The four-century-old conflict between religion and science has fragmented our ability to integrate the reality of consciousness with the discernible laws governing the measurable Universe. There is a “Ghost in the Machine” that, until acknowledged, will continue to be the missing link in our understanding of the true nature of both the Universe and ourselves as a sentient part of the Creation. 1 G.I. Gurdjieff advises that “one of our tasks is to connect the science of the West with the wisdom of the East. This means for us practically that we have to connect the ideas and general structure of the Work by making parallels with similar scientific ideas that exist at present.” 2 Gurdjieff told Ouspensky, “... the study of oneself must go side by side with the study of the fundamental laws of the universe” .... “In right knowledge the study of man must proceed on parallel with the study of the world, and the study of the world must run parallel with the study of man. Laws are everywhere the same, in the world as well as in man” “The parallel study of the world and of man shows the student the fundamental unity of everything and helps him to find analogies in phenomena of different orders. 3 By bringing the recognition of relativity to the search for Self, both the world of spirit and the world reachable to science, can be blended through the scientific method of observation, experimentation, and confirmation.
Gurdjieff, like other messengers throughout time, advised that the foundation of this understanding required one to Know Thyself and that through meditation lay the pathway to the mystery of this Self, as well as a deeper understanding of the Universe of which it is a part. Meditation as a means of transformation can be found in all traditions, but in the experience of the author, the integration and wholeness of Gurdjieff’s approach seems uniquely suited for the modern Western culture with its emphasis on rationality. Acknowledging the difficulty for man’s search imposed by the complexity of the modern world, Gurdjieff said his teaching brought the possibility of more rapid psycho-transformation than traditional Ways and could be practiced in each and every moment within the flow of daily life. The foundation of this approach lies in Gurdjieff’s modern version of “divided” attention. This exploration represents the subjective experiences of the author in his search for Self through the guidance of Gurdjieff’s work, particularly the practice of divided attention.
Life is experienced through sensory organs, hormonal fluctuations labeled as ‘emotion, ‘electromagnetic activity of thoughts, images, memories -- the building blocks of ‘reality’ --- are all internal phenomenon experienced by ........ by what? I use the term ‘myself,’ but what do I really understand about this ‘something’ I call myself? The question is critical. This ‘myself’ is the instrument that perceives, interprets, and reacts to its beliefs about what is ‘real,’ including its sense and assessment of itself. If there are flaws in this instrument, its conclusions about ‘reality,’ as well as itself, will be incorrect. If the instrument may not be trustworthy, how can the instrument investigate itself? Is there anything within, other than the instrument? What is even raising the question? Is the instrument doubting itself?
Our multi-layered, three ‘centered’ system of thinking, feelings, sensing is differentially sensitive to different electromagnetic frequencies outside and inside ourselves, has three interactive, but distinctively different components with different functions in different arenas of data collection. One of the powers of directed divided attention lies in the potential to “see,’ and therefore ‘meditate’ intentionally, in all three ‘brains,’ or ‘centers’, simultaneously. One of the names Gurdjieff gives this power is Active Mentation. 4 This experience can confirm experientially that the idea of our being ‘three brained’ beings is literal, and not only metaphorical.
If the question of “Who am I” is to be pursued, clues must be sought in all three ‘brains,’ as together, they comprise a more ‘whole’ picture of ‘what is.’ Literally, to become more of ‘One Mind’ requires capacity to see into the interaction of all three areas of functionality, each with the world it looks into, and simultaneously their interaction with each other.
For a useful contemporary analogy, we could use the Hubble Telescope. The instrument is comprised of sub-instruments, each collecting data from different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum which can then be overlapped to show a more complex picture of “what is out there.” There is always more data to discover if there is an instrument to ‘see’ into the frequency that carries that additional level of information.
