https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19470850

If you were more conscious, you would use covid not for satiating your primitive drives but for finding the esoteric knowledge about the energy of the human body. The esoteric schools teach how to keep the energy for creating one’s soul. You are creating batteries out of it and call it evolution.

The enemy is not man, but his sleep.
The elephants that are growing in numbers and sizes cannot be taken care of unless certain fundamental issues are understood properly. To understand them properly without understanding the esoteric science connected to them is unrealistic as they are the behind the scene forces that seem to block all logical attempts to deal with the current unsustainable situation.
I am re-sending the following text for understanding, that ‚slaughtering of the sheep‘ is not required by Nature anymore. She reached the stage of its own evolution where she needs certain substances obtainable from humans provided they live with an increased level of consciousness but this knowledge has been partially forgotten and hidden from us and our one sided orientation on the intellectual aspect of human nature brought us to the opposite direction of decreasing consciousness which Nature had to adjust to by increasing the number of the population, which, resources wise, might force her to „puff and blow“. Who would suspect her of causing such trend? Can you see how absurd our depopulation policies are from this level of understanding?

„Although Man is part of Organic life on the surface of the Earth, which is created in order to pass influences down from the higher parts of the Ray of Creation to the terminal buds which are the Moons, it is no longer necessary for him at this stage to serve under this slavery. G.said that just at this period it was possible for mankind no longer to be slaves to this pain-factory on the Earth called Organic Life through whose suffering the lower parts of the Ray are nourished, including our Moon which is gradually developing in terms of planetary Time. He said that if Man would only become more conscious his slavery might end, but that owing to habits formed through centuries, habits of feelings, habits of thinking, attitudes, etc. it looked as though Man would continue to serve a purpose that was no longer necessary. „The problem is that Man has reached a stage in which he can become more conscious and if he did so everything would change. But because of traditions, prejudices, because, in short, of his mechanicalness, he cannot reach this point, and so is going downhill just at the moment in which he might give a shock to himself and pass into a new world-order.“ (A good example of habitual thinking, automatically associated with NWO and so called deep state, although the pyramid and the single Eye represent the hierarchy of the Ray of Creation with the Absolute/Creator/GOD as the primary source of energy of everything existing. So ‚metanoia‘* needs to be introduced to humanity for being able to distinguish the higher from the lower.)
„Asked whether this development of totalitarianism were a step in the right direction, he said: „No – quite the contrary. Man is simply putting himself under more slavery by these collective movement. The development of consciousness is an individual development. And, as I have said frequently, when War comes Man throws away even the small amount of consciousness that he normally possesses. In fact, he becomes quite insane and does not see his insanity. Consciousness is weighed and measured and there is only a certain quantity of it. But there is enough of this force of consciousness to change everything on the Earth if people would only use it.“
Asked what he thought about the future G.said that people were going in the direction of decreased consciousness and would form either colonies of bees or colonies of ants. He said on another occasion: „Well, you have a choice. Would you be bees or would you be ants?“

BT, page 328 III.volume, Understanding of justice:

“‘Evidently we men, also like all the existing units of the World, are formed and always consist of the same three independent forces, by means of which the process of reciprocal maintenance of everything existing proceeds; namely, of the following three independent World forces:

“‘The first of these forces constantly arises from the causes which proceed in the Prime Source itself (the ABSOLUTE) and from the pressure of the newly arisen, and issuing from it by momentum, flows out of that Prime Source.

“‘The second World force is what this first force becomes, when, after having spent the momentum which it has received, it strives to reblend with the source of its arising, according to the fundamental World law called “The effects of a cause must always re-enter the cause.”

“‘Both of these forces in the general process of reciprocally maintaining forces are entirely independent, and in their manifestations have always and in everything their own properties and particularities.

“‘The first of these two fundamental forces, namely, that one which for compelling reasons always manifests outside the source of its arising, must constantly involve; and the second one, on the contrary, striving to blend with the cause of its arising, must always and in everything evolve.

