What was the cause of Gurdjieff's car accident?

Kay Kim said:

We were all break away from the negative forces lies that influencing on this world. So, I understand that a large mass of the people's situation. But when it comes to my own children, it makes my heartache.
At first they were favorable toward to Laura, but then when they found some false accusations from Internet, they turned back and thinking that I am the one deceived by Laura.

And they don't even want to examine Laura's work further. They just want to living in this worlds pleasure.
What can I do? I know that in this density, two opposite forces are equally right to exist.
But, still, when I think about my children, the tears gathering in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Its a familiar story for many of us Kay Kim, and I know how you feel. I'm not sure that there is anything that can be said to really address such heartache fully except that, on some level, the work that you are doing on yourself and here on the forum is, quite possibly, for them too - even if your children don't or can't understand or benefit from it at this time, OSIT. Similarly, what we're doing here is generating love/knowledge (albeit in an impersonal way) for all those individuals out there who we don't currently know or are close to, but who may one day also see the value of applying the knowledge that we are receiving here. In such a way, we can sort of become their adopted brothers, sisters and 'parents' in the most meaningful of ways.

We were all break away from the negative forces lies that influencing on this world. So, I understand that a large mass of the people's situation. But when it comes to my own children, it makes my heartache.
At first they were favorable toward to Laura, but then when they found some false accusations from Internet, they turned back and thinking that I am the one deceived by Laura.

And they don't even want to examine Laura's work further. They just want to living in this worlds pleasure.
What can I do? I know that in this density, two opposite forces are equally right to exist.
But, still, when I think about my children, the tears gathering in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Let it be this way for now. Show them the benefit of this information by using it in your life. Just because someone isn't ready or has doubts now doesn't mean that they will feel this way forever. The more you give this dynamic between you and your children energy the worse it will be. Respect your childrens level and respect your own level. Improve on what you feel you have to improve upon and move forward. This is the best way for now. This gives you an opportunity to objectively feel love for someone exactly the way they are without trying to change, fix or alter them. One of the hardest lessons IMO especially when it comes to the parent child relationship.

Thank you Ennio and Menna.
I'm really appreciate your consolation and good advice.

And I have been thinking over, perhaps the "true knowledge" is not for, give freely to other person.
So, my conclusion is, when person really and whole heartily seeking/looking for true knowledge, then will find this forum.

obyvatel said:

Here is a different not-so-lethal in the end incident of Gurdjieff's car smashing against a tree.

[quote author=Gurdjieff and The Women of the Rope]

Friday May 14, 1937

Miss Gordon telephoned that he (Gurdjieff) had telephoned from Cannes that "something was" with his car, and that he was taking the train. This noon, still in pajamas and typing, he sent me word he was downstairs. I threw on topcoat and descended. He was pacing up and down, his arm in a sling. Before explaining, he asked all about each patient to whom I had been giving piqûres in his absence. Then he said he had left his car on a steep Alp, engine off, handbrake only holding, while he went to look at the view. In the car there was a woman and children. Suddenly the car moved forward toward the curve and precipice. With one gigantic bound - "never was my brain so quick" - he leaped on the running board, put his arm inside, and steered the Buick straight off the road downhill to the only tree in sight. The car was smashed to bits, but the occupants were saved. He was thrown into the air, turned over several times and fell on his shoulder. "Almost all was finished; me, my work, all of you".

pg156-157

Click to expand...

Before his passing in 1949, Gurdjieff had another serious car accident in 1948. He suffered severe internal injuries in that crash.

From different accounts, Gurdjieff apparently drove quite recklessly. He apparently taught himself driving. Here is Kathryn Hulme, one of the "women of the rope" reminiscing

[quote author=Kathryn Hulme]
He drove like a wild man, cutting in and out of traffic without hand signals or even space to accommodate his car in the lanes he suddenly switched to . . . until he was in them, safe by a hair . . . he always got away first on the green light even (so it seemed) when he was one or two cars behind the starting line . . . the chances he took overtaking buses and trucks were terrifying. I watched with suspended breath each time he swung out around a truck and headed directly into another coming toward him on the narrow two lane road.
[/quote]

Fritz Peters recounted similar accounts where Gurdjieff would drive on the wrong side of the road and would not check for gas or carry enough gas so that the car unexpectedly came to a halt in the middle of the road.

So, even if his accident had a "hyperdimensional" element, Gurdjieff's antics with the car significantly increased the chances of something going wrong on the road.
[/quote]

Thank you for this. I didn't sense that the C's were telling the whole story as the questions weren't specific enough- in the typical fashion of answering what is truly asked (including assumptions- which they play around with sometimes).


