|
XXXVIII
IN THE COURSE of
the readings of Gurdjieff's book, and
particularly in his comments or talks which always followed
them, he frequently discussed the subject of love. He pointed
out that, in any attempt or effort to get to know oneself, it was
always necessary to start with the physical body for the simple
reason that it was the most highly developed of man's three
centres; it was for this reason that "self-observation" always
started by the observation of the body alone. While the body
grew automatically and mechanically, practically without
supervision, nevertheless it was a more properly developed
centre than either the emotional or mental "brains" (or
centres) because it did, even if only automatically, perform
its proper functions. Most bodily functions were not only more
or less compulsive, they were also reasonably comprehensible
and therefore not too difficult to satisfy.
In relating the observation of the body to love, he again
used the example of the two hands or arms, saying that love
could be defined as "one hand washes the other". He also said
that the body could achieve harmony within itself when it
was used properly, when both hands worked together, and that
this was a good place to start on the consciousness or awareness
of what love really should be. In order for people to be able
to work together, it was necessary for them to love each
other, and to love the same aim. In this sense, in order for
a human being to function properly and in accordance with
his proper humanity, it was necessary for all of the component
parts of a human being to love each other and to work together
for the same aim -- self-development and self-perfection; the
difficult)' was, of course, that given our abnormal habits and
education we had no genuine conception of what proper
development or "perfection " could be. He warned us against
any misinterpretation of the word "perfection", stating that
our associations with this word -- our ideas of a "perfect"
state -- were improper, and that it was generally better to
use the term "development".
The main indication or clue about love that we could learn
from the physical body was the physical form of love, in other
words, sex. In the primary sense, the purpose of sex was
reproduction, which was actually only a synonym for creation.
Love, therefore, in any sense -- whether physical or not -- had
to be creative. He also said that there was a proper form of
what might be called "sublimation" of sexual energy; that
sex was the source of all energy and when not used reproduc-
tively could still be used in an equally creative sense when
sublimated and used as energy for other types of creativity.
One of the misuses of sex that had arisen through bad training,
the wrong type of education, and improper habits, was that
it had become almost the only vital form of human communi-
cation. It was possible for people to 'join actively" in other
ways than physically; to, as he put it, "touch each other's
essences", but human beings had lost this faculty many,
many years -- many centuries -- ago. If one was observant,
however, it was possible to realize that this "touching of
essences" still occasionally took place between two individual
human beings, but only by accident, and that it was then
almost immediately misunderstood and misinterpreted and
descended into a purely physical form which became valueless
once it had been expended.
In talking further about relations between individuals, he
said that sex, again, was the "highest expression of the phy-
sical body" and the only "holy" expression of self that was left
to us. In order to achieve any other forms of "holiness" within
ourselves, it was profitable to try -- in other areas of our lives --
to emulate this "essence-touching" process; and the com-
pletely open "sharing of common truth" between two indi-
viduals was almost always "visible" in a compulsive sexual
relationship. He warned, however, that even sex -- compulsive
as it might be to most individuals -- often dwindled into a simple
process which only involved the particular satisfaction, gratifi-
cation or release of a single individual, instead of both of them,
and that in such cases there would not have been any openness
or honesty between them.
When asked to define a proper, objectively moral love
between people -- one for another -- he said that it would be
necessary to develop oneself to such an extent that it would
be possible to "know and understand enough to be able to aid
someone else in doing something necessary for himself, even
when that person was not conscious of the need, and might
work against you" ; that only in this sense was love properly
responsible and worthy of the name of real love. He added
that, even with the best of intentions, most people would be
too afraid to love another person in an active sense, or even to
attempt to do anything for them; and that one of the terrifying
aspects of love was that while it was possible to help another
person to a certain degree, it was not possible to actually "do"
anything for them. "If see another man fall down, when he
must walk, you can pick him up. But, although to take one
more step is more necessary for him even than air, he must
take this step alone; impossible for another person to take it
for him."
Go to Next Page
|