“‘Owing to the fact that the first of the mentioned three independent forces arising from vivifying actions proceeding in the very foundation of the cause of everything existing and thus receives in its presence the germ of the possibility of manifesting vivifyingness, it may be considered as “Good,” that is, as a factor for the actualizing of the backward-flowing effects which in relation to this first force can and must be considered as “Evil.”

“‘Moreover, the first of these forces, which is manifested from inevitable and compelling causes arising in the Prime Source itself, can from this point of view be considered as passive. And the second backward-flowing force, because it must constantly resist in order to have the possibility of penetrating backward or at least the possibility of withstanding the opposite-flowing first passive force which has received its momentum from the Prime Source causes, must be regarded as active.

“‘And as for the third independent World force, this force is nothing else but only the result of the clash everywhere and in everything of these two fundamental descending and ascending independent forces.

“‘Although this third independent force is only the result of both first fundamental forces, it is nevertheless the spiritualizing and reconciling source of every World formation.

“‘And it is the spiritualizing source of every World formation because it arises and must exist in them as a presence all the time while the given results exist which arise from various unusual mutual resistances occurring between the said two fundamental forces flowing in entirely opposite directions.’

“And so, my boy, it was in this sense and in this meaning that the words ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ were first used by this unfortunate Makary Kronbernkzion.”
Beelzebub¨s Tales to His Grandson, Understanding of justice vol.3

So the fundamental Newton’s law of action and reaction of karmic nature has also far reaching dimensions of the opposite direction, it is the law which takes us HOME to the cause of our arising…how magnificently designed Law and how insufficiently understood by humanity.

With all respect to the sacredness of the Bible there are certain places where the logical mind of a 21.century citizen wonders about their meanings. The first one starts right at the beginning of Elohim in Genesis –  Elohim is “monotheistic in connotation”, but “its grammatical structure” indicates “polytheistic”. That itself presents enormous possibilities of different interpretations and conclusions that a seeker finds among scholars. My knowledge of the Bible is extremely limited so I take it very humbly and I try to understand what I read, taking the Hebrew Interlinear Bible.
1:1 In beginning he created Elohim the Heavens and the air
1:3 And he is saying Elohim he shall become light
1:5 And he is calling Elohim to light
1:9 And he is saying Elohim they shall be flown together the waters from under the heavens…..

For me it feels like a conversation between GOD and Elohim, giving him/them instructions.
There is a theory of the Tree of life or the Ray of Creation that explain the laws of transformation of Unity into Plurality, which is closely connected with the Law of Three or the Law of three principles and could explain both conotations of Elohim. Quoting from ISOM:

Every phenomenon, on whatever scale and in whatever world
it may take place, from molecular to cosmic phenomena, is the result of the
combination or the meeting of three different and opposing forces. Contemporary
thought realizes the existence of two forces and the necessity of these two forces for
the production of a phenomenon: force and resistance, positive and negative
magnetism, positive and negative electricity, male and female cells, red/blue and so on, but they will not take place unless the third neutralizing force is present. If we observe a
stoppage in anything, or an endless hesitation at the same place, we can say that, at
the given place, the third force is lacking. In trying to understand this it must be
remembered at the same time that people cannot observe phenomena as
manifestations of three forces because we cannot observe the objective world in our
subjective states of consciousness. And in the subjectively observed phenomenal
world we see in phenomena only the manifestation of one or two forces. If we could
see the manifestation of three forces in every action, we should then see the world as
it is (things in themselves)….. But we know that we cannot observe the world as it
is and this should help us to understand why we cannot see the third force. The third
force is a property of the real world. The subjective or phenomenal world of our
observation is only relatively real, at any rate it is not complete.
“Returning to the world in which we live we may now say that in the Absolute, as
well as in everything else, three forces are active: the active, the passive, and the
neutralizing. But since by its very nature everything in the Absolute constitutes one
whole the three forces also constitute one whole.
The idea of the unity of the three forces in the ABSOLUTE forms the basis of many
ancient teachings—consubstantial and indivisible Trinity, Trimurti—Brahma, Vishnu,
and Siva, and so on.
They separate and unite by
their own will and by their own decision, and at the points of junction they create
phenomena, or ‘worlds.’ These worlds, created by the will of the ABSOLUTE, depend
entirely upon this will in everything that concerns their own existence. In each of these
worlds the three forces again act. Since, however, each of these worlds is now not the
whole, but only a part, then the three forces in them do not form a single whole. It is
now a case of three wills, three consciousnesses, three unities. Each of the three forces
contains within it the possibility of all three forces, but at the meeting point of the
three forces each of them manifests only one principle—the active, the passive, or the
neutralizing. The three forces together form a trinity which produces new phenomena.
But this trinity is different, it is not that which was in the ABSOLUTE, where the three
forces formed an indivisible whole and possessed one single will and one single
consciousness.
In the worlds of the second order the three forces are now divided and
their meeting points are now of a different nature. In the ABSOLUTE the moment and the
point of their meeting is determined by their single will. In the worlds of the second
order, where there is no longer a single will but three wills.

