why he calls it spam. His remark is similar to, say, a dog barking at it.

    • willmesa says:

      I sometimes wonder if FB is a proper place to exchange on the ideas of Mr. Gurdjieff. It seems to me that we always fall short of expressing sound views.

  3. -geo- says:

    OP says: “…There is no question about it. Exposure to the material in the book, the promise goes, will automatically and mechanically bring a change in us. Our ordinary fictitious consciousness will be replaced by the “subconscious” or real consciousness in such a way that we will again become normal three-brained beings. This will happen mechanically and automatically as we are exposed…”. Geo says: real transformation can never happen unconsciously or sub-consciously – such notion is arising from the mentation of a dream character. Consider: how could it? There is only one fundamental choice in existence which is taking or not taking the quantum step towards real subjectivity. The leap is from a dreamed objectified pseudo-subject and its objects towards the object-less real-subject and such change in perspective must issue from the source: the subject.

    • willmesa says:

      The material i9n the book takes care of the sub-conscious change. And it will happen automatically and mechanically. That is the objective hope the book gives us. Otherwise why being exposed to it? Why do you think Mr. Gurdjieff wrote it? But one must strive to understand the whole of the book. Striving here is the key word. The striving brings its own rewards. Thanks for your comments.

  4. As an observation, any work post is an expression of our being and our presence at the time of that posting… A kind of projected Being Avatar . . . In response to ?IS? fb a positive forum for expression of Work Idea’s. ? ……. Yes ….. This idea, that some have: ie, The Work must be kept secret, Only avalable for foundation members. etc. Is Wrong. … True Work Knowledge & Experience, should Shared and Made Public.. Even Shouted From Every Mountain Top. . . . . For those who have ears to hear. . . Truth . . .

    • willmesa says:

      Yes, there is a cosmic process called the sacred Antkooano which helps develop obje3ctive Reason in a natural way. This process takes place when all the cosmic truths are shared among the beings of a planet. Thanks for sharing.

    • Mike (the mammal) says:

      With respect to the literal requirement of secrecy
      From Maurice Nicoll: The New Man.
      “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.”
      Matthew 6:3 (AV)
      This is spoken in reference to this other kind of righteousness through which entry to the Kingdom of Heaven is only possible. What does it mean? In the previous verse it is emphasized that a person must not do his alms “to be seen of men” as do the scribes and Pharisees. Alms signify what you do out of mercy. This does not mean only charitable acts; it means inner forgiveness, inner canceling of debts against others. In the ancient language of parables the left hand denotes evil and the right hand good. In the Parable of the Separation of the Sheep from the Goats, at the consummation of the age (not the end of the world), it is said that the sheep are set on the right hand and the goats on the left. In the above passage not “letting the left hand know what the right hand doeth” refers to two levels in Man which must be made distinct.

      Notice that you must not let the left hand know what the right does, not the other way round. Man at his ordinary level is “evil”, and here it means a man sunk in his own self-love and vanity, and a creature of the senses. The senses are the world. The right hand means a higher or the beginning of a higher level of understanding. He must not mix these two levels—that is, he must not let his left hand know what his right hand does.

      • willmesa says:

        Hi Mike,
        All your comments are welcomed. However, I am not sure whether you are in agreement with my sharing or you disapprove it on the basis of the “literal requirement of secrecy.” Would you please elaborate further.

      • Mike (the mammal) says:

        Thanks Will This si going to be very rough and full of errors due to the hugeness of the question with respect to my smallness.

        In view of this ongoing revelation for me, when looking at this question of secrecy again with fresh eyes, it would appear that the “literal requirement of secrecy” with respect to the discussion of the work is taken to mean, not speaking of anything that pertains to the work, the work language, and so on with the ‘life people’, legion, the unitiated, exoteric people, swine and so on. This requirement of secrecy is generally (Mistakenly in my view) taken to mean in life external to man, that is, to those who are external to my physical body.

