Gurdjieff and Ouspensky

[quote author=Kamino]
Being a follower of G and O myself for many years now, I'm really concerned and struggling.

Did I and maybe others here unknowingly follow The Occult Path?
[/quote]

As far as the general understanding of occult as practice of magical rites and rituals to accrue benefit to oneself goes, there is no evidence I am aware of indicating that Gurdjieff and Ouspenski followed any occult teachings.

So you were a follower of G and O for many years and it took a single reading of a channeled source which said that G and O followed the occult to make you believe that? Did you encounter any evidence beyond the channeling which suggested that G and O followed the occult, were mentally disbalanced and institutionalized etc ?


[quote author=Kamino]
A special THANKS goes to Jtucker, a Newbie, who introduced me to Mark Probert's material in his Introduction post!

The lecture is called "The Path", copied from this page: _http://www.soulwise.net/yada
[/quote]

I looked up the website _http://www.teachers-of-light.com/mark-probert-and-the-teachers-of-light.html.

From there it is apparent that the chanelled entity Yada was a member of an ancient civilization called Yuga (a Sanskrit term indicating an epoch or era) which was destroyed by a cataclysm and buried under the Himalayas. The other chanelled teacher mentioned

Professor Alfred Luntz, another teacher was a Clergyman for the High Episcopalian Church of England. He passed away at age 81 and was surprised that he did not go to heaven and sit at the right side of Jesus, as he had taught for 50 years to his congregation. He told of the shock when he realized he not only had survived the death of his physical body but that there was no heaven, hell or purgatory which he had preached for so long.

Click to expand...

In the terminology of channeling, they would be considered discarnate entities belonging to the earth plane. This is perhaps brought out from the following excerpt from the text you quoted:

We cannot stop and give it all up because of some real or imagined fears and anxieties over what is going to happen to us if we go on. Man has learned by experimentation more so than by any other way. We humans are a curious lot. We cannot stop to be nosey. The softer word is curious. This is our nature.

Click to expand...

As far as the content is concerned,
[quote author=Kamino]
So what do you think?
[/quote]

it was perhaps quite novel to the western audience when it was first channeled. There is a smattering of Eastern metaphysics - Indian upanishads and Buddhist concepts mingled with some psychological terms. Today these contents are more familiar in general to western audiences who have had the chance to read some new age material.

Read it if you feel attracted to it and you must - but use caution and discernment. Do not believe all that you read without thinking, researching and networking.

My 2 cents

Thanks for your suggestions. Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about. Initiation through dehumanization. You would get some insights if you read the handbook on how to program a monarch slave. And please don't tell me it's just conspiracy theory.

For the lectures, it doesn't bother me that they're only discarnates. After all you freaked out about the discarnate Cesar uttering a few more or less meaningfull words in one of the latest sessions.

G had long episodes being away from the prieure and noone really knew where he was and what he did. He was a master in hiding his personal affairs. That's only one part of my own puzzle...

Hi Kamino,
There is no need to be emotional and aggressive, reread what was replied to you calmly and you'll see nobody's attacking you. If you search the forum, you'll see that there are critics of Gurdjieff as well, for nobody's absolutely perfect. If you put aside the concept of believing and consider learning as a fluid process including trial and error, it will be more beneficial for you and for your interlocutors.

Kamino said:

Thanks for your suggestions. Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about. Initiation through dehumanization. You would get some insights if you read the handbook on how to program a monarch slave. And please don't tell me it's just conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

mkrnhr is right. Sometimes it seemed G even acted like an *ss to children and adults. As far as I can tell, no one here idolizes or idealizes him, O, or any others in his company at various times.

Kamino said:

Thanks for your suggestions. Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about. Initiation through dehumanization.

Click to expand...

Hi Kamino. What you describe as "initiation through dehumanization" sounds basically like mirroring, and the destruction of the illusions of the false personality. That is quite different from what most people and lexicons understand to be occult, which is a much broader term. I think it would have been helpful if you were to define the word occult at the start, so others could better understand what you refer to. I think that's why some people asked you to clarify further. One person even questioned how much reading you've done (I thought this myself), which suggests, I think, that you are more concerned with, as you said, "connecting [your] own dots," than speaking within the conceptual framework the forum has built for discussing esoteric concepts for the benefit and understanding of all. That's not the way to create mutual understanding and objective knowledge.