The will of the ABSOLUTE creates the worlds
of the second order and governs them, but it does not govern their creative work, in
which a mechanical element makes its appearance.
taken from chapter 4 of Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous -to be read by humanity

If we take GOD himself as the ABSOLUTE, it is clear that HE does not create the world himself, HE delegates the plan of the work by his single will to Elohim, to the second order which he created, composed of three independent wills.
So Elohim as a result of HIS Will, divided into three? Could that be why the plural form was used by wise ancestors?

“People have thousands of different ideas about the world but not one general idea
which would enable them to understand one another and to determine at once from
what point of view they desire to regard the world.
“It is impossible to study a system of the universe without studying man. At the
same time it is impossible to study man without studying the universe. Man is an
image of the world. He was created by the same laws which created the whole of the
world. By knowing and understanding himself he will know and understand the whole
world, all the laws that create and govern the world. And at the same time by studying
the world and the laws that govern the world he will learn and understand the laws
that govern him. In this connection some laws are understood and assimilated more
easily by studying the objective world, while man can only understand other laws by
studying himself. The study of the world and the study of man must therefore run
parallel, one helping the other.
“It is necessary to understand from the very outset
that there are many worlds, and that we live not in one world, but in several worlds.
This is not readily understood because in ordinary language the term ‘world’ is
generally used in the singular. And if the plural ‘worlds’ is used it is merely to
emphasize, as it were, the same idea, or to express the idea of various worlds existing
parallel to one another.
Our language does not have the idea of worlds contained one
within another. And yet the idea that we live in different worlds precisely implies
worlds contained one within another to which we stand in different relations.
“If we desire an answer to the question what is the world or worlds in which we live, we must first of all ask ourselves what it is that we may call ‘world’ in
the most intimate and immediate relation to us.,
“To this we may answer that we often give the name of ‘world’ to the world of
people, to humanity, in which we live, of which we form part.
But humanity forms an
inseparable part of organic life on earth, therefore it would be right to say that
the
world nearest to us is organic life on earth, the world of plants, animals, and men.

“But organic life is also in the world. What then is ‘world’ for organic life?
“To this we can answer that for organic life our planet the earth is ‘world.’

“But the earth is also in the world. What then is ‘world’ for the earth?
” ‘World’ for the earth is the planetary world of the solar system, of which it forms a
part.
“What is ‘world’ for all the planets taken together? The sun, or the sphere of the
sun’s influence, or the solar system, of which the planets form a part.
“For the sun, in its turn, ‘world’ is our world of stars, or the Milky Way, an
accumulation of a vast number of solar systems.
“Furthermore, from an astronomical point of view, it is quite possible to presume a
multitude of worlds existing at enormous distances from one another in the space of
‘all worlds.’ These worlds taken together will be ‘world’ for the Milky Way.