        Or approximately, the distinciton a secrecy between the inside of a school and the world outside, at another level, the secrecy that exists between the man/woman and the world outside populated by men/women, and internally the inner world of man populated by different I’s and the relatively fewer I’s that contain fewer contradictions. Though this is very scetchy, in this case all that is being pointed out by me generally is that the requirement for secrecy can be taken on more than one level. The inner and outer life of a school, the inner and outer life of a person, and the inner and outer world of men/women.

        However, on the other hand, it can be said that the ordinary mind is populated by all of these varieties or ‘levels’ as well as instances of relatively buried conscience, higher emotional center mind, higher intellectual center, and so on to represent higher levels.
        During instances of the presence of higher centers, the quote above refers to the possibility of these centers speaking to ‘life people’, legion, exoteric people, swine, that are external or to the “left hand”.

        The problems arise when the left hand speaks to the right and takes the gifts of buried conscience, higher centers and ascribes them to itself, thus making the left hand dominant. The left hand will keep on taking until there is nothing ‘left to take’. This is all good and to be expected. Or, to those that have, more can be given, but to those who do not have, even that which they have will be taken away. So we can see this both internally and externally and is a normal unfortunaetly.

        For instance, the left hand keeps on taking from the environment at one level and it is easy to see what has happened there. To keep this a secret is a major sin.

        So yes, i am in full agreement that when the gospel of BTTHG should be proclaimed at the mountain tops, and preferably speak cryptically or in parables to those who have ears to hear, and that there should be sufficient distinction to seperate that what is being made public belongs to another level, preferably higher. Even use sarcasm where necesarry 🙂

        I would definetly not bury it. This question is not sufficiently answered and i will study it in further detail for the purposes of refining my answer to make it more intelligible.

      • Mike (the mammal) says:

        This paragraph begining should resemble: (I was not able to find an ‘edit’ option)
        *”Though this is very scetchy, in this case all that is being pointed out by me on this ocassion generally is that the requirement for secrecy can be taken on more than one level. The inner and outer life of a school, the inner life of an individual person with respect to other people, the inner life of a man/woman populated by I’s that contain fewer contradicitons (Conscience), and the multitude of I’s that contain more more contradictions and so are less conscious in the inner world of men/women.”……

      • Mike (the mammal) says:

        A thought/association that is further from the ‘idea’ of secrecy, is the idea contained in the analogy of gold leaf, and that if a certain quantity only exists for a given task. Then it follows that there will only be enough to guild an allocated quantity of wooden frames for example. It might as well be noted that this idea/analogy can also be taken at more than one level. Internally in the inner world of man, & externally in the physical world, & so on.

        Perhaps when Ouspensky left Gurdjieff and made strict requirements with respect to secrecy in his own new group, it was as though his left hand was ascribing to itself what comes from the right (He began ascribing what G said to himself. A part of himself ascribed to itself that which actually belonged to another level ?) . This is why at a certain point in his life it came to pass that even that understanding that he had was taken away (As it were.) from him, and the collective quest issuing from his common presence for understanding had to begin again. Perhaps this is a result of taking the idea of secrecy wrongly/literally from the clues about this idea i have found in the biblical reference by Maurice Nicoll i first posted. From there things became more and more ‘lopsided’ as it were.

        There is also the idea that esoteric matters are not hidden/secret. They are there for all to see. It is that they cannot be seen by the ordinary understanding. Why hide what is allready well hidden?

        There is quite a lot to this qestion and thanks for the opportunity to voice my own fragmented concerns.

      • David says:

        The “doing of alms”, which for us would be the ‘practice’ of the teachings, should be invisible. sure. Spreading the ideas/teachings is more akin however to the section in Matthew where it says “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel”. When interpreting the Bible it is important to distinguish personal directives from general ones.

