Chief Feature

B

Bar Kochba

Guest
In this post (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13859.msg109790#msg109790) Anart brought up the point that our chief feature is almost impossible for us to "see" without the help of a network. I have pondered this for a long time, and did a search here on the forum but found nothing that would answer my question, which is this: How important is identifying the chief feature in today's work? I suppose what I really want to know is, if one was to ask forum members "What is my chief feature?" would one do it here so everyone could answer, or would one do it privately with members who are the most experienced or advanced in the Work?
Also, how many members have had their chief feature identified and pointed out to them?
I realize it is no small thing to have one's chief feature pointed out to them. It could be the impetus that propels one forward to greater increases in understanding, or on the other hand it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back if one is not ready for such a mirror.
 
Its true that chief feature is almost impossible to see without the help of a network, we are blind to our most obvious habits.

The way one gets to know more about chief feature here in the context of the Cassiopaean Experiment, seems to be through the process of networking over time. Rather than a more direct 'this is your chief feature', it seem more that we get to know ourselves better through sharing, reading, hearing the experiences of others too.

The idea of having it directly pointed out belongs to the context of smaller closed schools of the past I think. The way it is possible to work now didn't exist before, the amount of information that can be shared was not there before. Take the Recommended Reading List for example, there there is plenty of information especially on the psychological side which helps one to better see oneself over time. It is designed as an aid and will help in exposing chief feature, note especially the importance given to Narcissism. It's things like that I think that show the way, not a direct approach which probably isn't going to be helpful. Possibly even creating further problems in people, indeed 'the straw that broke the camel's back' as you put it.

Sometimes one can look back at posts and see that things were being pointed out which were simply not seen or understood at the time. The predator glosses over the things it does not wish to see, is selective. Look and you will see it often in others, think about how that might manifest in yourself, and remember Gurdjieff's imperative to "do what 'it' does not like".
 
Alada said:
Sometimes one can look back at posts and see that things were being pointed out which were simply not seen or understood at the time.

So true. I amaze myself at how much projection I did when my personality was running a "tell it like you see it" program while in a focused attention mode. It makes you project that others are off the mark when the problem is really that your information is incomplete, OSIT.
 
Bar Kochba said:
I realize it is no small thing to have one's chief feature pointed out to them. It could be the impetus that propels one forward to greater increases in understanding, or on the other hand it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back if one is not ready for such a mirror.

Doing a Goggle search I was able to find two historic examples, one of of each kind, which may be common knowledge around here but were quite revealing to me for the topic at hand.

The first can be found here: _http://gurdjiefffourthway.posterous.com/ and concerns Gurdjieff's own development (as appreciated by the author):

"It is a long time now since I have been Mr. Gurdjieff".

Mr. Gurdjieff's chief feature was what is called "Power".
This is what the work describes as chief weakness.
He was described as having a natural energy of a king, one who has
influence and authority over others.

Power people are able to get things, influence outcomes.
Many people in Washington, and the other political centers of the world have power features.
But, of course, may not have the tools to work on them.

When Mr. Gurdjieff experienced his first major car accident, this was something created
by the higher powers that help those in the work, by creating the circumstances to evolve.

A dog he said, jumped out of a vehicle coming in the opposite direction, Mr. Gurdjieff swerved
to avoid the animal, and crashed into a tree.

He foresaw this happening, because he made Mme de Salzmann, his passenger, return to the Prieure
by train that day, and had his mechanic thoroughly check the vehicle for anything that might be in
need of repair.

The severe accident served to reduce his power feature, leaving him more humble,
Don't get too hung up on the numbers, we have a tendency to do this.
But what actually happened, is that by reducing the feature, his higher emotional center was given a
severe and cathartic shock, and began to function. Before this he was a high man number five.

The accident and it's aftermath, helped him to move to the next level of man number six.
(Again, these are technical descriptions we use in the work, this just describes the change he went through)
Few are able to really grasp this. The movement from man number four to man number five, is gradual.
Man number five to man number six, is a complete change forever.
Something he did not tell his students, or could not, is that at some point after the accident,
he had a permanent astral body that started functioning.
This also changed the course of his work, as now he had a greater sense of his own mortality, and realized that
he would have to change the manner of transmission, and so he began to write his book, Beelzebub.