“Further, passing to philosophical conclusions, we may say that ‘all worlds’ must
form some, for us, incomprehensible and unknown Whole or One (as an apple is one).
This Whole, or One, or All, which may be called the ‘Absolute,’ or the ‘Independent’
because, including everything within itself, it is not dependent upon anything, is
‘world’ for ‘all worlds.’ Logically it is quite possible to think of a state of things where
All forms one single Whole. Such a whole will certainly be the Absolute, which
means the Independent, because it, that is, the All, is infinite and indivisible.
“The Absolute, that is, the state of things when the All constitutes one Whole, is, as
it were, the primordial state of things, out of which, by division and differentiation,
arises the diversity of the phenomena observed by us.

“Man lives in all these worlds but in different ways.
“This means that he is first of all influenced by the nearest world, the one
immediate to him, of which he forms a part. Worlds further away also influence man,
directly as well as through other intermediate worlds, but their action is diminished in
proportion to their remoteness or to the increase in the difference between them and
man. As will be seen later, the direct influence of the Absolute does not reach man.
But the influence of the next world and the influence of the star world are already perfectly clear in the life of man, although they are certainly unknown to science.

Chapter 4 In Search of the Miraculous P.D.Ouspensky

“In order to understand this and, in general, the nature of knowledge and the nature
of being, as well as their interrelation, it is necessary to understand the relation of
knowledge and being to ‘understanding.’
“Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another thing.
“People often confuse these concepts and do not clearly grasp what is the difference
between them.
“Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased
by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of
knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And
knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to
be far removed from either.
At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth
of knowledge. It changes only when being grows simultaneously with knowledge.
In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being.

“In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge.
They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they
accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how
to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.
“And yet a person accustomed to self-observation knows for certain that at different
periods of his life he has understood one and the same idea, one and the same thought,
in totally different ways. It often seems strange to him that he could have understood
so wrongly that which, in his opinion, he now understands rightly. And he realizes, at
the same time, that his knowledge has not changed, and that he knew as much about the given
subject before as he knows now. What, then, has changed? His being has changed.
And once being has changed understanding must change also.