Another thing I noticed is that when people question your valuation of something, you name-drop another writing and tell people to read it to get where you're coming from. People don't like being told what to do with their free time in order to win the respect of a random stranger online... even less so when the stranger adds condescending comments to their writing-plugs to rationalize people's lack of willingness to just drop what they're doing and read. It's certainly not something they owe you. But your attitude thus far suggests that you want others to do all the reading work in order to connect YOUR dots and validate YOUR subjective concepts. That's textbook internal considering.

If you think a certain piece of writing is beneficial for people, by all means start threads on it-- that way those who are also familiar with the writing can weigh in on its veracity, how it fits into the other concepts and understandings the group has developed over the years, etc. Nesting references within references is messy and will not generate the analysis and commentary each puzzle piece is owed to be studied properly.

[quote author=Kamino]
Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about.
[/quote]

You are mistaken.

[quote author=Kamino]
Initiation through dehumanization.
[/quote]

The context here is the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. Here is an excerpt from ISOTM where Ouspensky relates Gurdjieff's view of initiation.

[quote author=ISOTM]

"The idea of initiation, which reaches us through pseudo-esoteric systems, is also transmitted to us in a completely wrong form. The legends concerning the outward rites of initiation have been created out of the scraps of information we possess in regard to the ancient Mysteries. The Mysteries represented a special kind of way in which, side by side with a difficult and prolonged period of study, theatrical representations of a special kind were given which depicted in allegorical forms the whole path of the evolution of man and the world.
"Transitions from one level of being to another were marked by ceremonies of presentation of a special kind, that is, initiation. But a change of being cannot be brought about by any rites. Rites can only mark an accomplished transition. And it is only in pseudo-esoteric systems in which there is nothing else except these rites, that they begin to attribute to the rites an independent meaning. It is supposed that a rite, in being transformed into a sacrament, transmits or communicates certain forces to the initiate. This again relates to the psychology of an imitation way. There is not, nor can there be, any outward initiation. In reality only self-initiation, selfpresentation exist. Systems and schools can indicate methods and ways, but no system or school whatever can do for a man the work that he must do himself. Inner growth, a change of being, depend entirely upon the work which a man must do on himself."

[/quote]

G description matches exactly what many pseudo esoteric schools indulge in as far as initiation goes.

Regarding occult and dehumanization, G talked about black magic.

[quote author=ISOTM]
"Questions have often been asked at these lectures as to what is 'black magic' and I have replied that there is neither red, green, nor yellow magic. There is mechanics, that is, what 'happens,' and there is 'doing.' 'Doing' is magic and 'doing' can be only of one kind. There cannot be two kinds of 'doing.' But there can be a falsification, an imitation of the outward appearance of 'doing,' which cannot give any objective results but which can deceive naive people and produce in them faith, infatuation, enthusiasm, and even fanaticism.

"This is why in true work, that is, in true 'doing,' the producing of infatuation in people is not allowed. What you call black magic is based on infatuation and on playing upon human weaknesses. Black magic does not in any way mean magic of evil. I have already said earlier that no one ever does anything for the sake of evil, in the interests of evil. Everyone always does everything in the interests of good as he understands it. In the same way it is quite wrong to assert that black magic must necessarily be egoistical, that in black magic a man strives after some results for himself. This is quite wrong. Black magic may be quite altruistic, may strive after the good of humanity or after the salvation of humanity from real or imaginary evils. But what can be called black magic has always one definite characteristic. This characteristic is the tendency to use people for some, even the best of aims, without their knowledge and understanding, either by producing in them faith and infatuation or by acting upon them through fear.
[/quote]

Once again, G's description matches the way occult schools work. In contrast, 4th Way as taught by G demanded understanding and G went to great lengths - sometimes acting like what would seem like a complete jerk - in order to keep people from being infatuated with him.

Kamino, you started this thread with

[quote author=Kamino]
Being a follower of G and O myself for many years now, I'm really concerned and struggling.