Later in his life, in the last year or so he was hit by a drunk driver in Paris, this caused him enormous pain.

His gave a lunch soon after, and a spasm of pain went through his body, and blood trickled out of his ear.

His students were shocked to see him in such pain, but for his work, he was mastering his body,
the way of the Fakir. A few days later, he was observed to be walking around with a spring in his step,
looking "lighter" and younger. Very likely this accident was again arranged to force him to the next level
so that his higher intellectual center could start to function, and he transitioned to the level of man number seven.

In the meeting notes from the years in Paris, a student begins to ask a question: "Mr. Gurdjieff......"

He is interrupted, "It is a long time now since I have been Mr. Gurdjieff".


The other example concerns the development of Orage (from a bookreview here: _http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/gurdjiefforage.htm)

The Gurdjieff Journal—Fourth Way Perspectives

Book Review
Gurdjieff and Orage:
Brothers in Elysium

by Paul Beekman Taylor
Samuel Weiser, 266 pp.



A central theme of Mr. Gurdjieff's Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' is the defection of Alfred Richard Orage, the noted English literary editor and writer who replaced P.D. Ouspensky and J.G. Bennett as the "helper-instructor" who would help step-down the teaching through founding and leading of Fourth Way groups in America.

Why Orage left has never been entirely clear. Now the publication of Gurdjieff and Orage: Brothers in Elysium by Paul Beekman Taylor, a friend of the Orage family and the first to be given access to Orage's and Gurdjieff's letters and the diaries of Orage's wife Jessie, provides important new perspectives. In his previous book, Shadows of Heaven: Gurdjieff and Toomer, Professor Taylor's studied ambivalence toward Gurdjieff and his admiration for Jean Toomer (who adopted and helped raise Taylor) attempted to resurrect Toomer's reputation while slighting Gurdjieff's. The attempt here is more evenhanded, but, again, Taylor's perspective is more that of an apologist. That said, this is a welcome and important new study of the influences at work in Orage's leaving the teacher and man for whom he had thrown over his whole life to follow.

Orage first met the teaching through Ouspensky, who arrived in London in September 1921. Orage, after years of study of Theosophy, and now hungry for a practical means of self-transformation, immediately accepted Ouspensky as his teacher. However, the following February after hearing Gurdjieff for the first time, Orage afterward declared: "I knew that Gurdjieff was the teacher. Ouspensky for me represented knowledge—great knowledge; Gurdjieff, understanding—though of course Gurdjieff had all the knowledge, too."

A "Helper-Instructor"

Nine months later, forty-nine-year-old A.R. Orage—the man whom T.S. Eliot called "the finest critical intelligence of our day," and whom Bernard Shaw declared was the most brilliant editor of the past century—arrived at the Prieuré, Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man, located in Fontainebleau-en-Avon, southeast of Paris.

Obese, his long fingers stained yellow from years of chain-smoking, Orage expected perhaps to be given the keys to the teaching (just as Gurdjieff had done with Ouspensky and others in Essentuki in July 1917). Instead, he was handed a shovel and told to dig. And this Orage did day after day, often in the afternoon filling in the trenches he had dug in the morning. Brought to his psychic knees, Orage soldiered on, not surrendering to self-pity. One day came a breakthrough into higher mind. Now Gurdjieff—with Ouspensky, Maurice Nicoll and J.G. Bennett refusing to help him—chose Orage to help introduce and establish the teaching in America. Though the choice was de facto, Orage—whom Gurdjieff considered "a brother"—was clearly the best choice.

Like a latter-day John the Baptist, Orage sailed to the New World on December 15, 1923. Magnetic, charming, erudite and worldly, Orage's easy but profound explication of the teaching so captivated the cream of New York's literati that when Gurdjieff and his troop of dancers arrived the following month their public performances drew a large and ready-made audience. When Gurdjieff returned to Paris, he left Orage behind to form and lead groups. With the Prieuré packed with students and the American trip such a success, Gurdjieff's mission of establishing the Fourth Way in the West looked exceptionally bright.

