Monday, October 08, 2007

On Becoming One that You May Find the One

Walt sent me this interesting snippet of a radio interview with the French journalist and writer Louis Pauwels (1920 - 1997):

Jacques Nerson: You wrote in 1968: "Anything is preferable to an honorable career -- exile, or prison, or the monastery."

Louis Pauwels: Well, it was poorly said, and was in the absurd climate of '68. At that time, I was emerging from the adventure of Morning of the Magicians, and I admit that I was spoiled. What was clear to me was that I didn't want, that I never wanted, to be a writer with a public "following." I used to say, as I would still say today: Long live freedom, long live the right to change one's direction, theme, writing, research, or position. I was calling an "honorable career" the career of a man who gives what is expected of him. It has always exhausted me to be considered a guide, or more simply a good provider of the usual merchandise (the current rage). Destiny asks something of me, or of someone in me. Even though I don't understand it, it is destiny that I must follow, endlessly escaping from the diverse images of myself which I create. Better exile, prison, or the monastery than submission to what the public expects of me at every step of my passage through this world.

But exile and prison have nothing in common with the monastery. I was foolish to put all three of these forms of retreat on the same level.

In reality, I have had -- and I pursue -- the life of an intellectual vagabond with mystical tendencies, because I did not have sufficient grace and force to be a true contemplative monk. I had an obscure wish for this kind of life but I didn't know how to see my misery and how to give myself to God in the supremely childlike spirit which pushes man toward the monastery. I had neither enough humility nor this gentle heroism. And this is why I was condemned to wandering. A creative wandering, no doubt... at least I must assume so.

Many years ago (in 1968 to be exact), I attended a seminar in a hotel near the Grand Chartreuse monastery. I went right up to the gate of the monastery. There I was overcome with trembling; I sobbed. I felt that my life had been irredeemably wasted, that it would never be fulfilled. But what fulfills a life? Ah! It is not joys and honors! It is the complete renunciation of oneself; it is the silencing of thoughts; it is the arising of "I", unique and transcendental, faceless, nameless, in the smooth emptiness of the interior of one's being, and its progressive fusion with God, who is the supreme "I" of all things, here below and above....

What fulfills a life? It is not just the serenity of the stoics. It is what my friend Aldous Huxley called, approximately, the "peace of the depths," or my other friend, Arthur Koestler, "the oceanic feeling of life." Koestler committed suicide. Huxley died in despair. Neither they, who were worth infinitely more than I, nor I, knew how to build from eternity with our earthly presence. But this is what makes a contemplative monk. And finally, this is the only honorable thing to do.

In a word: to be in the world but not of it -- action and nonaction embracing. "Like the kingfisher who dives and comes up again without getting his feathers wet." The universal spiritual tradition -- Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian -- deals with these crossings (crosses) between the man in the world and the man behind the man, detached from the world. At one and the same time, here is man: nailed down, yet flying away.

*****

Hmm. Where had I read this before? A quick search of my liberary revealed that it was in this collection of essays on Gurdjieff. It is one of the hundreds of books I raced through in the writing of my own book. As I've mentioned before, only after the book was written have I had the luxury of returning to some of the really good books I encountered along the way, and spending a little more timelessness with them. I'd forgotten all about this one, which, if I remember correctly, was -- in keeping with the man himself -- a sort of mixed bag. As are most bags, books, and beings.

When I read a book, I always highlight it in such a way that I can rapidly reread it and extract its essence, so I can usually judge the merit of a book by the number of highlights. I see that I highlighted one passage from the Pauwels interview, so I must have thought it was important:

"I fell headlong into the teaching of Gurdjieff because my most profound impression was -- and still remains -- the absence in me of being. I had and still have this impression that the whole of my thoughts, my feelings, my sensations, my dreams, my ambitions, my acts, my sorrows, my joys -- that this whole is not my real self. Or, if you wish, that there is something else besides that 'me' named Louis Pauwels, and it is that other thing which could give birth to being if I knew how to cultivate it."

Well, don't keep us hanging. What else happened to Pauwels in his long strange journey from new age pagan occultism to orthodox Catholicism?

Pauwels completed his first novel, Saint Someone, at the age of 25. It is about an ordinary man who is "suddenly transported by the extreme and inhuman unhappiness of finding himself outside himself and outside the world." Interestingly, he states that his dream then was "to depart for the Ashram of Sri Aurobindo" -- a very unusual aspiration, I might add, since very few in the west knew anything about Sri Aurobindo at the time, even Ken Wilber, who in 1945 was negative four years of age and just learning to read.

But then Pauwels met a man who told him that he needn't travel to India, because "there is a spiritual master of of uncommon strength" living in France, who can "provide you with the method for living detached and present at the same time, more detached than you ever imagined you could be, and, consequently, more present than ordinary man can ever be." Thus, he became a pupil of Gurdjieff for two years.