Those stories remind me of a friend who drives on the edge a lot of times. Don't get me wrong, I can drive fast too, but I can never push it to the limit. That's why in racing high speed go karts a few years ago, I was never as fast as him, but I was much more consistent. I keep a safe margin which is a weakness but also a strength in the long run. Like in Rally driving or endurance driving, that margin is what adds up.
But he doesn't follow the stoic idea of disaster could happen in any way, just a small dust or oil patch on the road can take that control and turn it into disaster. Gurdjieff had the brakes fail or fade and he had no margin to correct for it.

I'm also reminded of an analogue to mechanical and electrical controls systems. In a loop, you have logical controls based on inputs. If badly designed, the loop can and does go out of the safe parameters without remembering to go back inside. A good programming allows for overshooting and undershooting the target, but adapts to the expectations.
And that's why I love the C's saying that "anticipation restricts". The C's are sort of like the programmers/techs of our reality, lol!

Divide By Zero said:

Thank you for this. I didn't sense that the C's were telling the whole story as the questions weren't specific enough- in the typical fashion of answering what is truly asked (including assumptions- which they play around with sometimes).

Click to expand...

What makes you think this? I'm pretty sure many (if not most) of the participants at that session were probably aware of these details (such stories are pretty standard in most books about Gurdjieff). Plus, none of these quotes apply to Gurdjieff's accident in the '20s.

I noticed that most people think they are good driver.
Instance, my son and most of male in my relatives thinking that but they got a high speed traffic tickets, but I didn't.
And they use cell phone to call or talks or listening loud music while driving, but I don't.
One time my son drove to wrong way street. We saw red signal lights ahead and proceeds to stop, at that moment, I noticed that on the other side, all the car was facing toward us to come.
Luckily we got out to side parking lot just in time.
Maybe this could happen to anybody, if going to new unfamiliar place.
So, now I think good or bad driver is just individuals own perception, but not actual fact.

Gurdjieff died on 1949. Those times or before, there was not many car as today, also not many people know how to drive.
That times, most people used train as safer way to travels, because, it was big and go straight.
But riding in small car see it turns right or left constantly, or when driver go pass to other cars, it might even frightened experience for some person that just seats in back seat.
It is just speculation. We may never know the true.

And have to think about some of old acquaintance from Laura.
Who was/is attacking Laura, with falsifying statements.

Maybe same as Gurdjieff. Some of old students or acquaintance who writes about their own experience of perception while riding with Gurdjieff.
So, it maybe true, maybe not. But this is trifle matter.
Some people always try to find others tiny specks.

Kay Kim said:

I noticed that most people think they are good driver.
Instance, my son and most of male in my relatives thinking that but they got a high speed traffic tickets, but I didn't.
And they use cell phone to call or talks or listening loud music while driving, but I don't.
One time my son drove to wrong way street. We saw red signal lights ahead and proceeds to stop, at that moment, I noticed that on the other side, all the car was facing toward us to come.
Luckily we got out to side parking lot just in time.
Maybe this could happen to anybody, if going to new unfamiliar place.
So, now I think good or bad driver is just individuals own perception, but not actual fact.

Gurdjieff died on 1949. Those times or before, there was not many car as today, also not many people know how to drive.
That times, most people used train as safer way to travels, because, it was big and go straight.
But riding in small car see it turns right or left constantly, or when driver go pass to other cars, it might even frightened experience for some person that just seats in back seat.
It is just speculation. We may never know the true.

And have to think about some of old acquaintance from Laura.
Who was/is attacking Laura, with falsifying statements.

Maybe same as Gurdjieff. Some of old students or acquaintance who writes about their own experience of perception while riding with Gurdjieff.
So, it maybe true, maybe not. But this is trifle matter.
Some people always try to find others tiny specks.

Click to expand...

I think you have the wrong overall picture. The students whose reminiscences are quoted were quite close to Gurdjieff, and remained his students till the end. From some accounts, it seemed some of his close students were concerned about his safety. His driving made them worry about him. There were instances where his students prevented him from driving when they felt he was not up to it. None of them lost their respect for Gurdjieff because of this. His contributions towards their life and well-being were incomparable to such flaws. Yet, they were not the types who would ignore the reality that was in front of them either. That was in keeping with Gurdjieff's teachings. Gurdjieff did not encourage and even actively drove away the "true believer" types.

OK. Obyvatel, probably you are right.
Thanks for your explanation!

Approaching Infinity said:

Divide By Zero said:

Thank you for this. I didn't sense that the C's were telling the whole story as the questions weren't specific enough- in the typical fashion of answering what is truly asked (including assumptions- which they play around with sometimes).

Click to expand...

What makes you think this? I'm pretty sure many (if not most) of the participants at that session were probably aware of these details (such stories are pretty standard in most books about Gurdjieff). Plus, none of these quotes apply to Gurdjieff's accident in the '20s.

Click to expand...