“The difference between knowledge and understanding becomes clear when we
realize that knowledge may be the function of one center. Understanding, however, is
the function of three centers (meaning moving, emotional and intellectual).
Thus the thinking apparatus may know something (instant downloading?). But
understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it.
“We have spoken earlier about mechanicalness. A man cannot say that he
understands the idea of mechanicalness if he only knows about it with his mind. He
must feel it with his whole mass, with his whole being;
then he will understand it.
“In the sphere of practical activity people know very well the difference between
mere knowledge and understanding. They realize that to know and to know how to do
are two different things, and that knowing how to do is not created by knowledge
alone. But outside the sphere of practical activity people do not clearly understand
what ‘understanding’ means.
“As a rule, when people realize that they do not understand a thing they try to find
a name for what they do not ‘understand,’ and when they find a name they say they
‘understand.’ But to ‘find a name’ does not mean to ‘understand.’ Unfortunately,
people are usually satisfied with names. A man who knows a great many names, that
is, a great many words, is deemed to understand a great deal—again excepting, of
course, any sphere of practical activity wherein his ignorance very soon becomes
evident.
“One of the reasons for the divergence between the line of knowledge and the line
of being in life, and the lack of understanding which is partly the cause and partly the
effect of this divergence, is to be found in the language which people speak. This
language is full of wrong concepts, wrong classifications, wrong associations. And the
chief thing is that, owing to the essential characteristics of ordinary thinking, that is to
say, to its vagueness and inaccuracy, every word can have thousands of different
meanings according to the material the speaker has at his disposal and the complex of
associations at work in him at the moment. People do not clearly realize to what a
degree their language is subjective, that is, what different things each of them says
while using the same words. They are not aware that each one of them speaks in a language of his own, understanding other people’s language either vaguely or not at all,
and having no idea that each one of them speaks in a language unknown to him.
People have a very firm conviction, or belief, that they speak the same language, that
they understand one another. Actually this conviction has no foundation whatever. The language in which they
speak is adapted to practical life only. People can communicate to one another
information of a practical character, but as soon as they pass to a slightly more
complex sphere they are immediately lost, and they cease to understand one another,
although they are unconscious of it. People imagine that they can, at any rate, understand one another if they try
or want to; they imagine that they understand the authors of the books they read and
that other people understand them. This also is one of the illusions which people
create for themselves and in the midst of which they live. As a matter of fact, no one
understands anyone else. Two men can say the same thing with profound conviction
but call it by different names, or argue endlessly together without suspecting that they
are thinking exactly the same. Or, vice versa, two men can say the same words and
imagine that they agree with, and understand, one another, whereas they are actually
saying absolutely different things and do not understand one another in the least.
“If we take the simplest words that occur constantly in speech and endeavor to
analyze the meaning given to them, we shall see at once that, at every moment of his
life, every man puts into each word a special meaning which another man can never
put into it or suspect.
“Let us take the word ‘man’ and imagine a conversation among a group of people in
which the word ‘man’ is often heard. Without any exaggeration it can be said that the
word ‘man’ will have as many meanings as there are people taking part in the
conversation, and that these meanings will have nothing in common.
“In pronouncing the word ‘man’ everyone will involuntarily connect with this word
the point of view from which he is generally accustomed to regard man, or from
which, for some reason or other, he regards him at the moment. One man at the
moment may be occupied with the question of the relation between the sexes. Then
the word ‘man’ will have no general meaning for him and on hearing this word he will
first of all ask himself—Which? man or woman? Another man may be religious and
his first question will be—A Christian or not a Christian? The third man may be a
doctor and the concept ‘man’ will mean for him a ‘sick man’ or a ‘healthy man,’ and, of
course from the point of view of his speciality. A spiritualist will think of ‘man’ from
the point of view of his ‘astral body,’ of ‘life on the other side,’ and so on, and he may
say, if he is asked, that men are divided into mediums and non-mediums. A naturalist
speaking of man will place the center of gravity of his thoughts in the idea of man as a
zoological type, that is to say, in speaking of man he will think of the structure of his
teeth, his fingers, his facial angle, the distance between the eyes. A lawyer will see in
‘man’ a statistical unit, or a subject for the application of laws, or a potential criminal,
or a possible client. A moralist pronouncing the word ‘man’ will invariably introduce into it the idea of
good and evil, and so on, and so on.
“People do not notice all these contradictions, do not notice that they never
understand one another, that they always speak about different things. It is quite clear
that, for proper study, for an exact exchange of thoughts, an exact language is
necessary, which would make it possible to establish what a man actually means,
would include an indication of the point of view from which a given concept is taken
and determine the center of gravity of this concept. The idea is perfectly clear and
every branch of science endeavors to elaborate and to establish an exact language for
itself. But there is no universal language. People continually confuse the languages of
