Understanding
The Fourth Way is said, and considered to be, a way of understanding but what does that mean? Generally it’s taken as no blind belief, no faith is required as is typical of so called religious ways. But what is understanding?
Websters definition of understanding:
- A mental grasp: comprehension
- The power of comprehending especially: the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars
- The power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and categories
Of all of these definitions the third is perhaps the closest to what is meant by understanding in the context of a way of understanding. Even so, the definition is off or at best incomplete. Gurdjieff said, “knowledge is one thing, understanding is another thing” (Search 66) That would seem to be obvious as a knower using memory as the repository of knowledge, very often does not have the “power” to be the understanding. In other words knowing mentally is insufficient to being able to manifest (or not manifest) what is mentally acquired. A so-called man of knowledge, and it is to remember we are speaking of esoteric knowledge, may or may not even have a “mental grasp”, that is a mental understanding. And failing that may simply be repeating what has been heard, read or taught without having verified what they may be saying/teaching. In effect this is simply taking knowledge acquired mentally, on faith.
Gurdjieff makes a point that the understanding he speaks of is the “…resultant of knowledge and being” (Search 67). That there needs to be a balance between the two, otherwise we may get a “stupid saint” (strong being, weak knowledge) or a “weak yogi” (strong knowledge, weak being). Because the definition includes being we are referring to a process, a coming to what might be referred to initially as a state of understanding and this only partially of the mind. For years my teacher changed Gurdjieff’s definition of understanding from the resultant of being and knowledge, to the resultant of being and self-knowledge. This change, which is quite significant, was simply accepted. It seemed right, he was the teacher. Some years later, while still in the group I realized it was off, That in fact Gurdjieff’s formulation was accurate. When using the teacher’s altered formulation it was pointed out by the teacher’s assistant that someone was out of balance, someone had too much self-knowledge and not enough being and by extension didn’t/couldn’t understand. This did not make sense. To me the process, if we can use the word, is a coming to first hand knowledge, which in essence is self-knowledge, through a certain level of mentally acquired knowledge and self-exploration. Self-exploration, whether through meditation, self-remembering, body work, breathwork, self-observation or various other exercises both uses and increases (potentially) one’s level of vibration*. Can we simply substitute vibration for being, level of vibration for level of being? And so the level of vibration (being) allows one the possibility to come into self-knowledge but one must start with knowledge and the level of being (vibration) one finds oneself. But essentially, our level of self-knowledge/first hand information, is our level of understanding. One can’t have too much self-knowledge and too little being as the acquiring of self-knowledge requires a requisite level of being, the two are intricately interconnected.
This is a very good example of how teachings change when put to practice by people that simply accept what is given. The teacher (or his teacher) changed something and it seemed quite right. However, we are warned to accept nothing and to verify everything, as Jean klein would say make what we are given which in this case was second or third hand information into first hand information. But when one finds oneself in a hierarchical teacher/student relationship that typically does not happen. We (teacher and student) have been conditioned to accept, as student and expect/demand a student’s acceptance, as teacher. What the teacher gives unconditionally we as students can give initial conditional acceptance and then later give acceptance (or reject) conditioned on verification through our work. To me this suggests a deeper exploration is often required, if that is not possible in one’s teacher/student relationship, that is the teacher demands unconditional acceptance, then a student must find another way.
And then there is this, “Total understanding is instantaneous, leaving no room for a question or interpretation. In this flash of clear sightedness space and time are abolished. Choosing between long and short, good and evil, is a conceptual process, due to identification with the material side of things, the body. Understanding is of a different nature, it arises above opposition and complementatarity. Only this total knowledge can dissovle all conditioning.” ** Perhaps an apperception (direct perception) of understanding or simply grace.
** I am Jean Klein (PP 52-53)
* Level of vibration = level of being. In order to quantify something that may not be quantifiable (being) it seems this is a reasonable and usable equation. Our level of vibration, and the state we are in can certainly be changed/ increased by our work or by shocks received in the course of life. We also see that this will diminish after the work is ended and we fall back into our default state(s). The question one must ask is do we retain some of the increased vibration so that over time we gradually raise the default level of our ordinary existence?
Open to Openness 