Betrayal—is there anyone here who hasn't experienced betrayal? It's a human experience. What makes it hurt so is that strangers can't betray us, only friends can—people to whom we've given our trust.
For the last 2,000 years the betrayal of all betrayals has been that of Judas selling his teacher for 30 pieces of silver. What would the Passion of Christ be without Judas? Crucifixion in those days was common and the resurrection is another miracle story; what makes the Passion so compellingly human is Judas' betrayal. Betrayal is really at the heart of the story. It's something that everyone understands, because in one form or another we have all experienced it.
Now appears The Gospel of Judas, an ancient parchment some believe to be written as early as AD 130, which tells of another kind of betrayala conscious betrayal. It's a betrayal that Jesus agreed to, even desired, for he tells Judas, "You will exceed all of them [the other apostles]. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." The idea of conscious betrayal—a conspiracy, if you will—makes the Passion of Christ an esoteric story which is simply too sophisticated to be readily understood.
The concluding fragment of the Coptic MS of The Gospel of Judas
Judas understands the enmity this betrayal will bring, for he has a great vision of the other apostles stoning and persecuting him. All his three centers must be denying the acceptance of this role, but still he has the clarity and will to act against his person.
Judas alone among the disciples recognizes who Jesus is, that he comes from the immortal realm of Barbelo, which is the divine Mother of All, second only to the great Invisible Spirit. So Jesus is not of this world, a world of evil created by the mean-spirited god Yahweh. Jesus tells Judas to step away from the others and he will tell him of the mysteries of the kingdom of the true God, not the God that the Jews worship and whom the Christians will later worship. He can do so because Judas' soul is immortal; it was given to him as "a gift" by the archangel Gabriel, while the others have souls "on loan" from the archangel Michael, which at their death will leave them.
Now what would it be like if you had carried out a conscious betrayal and everyone in this room believed you were guilty? Subjected to the harsh force of our condemnation would you lose your way? Could any of us stand up to the righteous blame of others, lasting from this day to the day you left the body and ever afterwards? I would say that if you had any guilt in you, any guilt that hadn't been integrated, it would vibrate with the invective being hurled at you, and you might actually begin to believe you were guilty.
It's interesting that what Mr. Gurdjieff wrote in the late twenties and early thirties about Judas making a conscious betrayal at the Last Supper is only being acknowledged now. Let me read to you what he wrote:
This devoted and favorite Apostle initiated by Jesus Christ Himself was called 'Judas.'... Judas was not only the most faithful and devoted of all the near followers of Jesus Christ, but also, only thanks to his Reason and presence of mind all the acts of this Sacred Individual could form that result [of being] the source of nourishment and inspiration for the majority of them in their desolate existence and made it at least a little endurable.How did Gurdjieff know this? There's no sense asking that question because it only leads to more questions. The fact is he knew it, as he knew that there was a second moon, Anulios, which scientists only discovered in 1970 and called "Toro." Gurdjieff 's knowledge of the second moon was incredible because it was a cosmic event. His knowledge of Judas was of a human cosmic event. The Gospel of Judas was given a passing mention by the orthodox Christian theologian Irenaeus in AD 180 in his Against Heresies, a refutation of the various Gnostic groups and their gospels, but he didn't do much more than mock it. Gurdjieff tells why Judas' betrayal was necessary.[When at the Last Supper it was realized that more time was required to fulfill the sacred sacrament Almznoshinoo] Judas, now a Saint, leaped from his place and hurriedly said:
"I shall go and do everything in such a way that you should have the possibility of fulfilling this sacred preparation without hindrance, and meanwhile set to work at once."
Having said this, he approached Jesus Christ and having confidently spoken with Him a little and received His blessing, hurriedly left.