But in July came a terrible shock. Gurdjieff's car crashed into a tree, leaving him in a coma for days. Upon reviving, Gurdjieff radically changed course. Recognizing that despite the high level of students he had drawn to him, the properties of Kundabuffer were too strong and his time too short to train "helper-instructors." He decided to close the institute and hurl the teaching into the future through the creation of a Legominism, entitled All and Everything, a series of three initiatory books.

A Roaming Eye

While Gurdjieff wrote in Paris, Orage in New York taught upwards of 200 pupils who attended his groups and paid monthly dues of ten dollars. With this money, Orage supported Gurdjieff's efforts. The union of the two men was perfect except for Orage's chief feature.[my bold, Pal.] As Taylor delicately phrases it: "He seemed to have a roaming eye for female charms." There was no seeming about it. Only a day after his first talk in New York Orage met twenty-two-year-old Jessie Dwight. Attractive, well-bred, and descended from a long line of Connecticut clergymen, she was, says Taylor, "intelligent, strong-willed, and sure of her desires. She brooked no nonsense from anyone. Her major fault, perhaps, was an unreasoned recklessness. This trait was intensified when she drank, and from her late teens, she had been enjoying alcoholic beverages." More than enjoying, she had a drinking problem. With her ardor, skills and intellect, she became indispensable and soon became Orage's personal secretary. The close working relationship had the predictable result. Orage fell in love. "She is an absolute darling and G will love her," Orage wrote. "He loves 'all or nothing' people, and that disposition, apart from the question of tact, is the first condition of everything 'good.'"


If anything, Jessie was certainly "all or nothing." She meant to have Orage at any cost. From the very first, she saw Orage's allegiance to Gurdjieff as a threat. Orage wanted her to share his life in the Work, but Jessie had no real interest. However, she understood that the way to Orage was through the teaching. Her ambivalence can be seen when she and Orage went to the docks to see Gurdjieff off on his way back to France. In her diary she wrote:
"You come now, very important," Gurdjieff said.

"Not now," she said on the verge of tears. "Not now. September I come with Orage."

"No, now," Gurdjieff said "—very important—now—no Institute maybe in September."

"I hate you," she cried.

Then, he sailed, having grown a beard and wearing a grey soft hat which covered his shaven head. He looked handsome and dashing—an adventurer. He leant over the rail and made signals to his disciples on the pier.... Somehow Gurdjieff attained a mystery and an aloneness—a figure isolated because of his position far above.

"I should not wish," I said to myself, "never to see him again, but why should I go to Fontainebleau?"

And then when the Prophet had sailed from the land of his Abundance or from the land which Orage had made abundant for him, I found that I in truth must go. Orage said so—he did not wish it—he said it had to be done.

"Must I?" I said. "Why should I do anything I do not want to do? Why?"

"You see," he said, "I am dedicated to this. I have given up everything for this. You must go now without me. I will come in September."

And so I went.

Battle for Attention

At the Prieuré, Jessie almost immediately attracted attention. She wore trousers and smoked in public. One day, after Gurdjieff recovered from his car crash, he asked if she had heard from Orage. She had. The next day a notice was posted stipulating that all outgoing letters must be put in a special box and all incoming letters must be signed for and names of correspondents given.

"All my Americanism rose," wrote Jessie. "I walked down the garden with Gurdjieff. I sputtered with rage. 'What do you mean—how dare you?—my letters, I?' Gurdjieff said, 'I not understand.' His English never failed to desert him in someone else's need."