      • willmesa says:

        Thanks for your comments, David. I agree with you that there is a difference between doing alms and spreading the word. There is in Beelzebub’s Tales, a cosmic process with the name of Sacred Antkooano which consists in sharing all cosmic truths among beings of a planet. It facilitates the development of objective Reason. In my following Beelzebub, I strive to be true to this Sacred Antkooano. Thanks again for your reading of my paper and your comments. Will

  5. Allan says:

    I suspect those who are against this are also the same people who hide the Movements away under lock and key. Ignoring the fact that by doing so, almost no one knows that Mr. Gurdjieff was even a teacher of dance. This seems to me to be some sort of a betrayal. Like keeping a living tree in the dark.

    And yet not. Because I think this can be traced back to Mr. Gurdjieff who deliberately limited the scope of the first octave and knew that the force of his Being would nourish them and carry the teachings through to the third generation when it would dissipate: leaving only the teachings.

    However, a second octave, a second line must arise at the note ‘mi’ — which we can guess is the third generation after the death of the founder. And by my very inexact calculations, this is about now.

    It has to have a compatible valence and energy with the first line. So it might (and might not) comprise those of us who are on the outside who have not been nurtured by the lingering effects of his Being, but by the teaching itself.

    Keep up the good work. Mr. Gurdjieff was the Man. But even more important, the teachings are THE teachings for our head-brain-mad era.

    I consider anyone who loves the teachings as I do, to be a brother. Just because some of them don’t feel the same way about me, isn’t my problem. The Foundation, out of necessity had to become like the Catholic Church with power radiating down from above. There were just too many opportunities for wiseacring. This is a complete misrepresentation of the teacher-student relationship. But it was necessary to maintain the integrity of the teachings.

    I don’t know about you Will, but I will not lose any friends or be thrown out of an organization that nourished me. And they just don’t like that because it means they have no control over me. I don’t owe anyone anything for my understanding of the teachings except Mr. Gurdjieff himself. What I learned I earned. So they probably consider me to be as much of a loose canon as they do you.

    • David says:

      Perhaps just like the denial by newly arisen suns in relation to the Protocosmos enables the continuing Creation, Mme De Salzmann and the Foundations, In Search of the miraculous and Bennett’s work provide vari-form shades of denial to Mr. Gurdjieffs’ Work.

  6. Mike (the mammal) says:

    Hello Will, With respect to your opening sentence…….”severely critisised” and so forth. It reminded me of this in MWRM, or the second series.

    “Yelov was unusually devoted to his friends. He was ready, as is said,
    to give his soul for anyone to whom he became attached. When Yelov
    and Pogossian became friends they were so attached to one another as
    may God grant all brothers to be. But the external manifestation of the
    friendship of these two was quite particular and difficult to explain.
    The more they loved each other, the ruder they were to each other.
    But under this rudeness was hidden such a tender love
    that anyone who saw it could not fail to be touched to the depths of his
    heart. Several times I, who knew what was beneath some rudeness or
    other, was so moved that I could not hold back the tears which
    involuntarily came to my eyes.
    For instance, a scene such as the following would occur. Yelov
    would happen to be a guest in some house where he was offered candy.
    According to convention he would be obliged to eat it so as not to
    offend the person who offered it. However, even though very fond of
    candy, he would not eat it for anything in the world but would hide it in
    his pocket to take to Pogossian. And then he would not give it to him
    simply, but with every kind of mockery and a volley of insults.
    He usually did so as follows: during conversation at dinner, he
    would, as if unexpectedly, find the candy in his pocket and would offer
    it to Pogossian saying: ‘How the devil did this garbage happen to be in
    my pocket? Here, gobble up this muck; you’re an expert in swallowing
    everything that’s no good to anyone else.’ Pogossian would take it, also
    scolding: ‘Such a delicacy is not for a snout like yours. You can only
    gorge yourself on acorns like your brothers, the pigs.’ And while
    Pogossian was eating the candy, Yelov with a disdainful expression
    would say: ‘Look how he is gobbling the sweet stuff: how he relishes it
    like a Karabakh ass munching thistles! Now, after this, he’ll be running
    after me like a little dog merely because I gave him this loathsome
    rubbish.’ And the talk would continue in this fashion”……
    Mike the mammal.