And for those of us who have studied All and Everything, the esoteric knowledge that Gurdjieff conveys goes well beyond Judas and Anulios. Take the concept of original sin. According to Gurdjieff, there is no original sin. The "sin," which it wasn't as it was not a trespass against the Holy Ghost, was the unforeseeingness of those who implanted the organ Kundabuffer in us so we would see reality upside down. Sin or not, we all experience guilt, not true guilt, of course, but the guilt of the person, the self-image, we constantly protect and polish. We're always blaming other people, rarely accepting it ourselves.
Yes, there's guilt when one transgresses. But there's also guilt, strangely enough, when one is transgressed upon. One didn't do anything, one was the victim. And yet the victim experiences guilt, a self-judgment. And born of that self-judgment is what? Resentment. I resent the fact that I feel guilty, that in some way I deserve it, have brought it on myself. And from the resentment what is born? This is what's really interesting—the resentment morphs into righteousness, perfection, being holier than thou.
Because I can't eat the guilt, I won't accept it, which is one reason I keep throwing it on everyone else. I read a book recently whose author unconsciously judged his peers not on their achievements in life, which were considerable, but on their sexual peccadilloes. He doesn't speak of his own early life when he left home and didn't return for 20 years, but one intuits the cause was a sexual molestation. What we don't work with and eat we are certain to project on others.
In terms of the Work, this could be seen as the "Ouspensky maneuver." When Ouspensky speaks of himself in Search, at a certain point he starts referring to himself in the third person. "Ouspensky" has done this or "Ouspensky" said that. Now who is speaking here? Isn't it that Ouspensky originally took himself as an indivisible I, the way we all do? And then Gurdjieff arrives with the knowledge that the person is a construct, that we have no indivisible I. We're not whatever our name is, but we're all these different "I"s. In reaction, the person, the false personality, twists this, takes one step back, and speaks of "Ouspensky," as if one is not "Ouspensky" but that which is observing him. This may be true but it can also be an artful dodge of the person.
There is simply observing, there is no observer. If there is an observer then, as a sage once said, the observer is the observed. We've simply mentally morphed the person into the observer. So whatever we have not digested in ourselves—sex, power, money and so forth—that is what we are going to continually see. We're simply asleep to it. But this doesn't absolve us of responsibility, and especially so if we have taken a vow to awaken.
In the Work, this move from person to observer, while keeping all the rights of the person, forms the esoteric "I". In doing so, an unconscious sense of righteousness may take hold. And in this sense I am guilty and there is a sin, a sin against myself. In essence, I'm betraying myself!
In The Gospel of Judas, Judas has no guilt. That's why he was able to consciously betray Jesus, to accept the heavy guilt and scorn of others. It's incredible when you think about it. Because all the world is divided up, psychologically and otherwise, in terms of guilt and blame. We're infidels, agnostics, Christians, Jews. And as long as the psyche is divided it can't be whole and because reality is whole we remain asleep.
So one remembers oneself or is remembered. Suddenly that actionless acting, rightfully taken, changes the flow of blood. Things become slower, space appears. Initially there is just space, there is just direct perception. But it happens so quickly for most of us that we're not aware of it. And into that space appears what? The "I" of the moment. Now it is directly seen. But if I postulate or crystallize an observer who's seeing that "I," the observer is that "I" and nothing more. It's not something higher. It's on the same level now. It's only by maintaining the observing without crystallizing it into an observer that self-observation can continue. In having the understanding and energy to sustain that discrimination, there begins an awakening to the question of questions: what is the self in self-remembering?
This view of Judas is a harbinger of a radical new time, a deep harbinger, because for 2,000 years the Western world has believed that Judas was a goat, while in actuality he was a lion. He was a man without guilt, one who could voluntarily and intentionally suffer the guilt of others. Gurdjieff calls Judas a Saint and therefore immortal. But if he is without guilt, without projection, then each time his name is taken in vain, he receives that energy. It's an incredible way to stay awake within the solar system, be it on Earth or otherwise. Which perhaps is why Gurdjieff said: "I do not often pray to God. I do not wish to disturb His Endlessness. But when I am drunk I pray to Judas. And I am almost always drunk."