Instead of understanding that Gurdjieff was working with her, and her identification with Orage, Jessie began what would be an all or nothing battle with Gurdjieff for Orage's attention. Orage tried to make her see. In response to her first letter to him, a long list of complaints, he wrote: "The theory is quite simple: to change effectively, one's old moulds of habits must be broken up. One can no more do this for oneself, or by one's own inclination, than one can 'Stop!' oneself. It must be done for us. The institute is just a 'Stop!' exercise for all one's former habits and preoccupations of oneself; and it enables us to see ourselves in a new light.... I have had my reward. I felt centuries older, years younger and infinitely stronger; and I do not despair of one day being a real and really human." It did little good. A steady stream of complaint letters issued from the Prieuré.

In late August Orage arrived. Gurdjieff would not allow them to share quarters. Taylor gives no diary entries for this period but Jessie's state takes no great imagination. A month later the couple sailed back to New York, where Orage, who had been separated from his wife Jean since 1906 but had not obtained a divorce, moved into Jessie's new flat at 19 East 56th where he stayed for a year or so before finding an apartment close by.

Among those Orage drew to him was the intellectual, psychologist and scientist C. Daly King, who after some time was appointed to lead a group in Orange, New Jersey. Attracted to Orage and the teaching, King was ever ambivalent toward Gurdjieff. He would later help Jessie sow seeds of doubt with Orage, challenging Orage's manhood in regard to Gurdjieff.

The next August when Orage and Jessie visited the Prieuré Gurdjieff gave Orage the bulk of the First Series with instructions to put it into publishable English. Gurdjieff had dictated the early text in Armenian to Mme Galumnian Chaverdiian who turned it into Russian. After Gurdjieff's review of the Russian text, Thomas de Hartmann, with the help of Bernard Metz, turned it into literal English.


Notes

1. Shadows of Heaven. See review in Telos, Volume 4, Issue 1. Taylor's not so hidden animus toward Gurdjieff which played out heavily in that book, is not so evident here but does crop up from time to time. Among the most glaring, for example, is to report that Gurdjieff had done "a shocking thing" to his niece Lucie who threatened to tell "unless he sent her home—so he did so—but the poor child is living in a state of fear." Taylor then explains in a footnote that Nikolai de Stjernvall (who was there at the time) said that the so-called scandal was a "row [that] Gurdjieff had with Lucie in his room over a minor incident of misbehavior."

2. "I knew that Gurdjieff was the teacher." See C. S. Nott's Teachings of Gurdjieff (New York: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1961), pp. 2778–28. Curiously, Taylor gives no account of this signal event, as well as a number of others.

3. Keys to the teaching. See P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, p. 346. "Gurdjieff unfolded to us the plan of the whole work. We saw the beginnings of all the methods, the beginnings of all the ideas, their links, their connections and direction."

4. Filling in trenches. This is reminiscent of how Marpa first taught Milarepa.

5. A brother. This comment of Gurdjieff's apparently leads Taylor to consider that Gurdjieff and Orage are equals. This viewpoint is augmented with Taylor's comparison at the book's end of the thought of the two men. That Orage, like Ouspensky, Bennett and Nicoll, or any other of Gurdjieff's students, ever saw themselves as equal in being and knowledge, that is, in understanding, to Gurdjieff is not supported by anything any of the men wrote or said.

6. Charming. Albert Camus, known for his great charm, gives a cogent description of the word in his book The Fall (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959). "They found me charming, imagine that. You know what charm is? A manner of hearing others reply yes when one asks no specific question!"

7. Public performances. Ouspensky mentions in Search that the first obstacle a would-be student has to overcome is to find the teaching. Taking this as unquestioned policy, the mainstream work has always kept a very low profile. But clearly Gurdjieff did otherwise. Ouspensky's book is representative of Gurdjieff's Russian period, a time of upheaval when secrecy was necessary.

8. Female charms. Camus, who also had an eye for the ladies, writes in his Notebooks, p. 279: "Sexual life was given to man perhaps to divert him from his true road. It's his opium. Without it, things come back to life."