Since a human being has different ‘instruments,’ each of which bring information from different levels of vibration “out there” and “in here,” --- to “know oneself” demands a capacity to discriminate, reconstruct and combine these different data streams to form a more ‘whole’ picture. The external sensory system automatically does this through the body and nervous system. What we experience as “the world outside” depends on what levels of the electromagnetic spectrum our sense organs can capture.
Then, to connect the dots into patterns of meaning, data must pass through the interpretive filters of feeling and thinking. To understand who I am, requires noticing how my interpretive filter works, where it is more or less trustworthy depending on its conditioned biases. Turned inwards towards the question of who I am, produces conflicting opinions and feelings about ‘myself.’ How can I see my own biases? What instrument can discern that?
Using again the Hubble telescope as analogy, each of the separate brain-instruments returns its data to a central location where it can be combined. Our brain as a whole automatically sees an integrated picture, not its fragmented components. When attention is intentionally divided and directed to collect data from each of the separate areas of brain functionality, and that data is returned, simultaneously, back to the single point which has directed the multi-dimensional viewing, a combined ‘picture’ of the three levels of ‘reality’ can be consciously perceived in the moment. Discrepancies and similarities between the overlapping views can be discerned. A higher level of discrimination and interpretation can then appear with this improved, multi-layered image. One can begin to see patterns of interaction, consistencies and inconsistencies between the impressions and interpretations of the ‘three brains.’
To know who I am, requires an ability and willingness to see the discrepancies between these different world views of each of center. We all know the state of “being of two minds” or recognizing “my heart and head to not agree” or the “spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” If I don’t recognize that my three brains each have their own agenda, rarely communicate with each other, then I cannot understand my contradictions or incapacities. Worse, if I do not see my own fragmentation, then I will only self-righteously notice it in others.
The major source of input for this multi-brained sensory experience is, of course, the world of people, events and landscapes outside our physical bodies. This ‘outer world’ that appears so real and solid to us is actually as multi-layered as our interior experiential domain. Our eyes receive light from the sun, reflected off the surfaces. These reflected photons are transformed into visual images in our brain. Sound is the auditory ‘image’ formed in the brain from the transformation of pressure waves moving air molecules against our eardrums. Smell and taste are experiences of nearly infinite mixtures of molecules touching the interior of our nose and mouths. Touch is a tactile ‘image’ processed through pressure against the skin and transformed into electrical impulses. The ‘meaning’ of this image depends on our interpretation. If the three centers do not coordinate their perspectives, if there is no central ‘location’ where their individual contributions can be experienced as an integrated whole, significant errors in interpretation of self and others are inevitable with little chance of correction.
The search for Self, necessitates a way of watching the interplay between apparent ‘events’ in the world outside and the interior reactions and interpretations of the assumed ‘meaning’ of those events. Ideally, this two field ‘watching’ should occur simultaneously, although it can also be recombined again for later viewing. The experience will inevitably produce surprising results. Many of these results will not conform to the current ‘image’ of myself. I must be prepared to discover I am not the person presumed in the image.
The necessity to do so, Gurdjieff calls the “individual collision” defined as the shock experienced between what is anticipated and what actually happens … and says this should lead to the “Divine property ... impartiality.” and a correct evaluation of the essential significant of their own presence, ... [and] ... corresponding place for themselves in these common-cosmic actualizations.” 5
To search for Self requires acceptance that one does <em>not</em> know the Self and that the current image of ‘self’ is erroneous. This practice requires effort, persistence, and tolerance for surprising or uncomfortable discoveries. This requires a change in attitude, a quality of impartiality to the subjective reactions encountered in the psychic world. If these building blocks of attributed meaning are incomplete or distorted, the meanings ascribed to be the basis of one’s life will be capricious and accidental.