Did I and maybe others here unknowingly follow The Occult Path?
[/quote]

As the thread progressed, you have pretty much brushed aside the input you have received after paying lip service. It seems your views about 4th Way and what is done here are colored by what you read from a channeled source of questionable credibility. It is also interesting to read

[quote author=Kamino]
For the lectures, it doesn't bother me that they're only discarnates. After all you freaked out about the discarnate Cesar uttering a few more or less meaningfull words in one of the latest sessions.
[/quote]

Personally I did not see any "freaking out" going on in this context. Also, since you have been reading this site since 2007, you must be aware of the fact that Laura repeatedly stressed that communication with the C's is never taken as gospel truth (which is what you seem to be doing with the channeled material you encountered on the web) and is always followed by hard research.

As regards this part of your original question, "did others here unknowingly follow the occult path" through their association with G's teachings (which by the way only forms a part of what is done here) - the answer is "no". Instead of focusing your energy on trying to convince us that this is indeed so, I think focusing on your own doubts would be more worthwhile. This could be a very good learning opportunity for you to get a glimpse of how the mind works. After all, it has barely been a month since you wrote in your introduction that

[quote author=Kamino]
I found your site around 2007, since then I have tremendeously profited from your work in every aspect of my life and I don't exaggerate by saying, that you definitely "saved" my soul.
[/quote]

Kamino said:

Might you please explain to me in simpler terms, what the C's mean with this answer. I'm honestly asking?

Click to expand...

What the Cs mean is that most of all that esoteric stuff is mumbo-jumbo, 'false paths', as you might call them.

Kamino said:

Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about.

Click to expand...

Yeh, you're probably not going to find answers here. Sorry we can't help. Have you tried other Gurdjieff, 4th way, or esoterica forums?

obyvatel said:

[quote author=Kamino]
Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

[quote author=Kamino]
Initiation through dehumanization.
[/quote]

The context here is the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. Here is an excerpt from ISOTM where Ouspensky relates Gurdjieff's view of initiation.

[quote author=ISOTM]

"The idea of initiation, which reaches us through pseudo-esoteric systems, is also transmitted to us in a completely wrong form. The legends concerning the outward rites of initiation have been created out of the scraps of information we possess in regard to the ancient Mysteries. The Mysteries represented a special kind of way in which, side by side with a difficult and prolonged period of study, theatrical representations of a special kind were given which depicted in allegorical forms the whole path of the evolution of man and the world.
"Transitions from one level of being to another were marked by ceremonies of presentation of a special kind, that is, initiation. But a change of being cannot be brought about by any rites. Rites can only mark an accomplished transition. And it is only in pseudo-esoteric systems in which there is nothing else except these rites, that they begin to attribute to the rites an independent meaning. It is supposed that a rite, in being transformed into a sacrament, transmits or communicates certain forces to the initiate. This again relates to the psychology of an imitation way. There is not, nor can there be, any outward initiation. In reality only self-initiation, selfpresentation exist. Systems and schools can indicate methods and ways, but no system or school whatever can do for a man the work that he must do himself. Inner growth, a change of being, depend entirely upon the work which a man must do on himself."

[/quote]

G description matches exactly what many pseudo esoteric schools indulge in as far as initiation goes.

Regarding occult and dehumanization, G talked about black magic.

[quote author=ISOTM]
"Questions have often been asked at these lectures as to what is 'black magic' and I have replied that there is neither red, green, nor yellow magic. There is mechanics, that is, what 'happens,' and there is 'doing.' 'Doing' is magic and 'doing' can be only of one kind. There cannot be two kinds of 'doing.' But there can be a falsification, an imitation of the outward appearance of 'doing,' which cannot give any objective results but which can deceive naive people and produce in them faith, infatuation, enthusiasm, and even fanaticism.