9. Ambivalent toward Gurdjieff. See C. Daly King's The Oragean Version, an unpublished manuscript.

10. Gurdjieff regarded me. See James Moore, Gurdjieff: Anatomy of a Myth (London, Element Books, 1991), p. 215.

11. Naïveté. This is likely a code word for Orage's chief feature. Intellectually, of course, Orage was aware of it. As he wrote in the New Age: "Long after the liability to complete subjection to female illusion is over, men sometimes continue to experience perturbations of their equilibrium in the presence of women. In few instances are these perturbations violent enough to overthrow the mind entirely, but for the moment they undoubtedly do cause the judgment to reel and stagger and the resulting conversation and actions to become distorted. These residual phenomena, however, are to be distinguished from the similar phenomena of adolescence by the fact that they no longer inspire hope but disgust or, at least, annoyance." See William Patrick Patterson, Struggle of the Magicians (Fairfax, CA: Arete, 1996), p. 106.

12. 'Lord,' I say. See Louise Welch, Orage with Gurdjieff in America (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.,1982), pp. 11578–17.

13. The acute sensibility. See Philip Mairet, A.R. Orage: A Memoir (New York: University Books, 1966), pp.78–79.
For the remainder of this article, please order The Gurdjieff Journal Issue #25

As Alada stated:
Its true that chief feature is almost impossible to see without the help of a network, we are blind to our most obvious habits.
The way one gets to know more about chief feature here in the context of the Cassiopaean Experiment, seems to be through the process of networking over time. Rather than a more direct 'this is your chief feature', it seem more that we get to know ourselves better through sharing, reading, hearing the experiences of others too.
The idea of having it directly pointed out belongs to the context of smaller closed schools of the past I think.

I think that hits the nail on the head. FWIW.
 
Palinurus said:
Doing a Goggle search I was able to find two historic examples, one of of each kind, which may be common knowledge around here but were quite revealing to me for the topic at hand.

The first can be found here: _http://gurdjiefffourthway.posterous.com/ and concerns Gurdjieff's own development (as appreciated by the author):
I would take this with a very large grain of salt.

[quote author=Palinurus]


"It is a long time now since I have been Mr. Gurdjieff".

Mr. Gurdjieff's chief feature was what is called "Power".
This is what the work describes as chief weakness.
[/quote]
Here is a relevant Gurdjieff quote from ISOTM
[quote author=ISOTM]
Actually a pupil can never see the level of the teacher. This is a law. No one can see higher than his own level.
[/quote]

So I think it is very likely that what the author is not in a position to identify G's chief feature unless G would have told him this himself.

[quote author=Palinurus]
Power people are able to get things, influence outcomes.
Many people in Washington, and the other political centers of the world have power features.
But, of course, may not have the tools to work on them.
[/quote]
Many so-called power people in Washington and other political centers of the world are pathological in nature. I think here the author shows his/her limitation by trying to extrapolate observations which could be valid in the world of "A" influences to the esoteric world and Gurdjieff. OSIT


[quote author=Palinurus]
When Mr. Gurdjieff experienced his first major car accident, this was something created
by the higher powers that help those in the work, by creating the circumstances to evolve.

A dog he said, jumped out of a vehicle coming in the opposite direction, Mr. Gurdjieff swerved
to avoid the animal, and crashed into a tree.

He foresaw this happening, because he made Mme de Salzmann, his passenger, return to the Prieure
by train that day, and had his mechanic thoroughly check the vehicle for anything that might be in
need of repair.

The severe accident served to reduce his power feature, leaving him more humble,
Don't get too hung up on the numbers, we have a tendency to do this.
But what actually happened, is that by reducing the feature, his higher emotional center was given a
severe and cathartic shock, and began to function. Before this he was a high man number five.

...........
The accident and it's aftermath, helped him to move to the next level of man number six.
...........
Very likely this accident was again arranged to force him to the next level
so that his higher intellectual center could start to function, and he transitioned to the level of man number seven.
[/quote]
The higher emotional and intellectual centers do not need any shock to function. Here is what Gurdjieff had to say about this in ISOTM
[quote author=ISOTM]
"In addition to those centers of which we have so far spoken there are two other centers in man, the 'higher emotional' and the 'higher thinking.' These centers are in us; they are fully developed and are working all the time, but their work fails to reach our ordinary consciousness.
[/quote]

Did Gurdjieff ever say that he reached the level of Man 7? How does the author know this?

