Sunday, April 05, 2009

200 People

As reported in 'In Search of the Miraculous', Gurdjieff has said that 200 people belonging to the esoteric circle of humanity could greatly change the world if they so chose. Perhaps this is false, or there are not yet 200 of these individuals. This whole threshold concept has conceptual friends, like the 100th Monkey Syndrome. The validity of these things can relate to the nature of timing. They don't necessarily have to, but that is where I want to focus.

The word exoteric means outer. Outside the mind; public. The word esoteric relates to both inner experience, and also the inner aspect of society. Hidden; introspection at one level or another. A buddhist monk is a cliched but accurate example: some truths are inexpressible, but it doesn't mean they are not there.

Most esoteric schools of thought maintain there are objective dynamics to things, (even if ever-changing) that of course the universe is not some public school random happenstance of things. What's further, most see the current time as the fulcrum of future existence; a window of opportunity which can only occur at specific times. The Yuga Cycle, in Hinduism, for example, holds that existence flows through four different Yugas which correspond to the nature of the soul. The ever-shifting legs of the Dharmic bull. Repetition, filtering.

So this brings me to timing. It is something which has always nagged at me.

I remember when I was a kid, playing video games, there were invariably these things which only occurred once during the game and if you didn't do it, or failed, you couldn't go back and do it again unless you started another game. No saves. You get the idea. When I failed on those things I got this feeling which seemed to extend beyond video games and my life itself. It made me think: This is only a game, but so is life. Many esoteric schools and some religions hold this to be true. The sense in which, if we do not get say, 200 individuals by a the time the 200 dark elites of the social consciousness do, and ultimately themselves, then we will have to start at the beginning again.

...there is another option: there are now 200 of these individuals but they choose not to intervene with your free will. For in the end, is it the decision of 200 people anyways? Would they be any better than those 200 directing the social agenda? If someone would rather re-start, then who am I to tell them it is wrong? Who would listen?

The Dharmic bull steps; it waits for no one.