Annotation by Mary Brown: Helen Augur was a staunch Presbyterian and at one time [a] Gurdjieff student. A Highlands friend, she acted as Allan's secretary for several summers, typing his letters and reading aloud to him. Depending on Allan's choice of reading matter and his comments, these sessions were illuminating, inspiring, brain-stretching, and occasionally hilarious.
Ms. Augur was familiar with Gurdjieff's first series of writings, All and Everything,1 which includes many neologisms. Accordingly, Mr. Brown used these concepts and special terms freely in his correspondence with her.
Any letter from you is entertaining to me. Just to get one is an occasion. This letter was more, it was vital.
I entirely understand your situation. It is what mystics have called the dark night of the soul. It is dark night all right, utter confusion, the desert before the promised land. Gurdjieff used to say: Happy is he who has a soul, happy is he who has no soul, but sorrow and woe to him who has a soul in the making.
The tremendous difficulty is that before the new edifice can be created the ground must be cleared, ALL former prepossessions, conditionings, likes, dislikes, clingings must be swept away. Your illustration of nudity is precisely correct. It is like a hermit crab who has left his old shell and has not found a new one. He feels naked and open to all the world. Jesus said, He that loveth mother or father or husband or wife or child more than me, is not worthy of me. This is pretty tough, especially with our distorted conception of what love is.
Commas and even words make no difference. It is rather a matter of feeling. I have always made it a point not to strain to comprehend what I do not feel and realize. I do not claim to be an authority on Paul, but I see in him the eternal struggle of mankind, not an ecclesiastical figure. Do not think that I belittle Christianity. It is a necessary stage and one beyond which most people never get.
I appreciate your love as expressed and love you very much.
Your cheese was lovely. Thank you for the thought. I am exceptionally fond of Swiss cheese. I call it holy cheese and I suppose I like it because I am so spiritual. No, it is the demand of the parasite cells.2
Don't worry because you are the emotional type. It is a blessing. The emotional center, when properly used, operates on a higher hydrogen than the intellectual center.3 The thing is to HAVE emotions (like my love for you, for instance), and not let emotions have you.
The question of work is very difficult and delicate. I cannot put my formulations on paper without something misleading, so I'll have to wait until I see you. In my opinion it is all a matter of attitude, there is terror in the situation. I tremble when I think of Lentrohansanin4 developing a sould body yet becoming an eternal Hasnamuss. The apostle Paul was always afraid that, while preaching the gospel, he himself might be disqualified. On the other hand the riches of the beneficence of His are such that RIGHT work on oneself is work for him.
I am entirely with you on laughter. A good laugh is desirable. Your writer friend is undoubtedly on the right track but of course she is merely considering laughter from the point of view of the planetary body. In this as in everything else the question of attitude is important. Now I'll give you the low-down AS I SEE IT.
From the orthodox point of view of the system laughter denotes the release of unused energy which otherwise might remain in the body as poison contributing to the negative. If man is perfected there is no unused energy. There is no record that Jesus ever laughed. But we are not perfected; we are at best only man #4, IF our attitude has changed. If we pretend to be man #5 and restrain laughter, the excess energy is not fooled but turns into poison. That is why so many pious people are so disagreeable. G[urdjieff] laughed and joked a great deal.
I think this explains why there are so many kinds of laughs. There is the belly laugh from the moving center. It has always been interesting to me that when Freud discusses laughter the examples he gives are sexual. Then there is the sneering laugh from intellectual center. You can add many others.
From my experience I approach the subject from another angle, which has never been emphasized by the system although I believe it is inherent. You know the old motto, in vino veritas. So I believe that in laughter the body is more relaxed, throws aside some of its lies and formalizations, and so is a better subject for observation. I think this is why G organized picnics and such. I mind me once many years ago I happened to be in Washington and saw the first of the off-color plays. I laughed heartily at each dirty joke because nobody knew me. In New York I should have been more on my guard. Laughter disposes of obscuring guards just as wine does. I find it useful and do not deceive myself into thinking I am beyond it.
