|
even more complex questions arise: how to establish a relationship with
this Divinity? What does he want from man? How can man
learn to know him? From philosophy to religion, from
popular superstition to scientific and technical
thinking, man has spent rivers of ink trying to answer
all this.
On the
one hand religion dogmatically claims the existence of a
Divinity. God exists, according to its thesis, and man
must submit to his laws. Whoever doesn't fulfil such
prescriptions will face the punishment reserved for him.
Religion becomes a way to save oneself from the terrible
final judgement. Many Christian sects use this marketing
technique to capture followers: if you feed the fear of
consequences, you exalt the qualities of the remedy. If
you flick through the pages of their tracts you will
often find pictures similar to Dore's: men and women
burning in hellfire, suffering unbearable pain and
punishment. Then, at the end of the article you find a
completely different picture: a wonderful garden,
overlooked far away by a mountain with snow, and smiling
children having fun. A caption says: do you want to live
in Heaven for a thousand of years too? Under the caption
you find the address of the sect. Philosophy, on the
other hand, has produced so many hypotheses as to get
lost in the maze of theories.
Often
philosophical lectures, instead of aiming to investigate
the Truth, turn into oratory shows. Science, on the
other hand, has forgotten the importance of theoretical
postulation and looks more and more like religion,
creating dogmas and disclosing certainties. The
determination of some scientific "no"s seems to be
animated by the same strength as a priest exorcising
demons with holy water. However, sometimes, between
these three great "schools" of thought individuals
emerge that don't get caught up in the net of the
extreme defence of their ideas just because they are
their own, servants of knowledge, and not of their own
merits. Among them we can pick out religious men who,
even if they remain externally faithful to their Church,
can see its faults, and move ahead, perhaps secretly,
with broader ideas. We also find philosophers of life,
and not just of pure thought, who understand the limits
of thoughts that think about themselves.
We also
find several scientists who perceive the limits of their
knowledge and don't burst with pride at their
certainties. It is not just form or intellectual habit
which makes them claim what Nietzsche said during the
nineteenth century: "Learned persons correctly judge
that men from all times have believed that they know
right from wrong, praiseworthy from blameworthy. But it
is a prejudice of learned persons to believe that we now
know it better than at any other time". Getting into the
specifics, we can also include George Ivanovich
Gurdjieff among these great men.
He was
born in 1869 in Alexandropol (Russian Armenia) from a
humble family. In that difficult environment, and from a
very young age, he posed those questions that have
always grasped man. When he was old enough, he left his
family and began research that took him to many
different places in the Middle East, the same places
where Jesus and Mohammed had walked; he then moved
further and further east to the area of Buddha.
He came
into contact with small groups, schools of thought
between philosophy and religion, and he recognised in
their background a central corpus of knowledge. He
realized that religions, in their original form and
appearance, uncorrupted by successive interpretations,
tried not only to give theological and mythological
explanations but also had practical targets for the
development of man. A sort of concrete knowledge, which
could be used by whoever had control of it and would
permit the development of new levels of consciousness.
Gurdjieff rejected purely theoretical answers, and began
to experiment these systems practically, passing from
one Master to another and gathering experience.
After
years of this "learning" he exclaimed: “What is the
Divine Conscience?” It is too high and theoretical a
level for the man who is unable to be conscious of
himself and the present! It is necessary, above all, to
learn to be more alive here, in the only world that we
know (the material one). How can the man of the third
millennium, who is growing more and more machine-like
and less and less individual, broach the question of the
Transcendent? Man is incapable of sensing the beauty of
a rising sun, of a blooming rose, how will he ever know
the eternity of the fleeting moment? Will the man who
doesn't know himself ever be able to be conscious? If
you are not aware of how short your life is, how will
you ever be aware of the eternity of the Universe?
Gurdjieff's work on man includes the spheres of
personality both on an emotional and psychomotor level.
It's a de-structuring and, at the same time, structuring
course, which aims at the acquisition of a higher level
of attention. Gurdjieff defines this "attention"
beautifully, as "Memory of oneself", a poetic lyricism
which invites us to a life where the "self" is placed in
the middle, where dynamics of everyday life are put back
in their right place.
We must
place Remembering Ourselves first of all, before even
other people, before the external view, before moral and
imposed ethics. To remember ourselves, to realise how we
live in a total lack of perception of the body and of
logical-emotional processes. To perceive ourselves in
the surrounding space, to feel ourselves even before we
feel.
Several
articles, texts, and university theses have been written
about Gurdjieff. However, all these words will never
succeed in showing us his capacity to create innovation
in the soul of those who asked for his help. He saw the
lies we often hide behind. He had the ability to let the
house of cards of our false securities fall down and to
point out where it was necessary to work to strengthen
our essence. Today we can no longer know the greatness
of this character; his books are only a pale reflection
of him. The Art of understanding hearts is an ability,
not a scientific doctrine printed in a book. His
example, in having started a journey, should help us
all. Because even if Gurdjieff is dead now, the heirs of
the Tradition from which he drew are still alive.
Will we
be up to replacing the brochures of spirituality and
starting the journey too? Will we have the courage to
believe that we can find answers? Will the examples of
the Greats of the past who began this journey before us
be sufficient to restore us? The quality of our
questions has changed.
Will they
remain eternally unsolved as well?
To each
his/her own answer.
G.Q.
|