One of the problems in the search of knowledge of Self, is the ease of self-deception, satisfaction with ideas read or talked about but without personal confirmation. The practice of directed divided attention can provide conditions for such confirmation. It is a practice modeled on the ‘scientific method’ of repeated observation and experimentation before an idea is accepted as a predicable means of organizing perception. The first way to begin to explore one’s understanding of reality is to temporarily suspend belief in whatever has not been personally confirmed. This is not to say that we can experience everything that may be true, but rather to challenge oneself to discriminate between what is personally experienced and information heard or read about. What do I actually know for myself from my own experience? The rest is hearsay, even if some of it is fundamentally true. This is prerequisite for what Gurdjieff calls ‘Pondering,’ an activity which is engaged by men practicing Being-Partkdolgduty, all messengers from above, higher-being-bodies and Endlessness Himself. 6
Experience is foundation for Understanding. For example, what do I personally understand about the Sun? I have read a lot. I have seen video and heard scientists talk about the Sun and its processes. But what do I personally understand through direct experience? I understand it is a very bright light, too bright to look at unless directly on the horizon or behind clouds. It looks circular and flat. It moves across the sky and changes rising and setting positions along the horizon as the seasons change. It hurts my eyes if I try to look directly at it. I feel heat on some days that seems to be related to this round bright light. That’s it. That is all I personally understand through direct experience. All the rest is theory and hearsay. The information obtained by scientific instruments may be correct, but I have not personally confirmed it. 7
If I want to know myself, I must bring this same attitude of separating what I have been told or thought about myself from what I can actually verify. Impressions must be viewed without bias.
If something is perceived, it is part of the landscape surrounding the perceiver. If I ‘sense’ the interior of my right foot, there is a clear impression that, although this is my foot, “I” am not my foot. The foot is part of my body but is not the ‘me’ that is sensing it. If there is a noticing of an attitude, mood of appreciation or disinterest, these are ‘feeling states’ in the emotional world. “I” am aware of them, but if noticed as a phenomenon existing in the moment, if understood within the context of its history and how it has been triggered in the moment, it is clearly not me, the ‘perceiver.’ If a thought is noticed, inner talking heard in the head, a daydream forming, and is recognized as a separate and temporary activity in the ‘mind,’ then it can be recognized as separate from the observer of it. Buddhism offers the observation that, “I have a body, but I am not my body. I have feelings but I am not my feelings. I have thoughts but I am not my thoughts.” When the three data streams from body, emotions and thoughts converge into a multi-layered image within the receiving Hubble Telescope of our deeper perspective, the recognition of what I am NOT can begin to penetrate and change the understanding of this mysterious question. Whatever can be noticed in my world of sensation, feeling, and thought, is NOT ‘me.’ By eliminating what is not me, but rather phenomena now perceived within my expanded sphere of attention, I begin to back into the deeper mystery.
The current search in Cosmology for a Unified Theory of Everything, can study the ‘physical body’ of the Universe, the functioning and mutual influence of material objects and posit the energy patterns and underlying laws hidden from view, which organize what can be seen, weighed and measured. If Man is a ‘something’ composed of at least three ‘levels,’ so must the Universe be a something composed of multiple levels.
What has organized and holds the contents of the Universe in their patterns is only partly understood. Currently there is a search for presumed ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ that is hypothesized to make up the bulk of its invisible mass and energy. This may or may not exist, but what is currently lacking in consideration of a Unified Theory of Everything is the question of ‘subjective experience,’ consciousness in its different levels. As our material form occupies a certain level of the electromagnetic spectrum, our emotional and conceptual instruments must be presenting phenomena at higher vibrational levels above the material. Then there is the central observational location, activated by divided attention, into which flow data from three different levels of the Universe. From this level, attention can be directed to illuminate and decode information embedded at lower frequencies. This appears to be a fourth level that can view and understand the levels below it.