It is lovely here too. I am grateful to His Endlessness for giving me the senses to perceive it as beauty. Your cartoon made me think of one where my darling Dennis lugged a wash-basket in to his mother and said, "Your basket had kittens." The great question: Who ARE the Kittim?5
There is a clear distinction between opinion and attitude as I use the terms, but this may not be very helpful as I never use attitude in the plural. In my view opinion would be confined solely to the cognitive center. That is, a man may be of the opinion that a certauin thing is right and be entirely unmoved by it and do nothing about it, or if he does something he merely follows a rule laid down and perceived intellectually. Right attitude on the other hand involves the wholeness of a man. He FEELS that a thing is right. He undoubtedly perceived it first intellectually, but with the growing realness in inherency the initial intellectual perception becomes of less and less importance. From the real feeling action flows not by rule but as an inevitable concomitant of being. This is what I mean when I say that sacrifice is not sacrifice if it is sacrifice, whoat Paul means when he says that if a man give all his goods to feed the poor and have not Charias it profiteth him nothing, what Gurdjieff means when he says that intentional suffering is the highest bliss. It myst become eventually not a duty but a part of being. Words are such treacherous things that there can be no clear distinction between opinion and attitude As I use the word attitude it practically means center of gravity and enters into everything. In this sense opinion may be said to be wrong attitude, may be said to be opinion in three centers.6 It is very useful to study different instances and manifestations of attitude but it all boils down to this in the end, whether one values things by likes and dislikes or for their usefulness in soul-building.
Triamazikamno7 is harder because in the ordinary state of waking consciousness we are third-force blind. However it will come (that is, the sense of it) in due time. I may be wrong but I think it unwise to try to force it. Speculating about it, without actual consciousness, may lead to dangerous wise-acreing. The thing to remember is that triamazikamno is present in everything. I think this is indicated by the first page of the book. Of course what I have indicated is not a reason for reducing effort to establish one's own triamazikamno, and I have no dout that A will direct you to the best way to do that. Charitas.
The way in which modern art reflects the present lack of integrated individuality is portentious.
There is only one attitude; the wish to work.
Thank you so much for the Zen scroll. You always seem to strike me just right. For instance, those socks you knitted for me so long ago are still my favorite socks. And that Quaker book of pictures is one of my eternal possessions.
I don't know if you are particularly interested in Zen, or just Japan. I have a little Zen book, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones,8 beautifully printed in Japan. I wonder whether you have seen it.
I have always been interested in scroll painting, which is really of Chinese origin. I have from the Metropolitan a beautiful reproduction of a Chinese scroll showing the progress from the country to some religious festival in the city, also a picture of some Chinese gentlemen studying a scroll. All real art and in fact creative activity is based on a perception of reality behind appearances. The value of the scroll lies in the fact that it recognizes the fact that as finite creatures we conceive this in succession although cosmic phenomena are not limited by time and space. Thus each scroll has an integrating core besides the running depiction. In the case of your scroll, the central theme might be the endless exploration of man in search of the permanent, the illimitable, the "something." What do you think?
I have never been a confirmed Oxfordian. You see, when I was young, Bacon was all the rage and it was absolutely proved that he wrote the plays. But I was inclined to agree with Mr. Dooley, who after profound study came to the conclusion that the plays of Shakespeare were not written by him but [by] another man of the same name. That is, the evidence in the affirmative is insufficient. As a matter of fact, I am not so much interested in authorship, sources, use of words, figures of speech, as in the profound understanding of reality, evidenced not merely by the delineation of character but essentially by their relation to each other.
Some time ago you gave me a book, Making the Ministry Relevant.9 I have been studying it again recently and find it stimulating. The Saturday Review said that Hoffmann's contribution was bombastic and arrogant, but I did not find it so at all. These critics know nothing, they just use words.
From one point of view the ministry is relevant and so are mosquitoes for that matter. Everything perceived by the senses is a portion of reality if we only know it. Every bit can be used but we must first try to find our real selves. There is no "new reality." It is always the same ever-changing changelessness. Before Abraham was I AM. But of course with changing sensuous conditions the effective approach must change. For instance, the modern man is more apt to be influenced by Einstein than by St. Teresa. We are no longer aided by dogmatic creeds. But the abolishment of creeds does not mean the abolishment of reality. The problem of the ministry is to find an effective means of making us realize in ourselves the underlying essence of which the things apparent to the eye are only an outward show. Of course ultimately the duty of understanding is ours. Transformation rather than sublimation. By this I mean that the individual by constant inner struggle must attempt to be reborn, that is, attain a higher level, rather than to produce outward betterment without inward change of heart.