In the past, questions were asked and there were clear responses. Years later, another question lead to a seemingly conflicting answer. The C's would say that they answered the question phrased at the time. If I recall a specific one, I will post it. Sometimes the way the question is asked can affect the way the C's answer. Just off the top of my head- the iodine. In the past it was asked what could help, and iodine wasn't mentioned. But the C's did answer with other things that were the focus at the time that helped. It like they sometimes answer us within the narrow limits of our own expectations to not violate our free will and short cut our own learning.

The quotes may not relate to that time, but as Obvytel posted after your post- it does relate to the way he drove.
I think that yes, the C's said the car was mechanically compromised, but how close did he cut it to not be able to avoid the tree? I've had close calls in the past due to blowouts etc, and always with a margin of safety avoided disaster.
The C's answer of sabotage isn't negated, just that maybe G didn't hold back, like I mentioned my friend who drives on the edge- who luckily never has had a blowout to deal with. Driving on the edge doesn't always mean fast, it could mean doing the opposite of defensive driving- not expecting the worst to happen.

Edit addition:
I think one part of being able to structure water or heal ourselves and others by intent comes from influencing probability. A lot of the psi experiments that check out are dealing with changing probability of a simple event, like a coin toss or random pick.
I'm thinking that STS also can change probability to induce sickness or disaster. So, if you exposed yourself to something dangerous, that risk can be multiplied if STS wants to get you. I think that is why the C's are so adamant on saying that knowledge protects against 4d STS. With knowledge we can avoid situations that would give STS a shot at influencing something bad to happen to us. Anticipation is part of knowledge too. We can't anticipate what we don't know about!

Divide By Zero said:

In the past, questions were asked and there were clear responses. Years later, another question lead to a seemingly conflicting answer. The C's would say that they answered the question phrased at the time. If I recall a specific one, I will post it. Sometimes the way the question is asked can affect the way the C's answer. Just off the top of my head- the iodine. In the past it was asked what could help, and iodine wasn't mentioned. But the C's did answer with other things that were the focus at the time that helped. It like they sometimes answer us within the narrow limits of our own expectations to not violate our free will and short cut our own learning.

Click to expand...

Understood. I'm just not so sure it applies in this particular instance. Like I wrote, I'm pretty sure the chateau crew were fully aware of Gurdjieff's driving reputation. But the question was about this one particular incident, keeping in mind all other things we know about how G drove when he had students in the car with him. Ark even asked for clarification:

Q: (Ark) I want to make it clear what was Gurdjieff's fault? Was he driving unnecessarily fast?

A: No

Q: (Ark) What could he have done better than he did?

A: In this case, not much other than be his own mechanic.

Click to expand...

We don't know how Gurdjieff drove when he was alone. For all we know, he was an excellent driver. Remember who we're dealing with here. This was the guy who would expertly adapt his behavior to push people's buttons, and was able to play any role. For example, there are several indications that he was perfectly fluent in English (among several other languages), but deliberately spoke in a 'difficult' manner for his own purposes. Consider the fact that he was extremely reckless while driving, but never once did he miscalculate or actually get in an accident that harmed anyone with whom he was driving. (Both his accidents were when he was driving alone.) Was he simply lucky?

If you ask the C's if he was speeding, they will say no.
Sometimes they will reply with more information (example: No, he was lighting a cigarette and was distracted, etc).
Sometimes no is a complete answer.

I guess it depends on many factors. If it's something that might be better to discover ourselves, then maybe they just give the raw no answer even if there might be more clues.

I was just thinking that you don't have to drive fast to drive dangerous. He could have been distracted or doing something funny and probability influenced the failure at the perfect time.


Thanks for the reminder on his strategies with people. I'm so glad that the C's, Laura, the group aren't as extreme in trying to wake people up.

Divide By Zero said:

If you ask the C's if he was speeding, they will say no.
Sometimes they will reply with more information (example: No, he was lighting a cigarette and was distracted, etc).
Sometimes no is a complete answer.

I guess it depends on many factors. If it's something that might be better to discover ourselves, then maybe they just give the raw no answer even if there might be more clues.

I was just thinking that you don't have to drive fast to drive dangerous. He could have been distracted or doing something funny and probability influenced the failure at the perfect time.

Click to expand...

I would think the answer to Ark's question would make all your points moot:

Q: (Ark) What could he have done better than he did?

A: In this case, not much other than be his own mechanic.

Click to expand...

If there were any other clues or factors, that was their chance to point them out.

Thanks Beau for pointing that out.

I think the quotes on his crazy driving were what made me wonder.
From the way he was quite extreme in some things, I had this aversion to think that the accident was unavoidable.

Feeling like any of us can be a target despite awareness is a scary thing.
It's things like that which make me feel doomed living on 3d. But maybe that's the point of 3d?