  7. David says:

    In relation to the Sacred Antkooano, you might find this interesting:

  8. Gregory says:

    [I don’t know where else to place this so I’m putting it here where it seems to be somewhat related]

    Gurdjieff presents a Series of Ideas which were initially titled —[ and I am going to ask for Will’s kind indulgence in one of my major idee fixe identifications ; ) ]:

    An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life of Man,
    or Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson

    [NOT the other way around]

    Regarding this series, Gurdjieff stated,

    “I had decided with the contents of the first series of books to achieve the destruction, in the consciousness and feelings of people, of deep-rooted convictions which in my opinion are false and quite contradictory to reality.”

    To my comprehension, he is not presenting a religion, a spiritual practice, a method for raising/expanding consciousness, or a psychology for man’s possible “development”. That is not to disqualify those arenas being opened up to a reader of his works as a “fallout”.

    It is what the original title says: a Criticism.

    It reveals what our true state is rather than what we wish, believe , imagine, entertain or otherwise perceive our state to, in point of fact, BE.

    Beelzebub, traditionally being the Father of Lies, is telling falsehoods to his grandson. And these falsehoods are based on the stories we’ve told ourselves about ourselves, our history on this planet, and our capacity for liberation. These stories are based on our perceptions. And those perceptions are a mess!

    In all of this, Gurdjieff reveals how very far we have strayed from our Natural State. (Please see UG Krishnamurti, not JK Krishnamurti, for another explanation of this Natural State)

    The resolution to this problem, as I understand it, is the focused reactivation of the subconscious through the raising of the cerebellum — its home-base — through a concerted awareness of its functioning:
    [“Anna Butowsky: how do you know your hat’s on straight?” Gurdjieff’s question repeatedly presented by a friend of this pursuit]

    “As a result of pursuing this method for three days, while I did not arrive at any definite conclusions, I still became clearly and absolutely convinced that the answers for which I was looking, and which in their totality might throw light on this cardinal question of mine, can only be found, if they are to be found, if they are at all accessible to man, in the sphere of ‘man’s-subconscious-mentation’ “.
    -GI Gurdjieff.
    Sure Fire Press. 1988. page 19

    In my own case, forty-years of dancing with focused attention on the inch and a half point below the navel (abdominal brain) — NOT the lifted chest/squelched base of the spine as the western ballet method otherwise teaches — has gradually and rather completely

    1) “allowed” sensate physical movement to take place rather than my intellectually “forcing” physical movement through misuse/abuse of the cerebrum
    2) opened access to what the cerebellum — which has a direct kinesthetic relationship to the abdominal brain — tells me regarding my true psychology/inner world and its importance to guiding and informing my life.
    3) educated my subconscious faculties to a level of “visibility”
    4) as a result of the above three points, begun opening works of art such as BTTHG (1950 version only), and begun opening everyday reality in such a way that I can see, taste, hear, smell, and feel its import in what seems to be a more deeply informative level.

    A question: Does increasing awareness and integration of the cerebellum’s functioning help inform the divisiveness of the cerebrum’s hemispheres or is the divisiveness a perceptive abstraction caused by our ignorance of the true work of the cerebellum?

    Undoubtedly, there are suggestive nuggets of possible routes towards self-evolving practices — though I find myself less interested in these these days — hidden in the lies of Beelzebub, for a lesser-known Traditional capacity of this devil is as Healer. But I would ask: How can we possibly even begin to entertain any self-evolution — if that’s even possible or desirable — when we have not even begun the unearthing and reactivation of its possibly most discerning faculty?

    Thank you for your indulgence with this.


    • willmesa says:

      Yes, Gregory, Beelzebub is a “Criticism” and an objective one for that Matter. But would you agree it is also a “Legominism?”

      If you do, then the book is much more than a “Criticism.” It contains the kind of information that throughout the ages has been the work of initiates beings of planet Earth.

      In this sense, the book not only destroys false perceptions rooted in the mentation and feelings of the reader. It also provides real data an initiate can use for the aim of carrying out initiate work. One of the aspects of this initiate work is the discovery of the “inexactitudes” placed in the book according to law, very specifically according to the law of seven. And it is in this sense that the book is indeed an objective work of art.