You are right not to worry about C. He is himself always, past, present and future. The temporary weakening of the formulating mechanism of course seems unfortunate but does not go to the root of things and may even be an advantage. He needs loving sympathy, but nothing more will be required of him than he can give. YOU have a wonderful opportunity.
You are a microbe and you can't do better than to be a microbe.
From one point of view you can take our struggle as walking on a tightrope; on one side are the things we like and on the other are the things we dislike. But we try to keep out of that and fix our mind on the ultimate aim: i.e. fixing our mind on the end of the tightrope. At first we may need a balancing pole, which may be considered teaching or suggestions from others, reading, etc., but eventrually we find that we do not need the balancing pole but can go our course straightforward to the ultimate end.
Star Island is the main island of the Isles of Shoals.10 They usually have a Congregational assembly and very good speakers. This man you speak of [Thomas Hora]11 is quite right about LOVE because LOVE is not the human emotion which we ordinarily feel. Real love for another is in some measure attained when we reach a stage of consciousness which permits us to put ourselves in the place of another.
Read the epitaph at the end of "My Father" in Meetings with Remarkable Men.12
How is Pounce?13 I am greatly distressed. I know how you must feel for an old friend and companion of fourteen years.
Pleroma is the regular Greek word for fullness. For instance a ship has pleroma if it is fully equipped and laden for commerce or war. In the N. T. the word is generally used as referring to the fullness of Christ or God.
Your Mrs. Big makes me think of the boy scout who said that he didn't think much of the good deed daily because 95% of the time it was merely a convenient method of self-inflation.
Age is not measured by years but by outlook.
Here is a cat cartoon which I think very good and meaningful. As a matter of fact, light literature may contain deep meaning. Much love (that's the greatest story ever told).
You were quite right. Practice conscious love on animals first; they are more open to receive it.
As to that little story: It is a perfect picture of what I call "holy insecurity." One must not try to arrange the future for his own advantage but must ACCEPT whatever comes for the good of all, trusting that in the long run the basic spirit of being will work itself out in unity of awareness, which according to Teilhard is the culminaton of life,. See also Romans 14:23.
As to the animal questionnaire: I thought you would enjoy the pictures and problem. I do not want to be any other animal. I find the problems of this human life all absorbing and wish I could be as true to being as a cat or tree.
Memory is a difficult problem. There are published many aids to material memory. But there are many forms of memory. Jung says he only remembers vaguely the events of his childhood, but the reality became a part of him. My favorite monk says there is no greater fallacy than to say, "I remember God," for if God is present, it is not a question of remembrance. My memory gets poorer but what is real remains.
Mary is in N.Y. She will write you about memory, if she remembers ...
Faith is not belief in an advantageous outcome. It is not belief at all. It is the willingness to accept the will of the ground of being regardless of what the result may be for oneself personally. This is what Jesus did on the cross.
Lack of intellect means just one less difficulty.
Your new pastor sounds good. I hope he is against sin. Most Presbyterians are. But some do not seem to realize that sin is primarily lack of love.
Your new minister sounds good but very unpresbyterian. As to faith, the meaning of that statement I gave you is that faith is not for mental definition, but rather is a matter of EXPERIENCE by the whole being. You are quite right that one cannot understand what is beyond his own present level. I send you a poem on faith by a simple soul.
We both send you best wishes for the new year and I am sure whatever happens you will use it for your inner good.
Thank you for sending Professor Hutchins' article. You must remember that dialogue works both ways. It is very good for a specialist wrapped up in a limited compartment to come in touch with an ordinary person who may not know so much about the scientist's specialty but who has broader views. I believe that one of our great difficulties is that scientists are inclined to become limited to their own specialty and forget the broader human need.
I am so glad to have "The Deputy" which I'd read a lot about but hadn't seen, either as a stage play or in book form. I'm deep in the second act now and deeply moved by what I've read so far. What a condemnation it is of our unwillingness to become involved, even when we are shocked, horrified and shaken by acts of inhumanity. Do we keep quiet because of cowardice, or because we feel powerless, or just because we want to 'conform'?