From his exposure to Gurdjieff, Pauwels concluded that, in order to come closer to the core of his being, it was necessary to become nothing, something that Petey often mentions. What he means in this paradoxical oddvoice is that he felt he needed to "die to myself so that an authentic 'I' [could] be born, to be able to present God a more real presence than that of the 'me' named Louis Pauwels."

He eventually concluded that "there was no love in this teaching," and that "the living relationship with others and with God had been left out." But later he changed his mind about this, because the deeper meaning of the teaching was that, in order to establish such a real relationship with God and with others, it was first necessary to establish a relationship with the "more than me which is in me."

(I agree with this, by the way, at least for some people. It actually works both ways. You can discover the "greater me" that is behind or above the ego, i.e., the "psychic being," which is intrinsically connected to the divine, like a spark thrown off from a central fire; or you can first discover the Creator, who is connected to your central spark, so to speak. It's largely a matter of temperament, i.e., bhakti vs. jnani.)

I see that Pauwels says much the same thing: "It is to this that prayer leads: to the extinction of the illusory fires of existence and the appearance of the crystalline light of the core of being. Then only do we call others into being, with love. Only then do we enter into communication with God, who is the nameless and faceless 'I' of all things in Heaven and on Earth. Only then do we begin to understand what incarnation means."

That sounds familiar...

What in carnation?! Congratulations on the equation of your cosmic birth. Oh my stars, He expectorated a mirrorcle, now you're the spittin' image! You haven't perceived the hologram to your private particle? Come in, open His presence, and report for karmic duty. Why, it's a Tree of Life for those whose wood beleaf.

So, did exposure to Gurdjieff help or hinder Pauwel's journey to Catholicism? He concludes that it helped, specifically, "to intensify my prayer and to avoid the soft traps of religious sentimentalism." It also helped him to overcome the two existences within, that of the sleeper and the awakened. You might say it helped him become one, and therefore find the One.

7 Comments:

Blogger walt said...

Ha-ha, if I had known you owned the book, I could have just sent you the page number!

10/08/2007 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Just for the record, Pauwels wrote a book titled Gurdjieff, which described the man in a dark light, even saying his teachings were "Luciferian."

At the time when that book was published (1964), former pupils of Gurdjieff were buzzing about it. One of his close pupils, Solita Solano, wrote this to a friend:

"Gurdjieff’s daily teachings and “exercises” could not have harmed the most delicate child – examinations of conscience, learning to seek God, how properly to pray, how to undecieve oneself, conquer feelings of pride and revenge, distinguish between the true and the false, care of one’s health, clean out the stables before trying to cultivate one’s soul, et cetera.

Of course, all was not “holy;” he had an earthly side – food & drink, ribald humour at times, but he was always a very religious man."

Pauwels later changed his opinion about his former teacher, as Bob noted.

10/08/2007 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

Folks,

I'm reading the Pillar and the Ground of Truth. It's an excellent look at Russian Orthodoxy. I'm reading about the same sort of self-sacrifice that Bob mentions in this post. I also read about it in the Tao Te Ching. By self-sacrifice I mean letting go of who you think you are in order to become who you really are. Not ego death exactly, but the metaphor of dying in order to be reborn fits. An ego reboot? Maybe more like an ego upgrade. You shut down Windows for the last time and reboot as an elegant iMac.
Ha!

10/08/2007 10:24:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Walt quoted:
"Of course, all was not “holy;” he had an earthly side – food & drink, ribald humour at times, but he was always a very religious man."

Also said of Luther & CS Lewis. Not bad company.

10/08/2007 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

What's the point of living a life more abundant if you can't live it more abundantly?

I say.

The real trouble with this... rebirth, death, is, that you come to a place where more or less, everything you know is wrong. Or, maybe (more accurately) you really are as a child, and have to relearn a great deal of what you thought you 'knew'.

It is to be wise without machination, cunning without malice, innocent without naivete, and so forth. In order to have the knowledge of God you must be willing to let of the knowledge of man. Sometimes, we don't really know which is which and they intertwine. So maybe as intellectuals we fear becoming idiots, louts, fools.

But I'm then reminded of Christ's wisdom, which was, not that he was wise, but that he was wisdom itself. Not that he knew the truth but that he was truth. It is in this place that the knowing and being become one; not that the knowing is the being, but rather, the threshold is where this becomes so. The saints seem to approximate this in lesser and greater degrees; being something instead of having it. But having it because they were it.

How can one explain?

Also, good article here.

10/08/2007 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

"On Becoming One that You May Find the One"


Or, it takes one to gno One.

10/08/2007 05:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Louis Pauwels' "Monsieur Gurdjieff" was first published in 1954, in France. It was first published in English in 1964.

11/01/2007 08:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home