Since we know enough about ourselves to recognize layered conscious dimensions of our experience, there must also be vast dimensions of ‘invisible’ conscious layers of encoded information within the Universe. Either that, or our consciousness comes from beyond the known Creation. The question, “Who Am I” now seems related to the question, “What is the Universe?” 8
We have many phrases that recognize this phenomenon. “Now I see!” “The light bulb just went on.” I had an “insight.” “Don’t you see what I mean”? Whatever I turn my attention towards comes into my sphere of awareness and then I see it. I become aware of it … or I remember it. Whatever my attention is not focused on is lost ‘sight’ of. It leaves my awareness. Degree of awareness seems dependent on the circumference and brightness of the beam of attention. It seems that where my attention is, there I am. If I learn how to divide attention into different directions simultaneously, I can be in two or more places at the same time. The energy of attention seems to be a form of light! I must be directing light inside my brain and body to be able to ‘see’ the inner world of thought, sensation and feeling.
This mysterious light of attention brings something into the field of awareness. First it was not noticed and did not exist at the moment in my experience. Then suddenly it appears, as if out of nowhere. Since what exists for me experientially in any given moment is limited to the sphere and brightness of my attention, we can say attention brings it into existence for me. It ‘creates’ in awareness, an image of this something. Then, with more attention, more about this something comes into awareness. Attention has divided it into different constituent parts for my experiencing. Then, with more attention, it may take new form, new perspective, turn into new understanding, new knowledge. Attention creates, divides, and reconfigures. It is as if Attention eats, digests, then recombines to create something new from the parts it dismembered. As my body digests food, the processes of attention seem like digestion for the observer of these processes.
What then can I understand about Attention? It seems like light. It can be directed, divided, expanded and focused. It can act like a transformer, disclosing increasing details, relationships, changing knowledge and understanding. In the act of directing and dividing attention, I know that I am deciding the direction of the Attention, performing the movement, and receiving the information about the incoming impression, often watching it change its meaning under my gaze. How am I doing this? How am I directing the light? The light seems part of me. My wish is its command. It goes where I want it to, stays there as long as I can maintain focus. It brings back information which transforms understanding. Are Attention and I the same? Am I just so close to it I can’t distinguish it from me? How am I doing this? How am I directing the light? There must be an aspect of ‘I’ above the energy level of light. What is above the quantum realm of light? Light appeared with the Creation. Is the abode of the being of the Director beyond the Universe?
What then am I? I seem to be both within and without the sphere of awareness, sometimes directing attention, most times just looking. If Attention is light, then the light is connected to me. I am connected to the light. All I know at this point is that I am both the director and receiver of the dark light of Attention. I can’t see myself. I can see that I am not any of the phenomena perceived in the beam of attention. I am not the body, or the feelings, or the thoughts, all of which I had believed represented who I was. I seem to have no materiality, only consciousness. What level of the Universe have I awoken into? There seems to be nothing here, yet everything that exists for me is here. In the light of this darkness, all I know is that … I AM.
In its essence, directed-divided attention facilitates simultaneous perception into multiple levels, suggesting that the inner psychological world of man may become a bridge between the outer world of the senses and the underlying dynamics of a living, intelligent Universe. Gurdjieff says that we have within ourselves the potential to experientially participate in this interchange, if we can awaken from the sleep of illusion and inattention to which we have been conditioned, because “the difference between each of them and our common great Megalocosmos is only in scale.”
Gurdjieff says in the last chapter of his published works, “… and thus, every man, if he is just an ordinary man, that is, one who has never consciously “worked on himself,” has two worlds and if he worked on himself, and has become a so to say “candidate for another life,” he has even three worlds.”
The desire to know “who I am” seems now to be a manifestation of the first two worlds, the interest of personality in its relation to the world outside its body. In the third world, interest in an individual I-ness seems to disappear. Whatever this sense of enlarged awareness may represent, it does not seem to have a name or any interest in assigning one. Intentional divided attention is Gurdjieff’s offering to us of a path to our potential for another life.
Meditation
p 25, 1156, 1162-3, 1186,355,1043, 1131, 1151, 660, 310
Mentation
p. 777, 1047, 1186, 1172, 1162, 1165