      This aspect of the book is probably contained in the subtitle of the book or Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson. These are tales to be studied and deciphered by initiates. In other words, while the first title is for the consideration of humanity in general and tells us about our “abnormality” as three brained-beings of the planet Earth, the second title tells us how we can go beyond this abnormality and it is addressed to initiates.

      Anyhow, thanks for your little “criticism” of the book. It is well taken and greatly appreciated.


      • Gregory says:

        Yes, Will, I believe BTTHG to be a Legominism as well. A friend of mine who also studies this book refers to it as a Teaching Machine.
        I do want to make clear that my understanding of the use of Criticism in the title refers to simply “things as they are” with all sorts of qualifiers.
        The book brought me —- and I believe this to this day —– a 2 month long nadir experience in the Spring of 2012. Though I survived the ordeal by simply doing the everyday with the utmost attention, it was undiluted 24/7 hell-on-wheels. I’m still not completely certain of its aftermath terrain but here’s the odd point with which I’m experiencing some settlement: the book, as Legominism, is nowhere near the same as I before experienced it.
        I know of what you speak and to what you refer, and Yes! I’ve been there as well, but no more.
        It’s as if I was making too much out of it all along, glamourizing it, elevating it, when it now suggests a common sense simplicity cloaked in a code of convoluted elaboration. Everything previously thought, felt, perceived intuited is now FOR ME wrong, wrong, wrong.
        If I could say more I would, but I honestly can’t, so I won’t.
        It’s still in gestation.
        I’m not even sure I’ll be able to talk about it when it reaches some formulation out of respect to you, your site, the people here, and myself.

        The book UNDENIABLY, WITHOUT QUESTION has the most curious life of its own. And the job that it does? Well . . . .



      • Gregory says:

        I have often wondered, since that experience a little more than 2 years ago now, if we human beings have an illness, of sorts, where we insist on the more complicated labyrinthine explanation rather the incredibly simple Truth or Fact. .
        Many years ago, many DECADES ago, when my feet were firmly placed at the beginning of my Path I spent some time in an old-school House of Theosophy. Lots of “Old Souls” firmly focused on the original Blavatskian Teachings. It was there that I learned, and saw concrete evidence to the fact, that within all the drama that surrounded Blavatsky’s intricately exotic presentation of esoterica, she had, in point of fact, asked her coterie to engage in only a few relatively simple things. This was immediately disappointing to my 19 year olds quest for a kind , Paisley-Decorated Spiritual Psychedelia
        Her requests, no matter what had or had not formed around them were the following:

        1) Form study groups to read THE SECRET DOCTRINE and try to pick-out the meanings
        (Blavatsky claimed to understand next to nothing of it)

        2) Read and try hard to understand extant literature by and about Franz Anton Mesmer and form healing prayer circles accordingly to send help to those suffering. These groups were to meet on a regular basis as a “service”.

        3) Open soup kitchens and missions to feed the poor and find them shelter and work.

        4) Under no circumstances, entertain or practice any sort of method to encourage or raise the serpent power or kundalini.

        I was told by the “Old Souls” that if I adhered to these things as well as practicing a regular written self-inventory before “beddy-bye” I would be “on my Way”.

        When Blavatsky died, THE SECRET DOCTRINE was put on a shelf and forgotten about. No healing circles were ever formed regularly other than as an occasionally titillating foray into the occult. Some soup kitchens were open but rather scantily. There were no known agencies to help the poor. And finally, warring factions of theosophical groups sprung up all over the world each declaring authority and authenticity over the other. Laya Yoga was introduced into the scenario by most groups and rather than operating out in the world as a civilizing force as Blavatsky had wished with all her heart they do, they shut themselves away in theosophical “mausoleums” clearing the chakras, raising the kundalini, and channeling help for their self-involved paths in various seated forms of Quietism.

        (: I)

        Thanks for letting me share.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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