There is a tendency among some people to elevate their teachers to a level which the teachers themselves often never claimed to have reached - nor would it be possible for the student to gauge that level unless he attained that level for himself. As G said, "no one can see higher than his own level".

My take on this - fwiw
 
Well that was an interesting read about Gurdjieff and Orage. I can look back at my posts from 2 years ago or so and I cringe a bit. I see a major chief fault there, which has lessened tremendously since. I suppose we can have more than one, and when you overcome one, another tries to take its place. Does this sound plausible? Because self pity was a major fault for me back then but definitely isn't as debilitating now. The work has indeed evolved since Gurdjieff, perhaps more of a DIY system. For some at least, meaning the group is important but not everything MUST be done within the group.
 
I have given some thought to the idea of the "Chief Feature". Sure, it would be nice to have someone come along and just tell you what's wrong with you, show you how to wave a magic wand and make it all go away. But I think it would ultimately rob anyone who wants to pursue the Work of the possibilities of some lessons if one were to be told, by someone else who has probably done the Work the hard/right way, what the buffers are and what needs to be done to overcome them.

I think the process of observing the machine and discovering the Chief Feature through one's own effort must be arrived at by each individual student of the Work, of their own accord, because the purpose is not only to break through those buffers and ultimately overcome the predator's mind, but to rewire the machine in such a way that it can become more efficient, stronger and more objective, so that one doesn't get "stuck" between buffers, not having the strength of will to overcome the next hurdle, nor having the possibility of developing such will while stuck in such a pickle. It's a very organic and individual process, but one that still must rely on feedback from a network in terms of looking at the clues, asking if one is on the right track, where one's reasoning is faulty, etc.

An analogy that I think applies is that of someone going to a chiropractor because they have a few discs that have been out of alignment for years. The spine is the obvious fault, and sure, you can correct the spine, but the muscles attached directly to the spine have probably adapted to that holding pattern, and unless you also massage the deep tissue next to the spine and coax it into a new pattern, and then do exercises to strengthen those muscles so that they work properly in a more balanced manner, they'll just go back to their old pattern and probably pull the discs out of alignment again.

If I could hazard at least an educated guess as to my own Chief Feature, I would say it has something to do with overconfidence that results in a rather reckless disregard for pitfalls that result from my own subjectivity. Or in other words, I try to "go it alone" too much because I haven't yet fully understood the value of the give-and-take relationship in a community that leads to objectivity. Not to mention a deathly fear of embarrassment for being discovered as flat out wrong, despite my own assertions to the contrary.

Rather, this may be the Chief Feature of "Patrick", and I also need to learn to distinguish between the Chief Feature of the predator's mind, and what I really AM.
 
The difficulty lies in the lying. We lie to ourselves constantly. I do it, I think everybody does it. I am to the point where I can catch myself, or I catch my machine, doing it. But these things are deeply ingrained and I know I need mirrors to help spot them. I know when I feel defensive about something that its internal considering and perhaps relating to one of my *chief features.* OSIT
 
Hi Bar Kochba,

this post made on October 16, 2009, relating to the discovery of my Chief Feature/Weakness, may help, or not.

In ‘stalking’ my Chief Feature, as well as the writings of Ouspensky and Gold, I made particular use of the following quotes:

I had begun to think that I would never discover my Chief Feature. From everything I had read, it seemed to be the crux of the teaching, the ultimate lever on which everything rose and fell. In the beginning, I had thought that if I found my Chief Feature my inner problem would be solved, although how I had imagined my problem would be solved by this revelation I could no longer remember. Mrs Stavely agreed that with me that my Chief Feature was probably grounded in self love, but of course that was too general to have any meaning. One had to know what it was exactly because it was said to manifest always, in everything, and therefore determined each and every outcome of one’s life.

From all the reading I had done I felt I knew all there was to know about it, even how to theoretically work on it. Then again, I wasn’t sure if one worked on it or with it. Jane Heap had said that Chief Feature was like the magnet in a bowling ball, that always made it go off in a specific way, and that it was only by knowing how to throw the ball – that is, ourselves – could we make it go along our intended path.