"This is why in true work, that is, in true 'doing,' the producing of infatuation in people is not allowed. What you call black magic is based on infatuation and on playing upon human weaknesses. Black magic does not in any way mean magic of evil. I have already said earlier that no one ever does anything for the sake of evil, in the interests of evil. Everyone always does everything in the interests of good as he understands it. In the same way it is quite wrong to assert that black magic must necessarily be egoistical, that in black magic a man strives after some results for himself. This is quite wrong. Black magic may be quite altruistic, may strive after the good of humanity or after the salvation of humanity from real or imaginary evils. But what can be called black magic has always one definite characteristic. This characteristic is the tendency to use people for some, even the best of aims, without their knowledge and understanding, either by producing in them faith and infatuation or by acting upon them through fear.
[/quote]

Once again, G's description matches the way occult schools work. In contrast, 4th Way as taught by G demanded understanding and G went to great lengths - sometimes acting like what would seem like a complete jerk - in order to keep people from being infatuated with him.

Kamino, you started this thread with

[quote author=Kamino]
Being a follower of G and O myself for many years now, I'm really concerned and struggling.

Did I and maybe others here unknowingly follow The Occult Path?
[/quote]

As the thread progressed, you have pretty much brushed aside the input you have received after paying lip service. It seems your views about 4th Way and what is done here are colored by what you read from a channeled source of questionable credibility. It is also interesting to read

[quote author=Kamino]
For the lectures, it doesn't bother me that they're only discarnates. After all you freaked out about the discarnate Cesar uttering a few more or less meaningfull words in one of the latest sessions.
[/quote]

Personally I did not see any "freaking out" going on in this context. Also, since you have been reading this site since 2007, you must be aware of the fact that Laura repeatedly stressed that communication with the C's is never taken as gospel truth (which is what you seem to be doing with the channeled material you encountered on the web) and is always followed by hard research.

As regards this part of your original question, "did others here unknowingly follow the occult path" through their association with G's teachings (which by the way only forms a part of what is done here) - the answer is "no". Instead of focusing your energy on trying to convince us that this is indeed so, I think focusing on your own doubts would be more worthwhile. This could be a very good learning opportunity for you to get a glimpse of how the mind works. After all, it has barely been a month since you wrote in your introduction that

[quote author=Kamino]
I found your site around 2007, since then I have tremendeously profited from your work in every aspect of my life and I don't exaggerate by saying, that you definitely "saved" my soul.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Thank you obyvatel and all others who took time and patience to mirror my behaviour/acting out emotionally here and before in other threads and still bothered to answer before and after my last post. I feel unable to control my emotions, being a heavy black-and-white thinker. So I often get aggressive, attacking people which is unfair and not objective and externally considering, not to mention helpful. Your feedback here (and research over the last years being a silent reader) really helps me in trying to figure out, how my mind works. I'm sure I cannot trust myself and my own thinking, and I act it out on others, upsetting you/them if I don't learn to handle this kind of blind fury.

Maybe I overestimated my abilities to read/understand your input and exchange over the years and express myself in a foreign language. It's not an excuse, but I realise I can't be of help to anybody as long as I can't really control myself emotionally.

I have deep issues of self doubt, which got triggered here.

I will need more time reflecting and thinking about it.

Kniall said:

Kamino said:

Might you please explain to me in simpler terms, what the C's mean with this answer. I'm honestly asking?

Click to expand...

What the Cs mean is that most of all that esoteric stuff is mumbo-jumbo, 'false paths', as you might call them.

Kamino said:

Seems noone here really understands what occultism is about.

Click to expand...

Yeh, you're probably not going to find answers here. Sorry we can't help. Have you tried other Gurdjieff, 4th way, or esoterica forums?

Click to expand...

You helped, in ways I didn't anticipate.

Do you think I'm in the wrong bar? To ask you this might seem pathetic, but I'm interested in your opinion if that is what you indicated.

Who really cares if this an occult or that is occult or if this is an orange and this is an apple. Does labeling something really matter or does this matter more......

Does it positively influence your life? Do you like it? help you see truth? Help you grow into the person you want to be? Help you understand yourself and life more objectively? Help protect you from hurting yourself and others from your mechanical actions?

If i can answer yes to these questions then whatever I am involved in regardless of label (who knows who did the labeling anyway?) I will continue to be involved in it.