different sciences and can never establish their exact correlation. And even in each
separate branch of science new terminologies, new nomenclatures, are constantly
appearing. And the further it goes the worse it becomes. Misunderstanding grows and
increases instead of diminishing and there is every reason to think that it will continue
to increase in the same way. And people will understand one another ever less and
less.
“For exact understanding exact language is necessary. And the study of systems of
ancient knowledge begins with the study of a language which will make it possible to
establish at once exactly what is being said, from what point of view, and in what
connection. This new language contains hardly any new terms or new nomenclature,
but it bases the construction of speech upon a new principle, namely, the principle of
relativity; that is to say, it introduces relativity into all concepts and thus makes
possible an accurate determination of the angle of thought—for what precisely
ordinary language lacks are expressions of relativity.
“When a man has mastered this language, then, with its help, there can be
transmitted and communicated to him a great deal of knowledge and information
which cannot be transmitted in ordinary language even by using all possible scientific
and philosophical terms.
“The fundamental property of the new language is that all ideas in it are
concentrated round one idea, that is, they are taken in their mutual relationship from
the point of view of one idea. This idea is the idea of evolution. Of course, not
evolution in the sense of mechanical evolution, because such an evolution does not
exist, but in the sense of a conscious and volitional evolution, which alone is possible.
“Everything in the world, from solar systems to man, and from man to atom, either
rises or descends, either evolves or degenerates, either develops or decays. Bur
nothing evolves mechanically. Only degeneration and destruction proceed
mechanically. That which cannot evolve consciously—degenerates. Help from
outside is possible only in so far as it is valued and accepted, even if it is only by
feeling in the beginning.
“The language in which understanding is possible is constructed upon the indication of the relation of the object under examination to the evolution possible
for it; upon the indication of its place in the evolutionary ladder.
“For this purpose many of our usual ideas are divided according to the steps of this
evolution.
“Once again let us take the idea man. In the language of which I speak, instead of
the word ‘man,’ seven words are used, namely: man number one, man number two,
man number three, man number four, man number five, man number six, and man
number seven. With these seven ideas people are already able to understand one
another when speaking of man.
“Man number seven means a man who has reached the full development possible
to man and who possesses everything a man can possess, that is, will, consciousness,
permanent and unchangeable I, individuality, immortality, and many other properties
which, in our blindness and ignorance, we ascribe to ourselves. It is only when to a
certain extent we understand man number seven and his properties that we can understand the gradual stages through which we can approach him, that is, understand the
process of development possible for us.
“Man number six stands very close to man number seven. He differs from man
number seven only by the fact that some of his properties have not as yet become
permanent.
“Man number five is also for us an unattainable standard of man, for it is a man
who has reached unity.
“Man number four is an intermediate stage. I shall speak of him later.
“Man number one, number two, and number three, these are people who constitute
mechanical humanity on the same level on which they are born.
“Man number one means man in whom the center of gravity of his psychic life lies
in the moving center. This is the man of the physical body, the man with whom the
moving and the instinctive functions constantly outweigh the emotional and the
thinking functions.
“Man number two means man on the same level of development, but man in whom
the center of gravity of his psychic life lies in the emotional center, that is, man with
whom the emotional functions outweigh all others; the man of feeling, the emotional
man.
“Man number three means man on the same level of development but man in
whom the center of gravity of his psychic life lies in the intellectual center, that is,
man with whom the thinking functions gain the upper hand over the moving,
instinctive, and emotional functions; the man of reason, who goes into everything
from theories, from mental considerations.
“Every man is born number one, number two, or number three. “Man number four is not born ready-made. He is born one, two, or three, and
becomes four only as a result of efforts of a definite character. Man number four is
always the product of school work. He can neither be born, nor develop accidentally or
as the result of ordinary influences of bringing up, education, and so on. Man number
four already stands on a different level to man number one, two, and three; he has a
permanent center of gravity which consists in his ideas, in his valuation of the work,
and in his relation to the school. In addition his psychic centers have already begun to
be balanced; one center in him cannot have such a preponderance over others as is the
case with people of the first three categories. He already begins to know himself and
begins to know whither he is going.
“Man number five has already been crystallized; he cannot change as man number
one, two, and three change. But it must be noted that man number five can be the
result of right work and he can be the result of wrong work. He can become number
five from number four and he can become number five without having been four. And
in this case he cannot develop further, cannot become number six and seven. In order
to become number six he must again melt his crystallized essence, must intentionally
lose his being of man number five. And this can be achieved only through terrible
sufferings. Fortunately these cases of wrong development occur very rarely.
“The division of man into seven categories, or seven numbers, explains thousands of
