BEFORE THE LAW by Frank Kafka

[idiot_stimpy]

 

BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper on guard. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers.

 

From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter.

 

The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper.

 

The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything." During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong contemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the fleas as well to help him and to change the doorkeeper's mind.

 

At length his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know whether the world is really darker or whether his eyes are only deceiving him. Yet in his darkness, he is now aware of a radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law. Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body.

 

The doorkeeper has to bend low towards him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?"

 

The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."

 

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/exercises/kafka.htm

 

I found this piece of writing very interesting. 

 

Anyone have any thoughts on this parable? 

Edited May 6, 2015 by idiot_stimpy

[Nungali]

Frank ? 

[idiot_stimpy]

Frank ? 

 

Frank Bardon?

[noonespecial]

Lol Kafka.

[Marblehead]

Sure, I'll comment.

 

I don't stand before the law.  I stand before myself.  Laws made by other people are "their" laws.

[idiot_stimpy]

Sure, I'll comment.

 

I don't stand before the law.  I stand before myself.  Laws made by other people are "their" laws.

 

My impression was it was referring to the law of the universe instead of man made laws. Although it could be inferred the gatekeeper is the police and the subsequent gatekeepers are the judges and jury.

 

Marblehead what if we are talking about the law of karma?

 

Is standing before the law of karma being punished and rewarded for your own law, your own karma?

 

Can we be punished by others karma?

 

Some of the questions I have travelling around.

[noonespecial]

My impression was it was referring to the law of the universe instead of man made laws. Although it could be inferred the gatekeeper is the police and the subsequent gatekeepers are the judges and jury.

 

Marblehead what if we are talking about the law of karma?

 

Is standing before the law of karma being punished and rewarded for your own law, your own karma?

 

Can we be punished by others karma?

 

Some of the questions I have travelling around.

 

I think Marblehead is closer.

[Marblehead]

My impression was it was referring to the law of the universe instead of man made laws.

Sure, it could be looked at this way, I suppose.  It's just that if there is a gatekeeper then someone else is in charge.

 

Marblehead what if we are talking about the law of karma?

Yes, cause and effect.  (You know the word "karma" isn't one of my words.)

 

If talking about cause and effect why would there be a gatekeeper?  Unless, the gatekeeper is the symbol of "effect".

 

Is standing before the law of karma being punished and rewarded for your own law, your own karma?

No punishment or rewards.  Only results.  Only effects.  Cause and effect will always rule.

 

Can we be punished by others karma?

Within the concept of karma, I think not.

 

However, within the concept of cause and effect, sure, what others do may be punishment for something we have done.

 

Some of the questions I have travelling around.

Yeah, it is good to wonder on our questions.  And we each should accept only our own answers.  Sure, others may inspire us but we should never accept answers blindly.

[idiot_stimpy]

Sure, it could be looked at this way, I suppose.  It's just that if there is a gatekeeper then someone else is in charge.

 

 

The gate keeper stood to the side. In this instance I would think the gatekeeper to be more of a warning than anything else. The man had free will to enter the gate but chose not to. The gatekeeper was definitely not stopping the man from entering.

 

 

Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers.

 

 Maybe this is in reference to the hidden mysteries of reality. Those who enter when not ready can pay very dearly as madness grips them. Here the gatekeeper is the law of cause and effect which will hold the man to account should he fall.

[Nungali]

Sure, I'll comment.

 

I don't stand before the law.  I stand before myself.  Laws made by other people are "their" laws.

 

 

Laws are messy business 

 

I like to think of 'rights' more than 'laws'.  Rights seem the positive side, laws often seem to focus on the negative. 

 

Some say, if one has rights that they think apply to them, then they automatically apply to others as well.  For example,  if I steal your tool box, I have demonstrated that I dont believe in your right to possess and retain your your own goods, so therefore that right doesnt apply to me, I have shown I dont believe in personal ownership by taking your things, so now, I have cancelled that right for myself. 

 

And if I suppress others freedom, then I have also lost the right of freedom for myself.  (Not sure about all of this ideas implications - I am still thinking it through .) 

[Nungali]

Lol Kafka.

 

yes, one must read him with some familiarity , I would not recommend , taking one of his works at face value without some further readings of his .   Just to get a 'feel' for the man ....  

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis

 

[Marblehead]

  For example,  if I steal your tool box, I have demonstrated that I dont believe in your right to possess and retain your your own goods, so therefore that right doesnt apply to me, I have shown I dont believe in personal ownership by taking your things, so now, I have cancelled that right for myself. 

I hope your broken arm heals well.

[Marblehead]

yes, one must read him with some familiarity , I would not recommend , taking one of his works at face value without some further readings of his .   Just to get a 'feel' for the man ....  

It has been thirty years since I read him and that was a required reading for a Uni course.

[Nungali]

I hope your broken arm heals well.

 

I guess by my actions  I gave up my right to possess ....     an unbroken arm   

[Nungali]

( Damn changes here;   instead of liking MH's comment, now I am thanking him for breaking my arm    )

[Bearded Dragon]

His book The Castle is a similar concept in that it's based around him trying to get into the castle and he never manages. I have always been meaning to read it ever since I watched a brilliant Japanese movie called Guilty of Romance which made reference to it.

[idiot_stimpy]

-The indestructible is one: it is each individual human being and, at the same time, it is common to all, hence the incomparably indivisible union that exists between human beings.

 

-Truth is indivisible, hence it cannot recognize itself; anyone who wants to recognize it has to be a lie.

 

I think Franz Kafka was deeply interested into the mysteries of life.

[Spotless]

The simple man "poor in spirit" "prays" for entrance of the "law". (He has traveled from the heart).

 

In traveling "north" he meets the Mind who is wrapped in its athority and the simple man "poor in spirit" looks up to this these towering actors and slowly withers as he allows them to direct the play.

 

He never truly listens to the pure voice in his being that HE should not be subjugated by the few.

 

He dies subjugated by the few, those few whom he could have kicked out of his house had he chosen to enter. They were never gate keepers, but baffoons in masks and the law, had it shined would have laughed at the facade and known they were all bluff, smoke and mirrors.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Spotless

[idiot_stimpy]

The simple man "poor in spirit" "prays" for entrance of the "law". (He has traveled from the heart). In traveling "north" he meets the Mind who is wrapped in its athority and the simple man "poor in spirit" looks up to this these towering actors and slowly withers as he allows them to direct the play. He never truly listens to the pure voice in his being that HE should not be subjugated by the few.

 

How this is mirrored on the inside and the outside. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed it.

[Spotless]

How this is mirrored on the inside and the outside. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed it.

 

I was still editing - so it's a bit different - not change in general content though.

[idiot_stimpy]

Interesting that the gatekeeper could be considered the monkey mind.

 

Being a gatekeeper of a gate, is this similar to the dweller on the threshold?

[idiot_stimpy]

This Dweller is the sumtotal of all the personality characteristics which have remained unconquered and unsubtle, and which must be finally overcome before initiation can be taken. Each life sees some progress made; some personality defects straightened out, and some real advance effected. But the unconquered residue, and the ancient liabilities are numerous, and excessively potent, and - when the soul contact's adequately established - there eventuates a life wherein the highly developed and powerful personality becomes, in itself, the Dweller on the Threshold. Then the Angel of the Presence and the Dweller stand face to face, and something must then be done. Eventually, the light of the personal self fades out and wanes in the blaze of glory which emanates from the Angel. Then the greater glory obliterates the lesser.

 

- Alice Bailey

[Spotless]

Bingo