Mark Probert was a trance channel medium. His channelings were supported, patronized and promoted by Meade Layne, a ufo researcher strongly influenced by Qabalah, theosophy and from some accounts, the hermetic order of golden dawn or offshoots thereof. Layne championed the benevolent alien agenda regarding UFOs and was the author of "The Coming of the Guardians". He used Probert's materials as support for his thesis.

Two other names brought up in the thread were that of Swinburn Clymer and Paschal Beverly Randolph. Swinburn Clymer, was an American Rosicrucian, the "Supreme Grand Master of the FRC (Fraternitas Rosae Crucis)". Paschal Beverly Randolph was an early American Rosicrucian, occultist and sex magic practitioner.

So, looks like the people mentioned in this thread and connected with the channelings which accused Gurdjieff and Ouspensky of occultism were apparently deep into western occultism. Ironic?

obyvatel said:

Mark Probert was a trance channel medium. His channelings were supported, patronized and promoted by Meade Layne, a ufo researcher strongly influenced by Qabalah, theosophy and from some accounts, the hermetic order of golden dawn or offshoots thereof. Layne championed the benevolent alien agenda regarding UFOs and was the author of "The Coming of the Guardians". He used Probert's materials as support for his thesis.

Two other names brought up in the thread were that of Swinburn Clymer and Paschal Beverly Randolph. Swinburn Clymer, was an American Rosicrucian, the "Supreme Grand Master of the FRC (Fraternitas Rosae Crucis)". Paschal Beverly Randolph was an early American Rosicrucian, occultist and sex magic practitioner.

So, looks like the people mentioned in this thread and connected with the channelings which accused Gurdjieff and Ouspensky of occultism were apparently deep into western occultism. Ironic?

Click to expand...

Not a surprise. Psychopaths always accuse others (usually those doing a lot of good and speaking truth) of doing the evil, underhanded things they do themselves.

Besides, Gerardus and his "soulwise" site have a history of betting on the wrong horse. He was a Cass discussion group member way back and discussing anything with him was like discussing with a robot.

Kamino said:

Being a follower of G and O myself for many years now, I'm really concerned and struggling.

Did I and maybe others here unknowingly follow The Occult Path?

A special THANKS goes to Jtucker, a Newbie, who introduced me to Mark Probert's material in his Introduction post!

The lecture is called "The Path", copied from this page: _http://www.soulwise.net/yada

So what do you think?

Click to expand...

Just a note on that website. It is, IMO, full of new age 'word salad'. I used to be a member of its owner's Yahoo group, it has been around a long time. It was through that site and its owner that I was directed to Cass.org.

Thank you for this thread and allowing me to 'see' the Work from this perspective. Another needed shock too. It takes a long time in the study to notice, recognize and especially understand all the different facets and threads in the study of Knowledge and Being.

I am grateful for another 'lesson' in discernment as well as in in depth view of the word 'occult' as well as a timely reminder of G's take on things in this particular subject. It was also a good reminder on how essential the cognitive psychology is such a fundamental part of our learning and that we can barely get to the next 'step' until we fully know ourselves, our 'minds' and our emotional ''hooks' and reactions ie all our weaknesses.

It is particularly helpful for me as I am currently going through another emotional 'cycle' ie breakup of relationship, that I should better handle with the information and knowledge that I have acquired along the way. How I handle this says a lot about priorities in life and learning plus the application of knowledge to show that I understood it in the first place.

A particular lesson for me this time (and in answer to 2 important questions that remained unanswered throughout this break-up), was that at the first opportunity information was sent to me by a friend on skype that DID answer those 2 questions without any doubt plus I knew that the Universe was helping me by doing so. That allowed me to then see more objectively and draw a line under that which was likely to pull negative emotional energies from me. It is so important to trust in the universe and to know that before a better door can open the old one must be fully shut. So far I have never been let down as this has always happened and the lessons seen for what they are accordingly.

For this reason I fully agree with what the C's said about cognitive psychology ie know thyself. And also Carl Jungs statement:

What is not made conscious often comes to us as fate.

Carl Jung

What is discouraging about this is realizing that, with all our work and efforts to lay things out with evidence, experimentation, validation, etc, there are still those who live like weathervanes, susceptible to the verbiage of pathology.