things which otherwise cannot be understood. This division gives the first conception
of relativity as applied to man. Things may be one thing or another thing according to
the kind of man from whose point of view, or in relation to whom, they are taken.
“In accordance with this, all the inner and all the outer manifestations of man, all
that belongs to man, and all that is created by him, is also divided into seven
categories.
“It can now be said that there exists a knowledge number one, based upon imitation
or upon instincts, or learned by heart, crammed or drilled into a man. Number one, if
he is man number one in the full sense of the term, learns everything like a parrot or a
monkey.
“The knowledge of man number two is merely the knowledge of what he likes; what
he does not like he does not know. Always and in everything he wants something
pleasant. Or, if he is a sick man, he will, on the contrary, know only what he dislikes,
what repels him and what evokes in him fear, horror, and loathing.
“The knowledge of man number three is knowledge based upon subjectively logical
thinking, upon words, upon literal understanding. It is the knowledge of bookworms,
of scholastics. Men number three, for example, have counted how many times each
letter of the Arabic alphabet is repeated in the Koran of Mohammed, and upon this have based a whole system of
interpretation of the. Koran.
“The knowledge of man number four is a very different kind of knowledge. It is
knowledge which comes from man number five, who in turn receives it from man
number six, who has received it from man number seven. But, of course, man number
four assimilates of this knowledge only what is possible according to his powers. But,
in comparison with man number one, man number two, and man number three, man
number four has begun to get free from the subjective elements in his knowledge and
to move along the path towards objective knowledge.
“The knowledge of man number five is whole, indivisible knowledge. He has now
one indivisible I and all his knowledge belongs to this I. He cannot have one I that
knows something which another does not know. What he knows, the whole of him
knows. His knowledge is nearer to objective knowledge than the knowledge of man
number four.
“The knowledge of man number six is the complete knowledge possible to man;
but it can still be lost.
“The knowledge of man number seven is his own knowledge, which cannot be
taken away from him; it is the objective and completely practiced knowledge of All.
“It is exactly the same with being. There is the being of man number one, that is, the
being of a man living by his instincts and his sensations;
the being of man number two, that is to say, the being of the sentimental, the
emotional man; the being of man number three, that is, the being of the rational, the
theoretical man, and so on. It is quite clear why knowledge cannot be far away from
being. Man number one, two, or three cannot, by reason of his being, possess the
knowledge of man number four, man number five, and higher. Whatever you may give
him, he may interpret it in his own way, he will reduce every idea to the level on
which he is himself.
“The same order of division into seven categories must be applied to everything
relating to man. There is art number one, that is the art of man number one, imitative,
copying art, or crudely primitive and sensuous art such as the dances and music of
savage peoples. There is art number two, sentimental art; art number three,
intellectual, invented art; and there must be art number four, number five, and so on.
“In exactly the same way there exists the religion of man number one, that is to say,
a religion consisting of rites, of external forms, of sacrifices and ceremonies of
imposing splendor and brilliance, or, on the contrary, of a gloomy, cruel, and savage
character, and so on. There is the religion of man number two; the religion of faith,
love, adoration, impulse, enthusiasm, which soon becomes transformed into the
religion of persecution, oppression, and extermination of ‘heretics’ and ‘heathens.’
There is the religion of man number three; the intellectual, theoretical religion of proofs and arguments, based upon logical deductions, considerations, and
interpretations. Religions number one, number two, and number three are really the
only ones we know; all known and existing religions and denominations in the world
belong to one of these three categories. What the religion of man number four or the
religion of man number five and so on is, we do not know, and we cannot know so
long as we remain what we are.
“If instead of religion in general we take Christianity, then again there exists a
Christianity number one, that is to say, paganism in the guise of Christianity.
Christianity number two is an emotional religion, sometimes very pure but without
force, sometimes full of bloodshed and horror leading to the Inquisition, to religious
wars. Christianity number three, instances of which are afforded by various forms of
Protestantism, is based upon dialectic, argument, theories, and so forth. Then there is
Christianity number four, of which men number one, number two, and number three
have no conception whatever.
“In actual fact Christianity number one, number two, and number three is simply
external imitation. Only man number four strives to be a Christian and only man
number five can actually be a Christian. For to be a Christian means to have the being
of a Christian, that is, to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts.
“Man number one, number two, and number three cannot live in accordance with
Christ’s precepts because with them everything ‘happens.’ Today it is one thing and
tomorrow it is quite another thing. Today they are ready to give away their last shirt
and tomorrow to tear a man to pieces because he refuses to give up his shirt to them.
They are swayed by every chance event. They are not masters of themselves and
therefore they cannot decide to be Christians and really be Christians.

“Science, philosophy, and all manifestations of man’s life and activity can be
divided in exactly the same way into seven categories and this is why it is so
difficult for people to understand one another.
In Search of the Miraculous (ISOM) P.D. Ouspensky

Chapter 11: Global Coherence Research | HeartMath Institute