The essence of Mr. Nyland's explanation about this practice, what attracted me and has held me, is expressed by his concept- he said it was Gurdjieff's concept- of the "little I."
The basic explanation is this: In our present condition, as we find ourselves, we are not capable of real consciousness, which would be characterized by impartiality and simultaneity. Real consciousness is, however, potentially possible for us, but only by the creation, or it might be called uncovering, and development of something quite different from our present experience, something that can exist in our consciousness. Mr. Nyland called this "objective faculty" (another term of his) the "little I." Little because, as he said, "it is very small in the beginning, just one or two cells." And "I," because this is one's real individuality.
This explanation accounted for my experience better than any theory that I had ever encountered, whether scientific, religious, philosophical, psychological or political. It explained why I was not happy and why I didn't know what to do with myself. It also revealed a path of infinite hope.
L.S.D. had ignited my hope, but the flame was flickering and dying because there was no way to feed it. This practice showed a way.
The theory of the "little I" was completely acceptable to me both intellectually and emotionally. It became my religion, I who had never had a religion. Because the "little I" has properties of God, and therefore faith in the "little I" is faith in God. It is no idol. The presence of the "little I" is God's presence. And God is present to us, in His omnipresence. What is more basic to religious faith than that? The "little I" shows that the question of God's presence is NOT about God. It is one's own consciousness that is in question. Your consciousness is demonstrably false. You can demonstrate this for yourself by trying to experience real consciousness.
Religious people should have the courage to examine the foundations of their faith. Faith in some doctrine or in the Bible as the Word of God is not above the question of idolatry. Only God is without impurity. Mr. Nyland said that the "little I" showed the real meaning of God's presence in the flesh on Earth, which Christians consider to have been embodied in Jesus Christ. Obviously, as the Muslims have pointed out, there are serious problems with calling any human being God. I do believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ as a great teacher whose sayings ring true down the centuries and whose presence among us was proof of that great hope and faith that we all feel organically, the reason why we do continue to get up in the morning, or at least sometimes, in the case of the very depressed.
But the "little I" must be PRESENT. That is the crucial point. It has to be present reality. As an idea, it is intellectually satisfying and it feeds one's spirit. Making efforts for the presence of the "little I" feeds one's spirit. But only the presence of impartiality (one can drop simultaneity, because presence includes simultaneity) can realize our hope.
The dexterity to which I have referred is dexterity in experiencing the presence of the "little I," which is no longer little when it is present. It still requires effort. When the "little I" is present, the effort is effortless.
This idea of the "little I" was exactly what drew me to this practice. It was radically different from anything that I had encountered elsewhere, and I knew that it must be right.
My consciousness has been dominated by my thinking. Thinking has mediated everything, or at least has "gotten its fingers in the pie." I have had thoughts about every part of my conscious experience, even my subconscious experience has been associated with thoughts, also subconscious. I think that it has also been the same for you.
I didn't ask to be this kind of person. It was just the way that I happened to develop. Until I experienced L.S.D., I didn't realize that my experience, my reality could be any other way. But our experience can be different. Reality- our reality- is much greater than our thought. Obviously we must live in awareness of reality, if we are to really live. Bur how to get to such awareness? An experience of L.S.D. doesn't make any lasting change in the habitual organization of our consciousness, it doesn't change the false foundation of our lives.
I think that L.S.D. is one psychotropic drug that can be tremendously useful. It was for me. The explosion of interest in and exploration of L.S.D. that took place in the Sixties is evidence that "I'm not the only one." But obviously, there are great differences in both the short term and long term effects of L.S.D. on people. Investigators soon came to attribute these differences to differences in "set and setting," that is, to the surrounding physical and social environment, and to one's "mindset," that is, how one thinks about the L.S.D. experience.
I didn't have a lot of preconceptions about what I would experience, and I had a favorable setting. Actually I must thank the wise guidance of my old friend Jim Burkard for that.
At the time of the L.S.D. "trip," one's consciousness is dominated by a powerful experience. Still, one's preconceptions and thoughts about what is happening play an influential role. It was to my advantage that I had few or no preconceptions. My experience of L.S.D. was of a new world, except I knew it was the same world in which I lived all the time. It was quite obvious that I usually lived in unconsciousness or waking sleep. Fortunately I was not burdened with Gurdjieff's ideas at that time. I had no framework of thought into which to fit the L.S.D. experience. The very next day, I began feverishly trying to construct such a framework. I couldn't help it, because thought was basic to my consciousness. But I did realize that there was something sacred about this. I knew that awareness of reality was superior. Those who have experienced, know. I knew that my thought could not comprehend it. But I tried, with all my ingenuity and creativity of thought, to figure out a way to real consciousness. That was a futile and crazy-making endeavor, until I encountered Mr. Nyland's teaching.
I haven't repeated Mr. Nyland's explanations about the "little I" in this blog. I could not explain it better or as well as he, so why try? If you want to hear about the "little I," Mr. Nyland's talks are the best source. You will have to invest a little effort to access them, but they are accessible.
I have been telling you about aspects of the "little I" and I have been recommending simple efforts that you can make to experience those aspects. I have been trying to inspire you to get up and start walking in the right direction.
Why bother? Why not just refer anyone who might be interested to Mr. Nyland's talks and to his groups?
In the first place, people don't seem to "get it" sufficiently by those means, these days. While Mr. Nyland was alive, his groups were growing. Since his death, they are surviving. There are some newcomers and new adherents, but in general Mr. Nyland's groups, and the whole Gurdjieff movement, do not show promise of affecting the mainstream of our culture, in its flow down the drain. This is not acceptable. This teaching has the power to save Western civilization and human civilization.
In the second place, I have had to suffer too much in my quest to realize the "little I." It has been too lonely and it has taken too long. I am not complaining. It has been well worth the journey. But it is a lonely quest, to be devoted to a most worthy aim that very few people can even understand. Being that kind of stranger sets a person up for great suffering. Better that we should share aims that are more understandable. Better that we should be able to share this practice much more widely. Better that we should be busy with efforts that we can understand. Then, we wouldn't have to suffer so much. Then, we could be on our way together. It is the responsibility of those of us who know to see that our aims and efforts continue to take us in the right direction. The "little I" shows the right direction.
This practice is real psychology and real religion. If you believe in either, it offers you a road of development. In making efforts to experience the presence of the "little I," or any aspect of the "little I," one makes this practice actual. It becomes more than just a theory or a faith. It becomes conscious experience. If one practices correctly, the "little I" begins to become reality in one's life, when it is present.
It must be present. Faith is very valuable, and good theory is also valuable. Making efforts to realize faith and verify theory is even more valuable, but the "little I" must be present. Only then is this faith justified and this theory confirmed.
I have not been able to experience enough presence of the "little I" in the first forty years of my practice. I have not yet had sufficient dexterity. Now, I do.
I have suffered a great deal because of my aim and wish to realize something in my life that I was not yet able to realize, and others close to me have also suffered. I lost Sheila and she lost her life. Sometimes I could fall to my knees in grief, despair and self-hatred. But life must be accepted as it is present. Reality must be accepted. In impartiality there is an infinite vista of possibility, present now.
I wish that I could have explained this practice to Sheila so that she could have understood it. It would have saved her life and our life. If I had been able to be present more, it would have saved our life. I am present now and life is. I wish that Sheila were present in body. She is present in spirit. I must live for us both. Sheila's suicide forced me to learn more dexterity- walk, or die. So I have learned to walk. It is a gift of our love. I have tried to explain to you what I was not yet able to explain to her well enough so that she could "get it." I hope that you can use it.