I haven't read the new Graham Greene book,14 but there was a favorable review of it in February Harpers. I have a very interesting article in an old Friends Journal comparing "The Deputy" with Whittier's attack on Pius IX.15
What you say about "The Deputy" is quite correct. It is said that we would all be cowardly if only we had the courage.
I will send you some material on Don Quixote. It is one of the most penetrating books that was ever written. The point to remember is that Sancho Panza was really one phase or level of Don Quixote.
I am not so much for the suppression of crime as for the suppression of the desire for crime. Colonel Mowbray used to say that the highest form of self-restraint was to retain the desire to kill a man and refrain from killing him.16 William Blake says, "Better kill a baby in the cradle than nurse an unacted desire."17 I hold that the greater self-mastery is to remove the desire. If you want to kill a woman, you might as well do it, as far as your inner life is concerned.
As to restraining hard feelings instead of destroying them, this is a basic problem with all of us. Fundamentally it involves a being recognition that all is one, that we are parts of one whole. It also has some connection with evading a problem instead of overcoming it. It means empathy instead of sympathy, At least I am incapable of writing about it adequately, so we'll have to talk about it this summer.
That Hasadic quotation copied by Mary18 can be understood better in the light of all [Buber's] teaching. I will talk to you about that this summer. Really, to my mind if you can love a person you do not even like you are on the road.
I am sending you the Cinderella story by Louis Foley. He lives in Florida in Babson Park. Please read it and return it to me. It is not only a delightful story but it has to do in a very correct and convincing way with some of the problems you have before you.
I was much amused lately by an article called "These Angry Authors," who do not seem to get anywhere effectively. There was an answer by a woman who cited the remarkably efficient work by Rachel Carson and said perhaps she had accomplished this because she did not get angry.
I have not read Lewis' The Great Divorce for a long time and I will have to look it over again. I don't know precisely what he has in mind by solid raindrops but bbefore the days of orderly evolution the idea was that life went forward only by violent catastrophic changes imposed by the ruler of the universe and it was only later that it was understood that it was the soft raindrops which forwarded in an orderlu fashion the progress of life. Of course the Episcopal ghost doesn't like the idea that heavenly things are fixed and unchangeable. He would rather create a God amenable to his own changing ideas. Whittier was a much misunderstood person. While he wrote beautiful poems like the hymn you mentioned ["The Brewing of Soma"] he was also very active and pugnacious politically, not only with respect to the slavery question but in many other ways.
Mary was pleased that you liked the Hasidic story. To me it seems not only understandable but applicable.
You have so many problems, my heart yearns for you. The lovely thing about you is that you face them rather than try to evade them. But do not try to kick against the pricks; no one is expected to do more than he can.
The difference between Aschenputtel and Cinderella19 is the difference between lack of love and love. The editor of your SR, Norman Cousins, has said something to the effect that the greatest tragedy of life is to lose the awareness that one is a part of the joys and sorrows of all men. There is a moral. We are all so busy chasing shadows or reflections (like your church people, for instance) that we have no time for reality.
That is a very good point you make on satire. As you well know, I believe that humor is a very useful implement. Satire, nowever, is a very dangerous form of humor because ordinarily it is used negatively and opprobriously instead of constructively and edifyingly. It is much easier to tear down than to build up. But Don Q uses this dangerous weapon very cleverly if one does not look too much to the negative side. As Kettle points out20 Don Q was not merely satirizing the romance of feudalism as such but giving the writer the chance to depict life in all its aspects, not merely in the dream state of romance.
I have found the Norman Cousin's quotation and give it correctly: "The tragedy of life is in what dies inside a man whjile he is still living—the death of genuine feeling, the death of inspired response, the death of the awareness that makes it possible to feel the pain or glory of other men in oneself."
I once had a book entitled Animal Husbandry. The prominent character was father, known as fathead or lover boy—but perhaps this was unpleasant SATIRE.
The clock arrived in PURRfect condition. Thank you for your expert packing.
| << Letters to Olga Adams | Letters to Marion Baldwin >> |