Try to find your chief feature – In each of us is a feature that is the key to all our actions – chief fault – The last thing added to tip scales in my activity or situation – MOTIVE Always same motive back of life – In bowling ball there is bias a lead piece put in to make the game more exciting – necessary learn practice to give the ball a certain twist to make it go straight. Our chief feature in us is that bias which makes us go to one side. Given we are making for an object or aim chief feature makes us shoot off to the side and prevents our reaching object or aim – As in bowling we can learn to give necessary twist to our chief feature to make it let us go straight – Difficult to find one’s Chief Feature. No matter what you think you are – or pretend that you are – your true pitch in respect of your three processes (three centers) is disclosed in your Chief Feature.

Some indications of what Chief Feature is.

Pattern of one’s essential wishes – motives – Chief Feature is mechanical –

20 chief features can be reduced to combinations of 3 – Chief Feature is of the essence, in the emotions – Is not real, it is imaginary –

In looking for your Chief Feature don’t follow type don’t follow whim –

Write a description of yourself as if of another person.

Chief Feature gives the illusion of Freedom Absence of choice of wishes equals Freedom

We might live in a palace – but we live in one room – the kitchen. Range so small – based on five things – Five interests controlling our actions –

Greed Self Pride Lying Fear Sex

Chief Feature one or combination of these – Take long list and reduce to this –

Find it – is a short cut to consciousness – Once found use it consciously -

Assumption that you are what you essentially wish to be -

Mrs Stavely let me know that it could take years to find one’s Chief Feature. […]
And then, […] she told me what my Chief Feature was: Complaining.

“Complaining?” I muttered. “Complaining!” Isn’t that amazing, I thought to myself, the one thing I have never done. I gave her a puzzled look, but made no comment.

Nonny smiled. “Of course, that’s it!”

For a long time I could not see the truth of it. Nor did I wish to see the truth of it. I asked myself how something that was so clear to everyone else could be so opaque for me. And so hidden. Obviously, we couldn’t know what we did, if we didn’t know how or why we did what we did. It was said in the work that we were an open book to everyone except ourselves. If I couldn’t see my own Chief Feature, then what could I see? I had to conclude that my life was perpetuating itself in the dark.

Finally, it dawned on me. What others called complaining, I was calling something else. But, ironically, I had no name for it. What I was probably doing, or thought I was doing, was correcting the situation.

The references are:
Heap J, (1983, 1994) The Notes of Jane Heap, Aurora OR, Two Rivers Press
Kherdian D, (1998) On a Spaceship with Beelzebub, Rochester, Inner Traditions International

In arriving at my Chief Feature I took objective comments from people that I knew well (two different sources of networks – work and social/mixed), and worked from there. This was 5 or more years ago.

As others ‘saw me’ I worked on an exercise of comparing each item of ‘how others saw me’ with: what I called it; what I thought I was doing (correcting the situation?); and what I was really doing. From this I arrived at an ‘over arching’ word to describe my Chief Feature. Secondly, I mind-mapped each of the words people used in ‘how they saw me’ to arrive at subcomponents of the Chief Feature and from that the associated fears.

In struggling against chief Feature, as well as the work of Ouspensky, I made use of the following quote:

I began to observe my complaining as complaining. And this growing ability to see myself as others saw me – which I had only had glimpses of before – began to open a new world for me. In the beginning I had felt so justified in my complaining that I seriously questioned if there was any other possible response. I could see why I had been blind to my Chief Feature: my response was the only reality I could bring to what I considered an untenable situation. In my view, all of life was crazy, only my response was sane and intelligent.
Gurdjieff had urged us to reason. He said we were to begin from where we were, to use what reason we possessed, and that by doing this our reason would increase. This is what I now had to begin to do.

The first key in my reasoning: I couldn’t see what my actual response was because it wasn’t intentional or thought out. The second key: I couldn’t alter it in any way. Summation: my response was in fact a reaction, a mechanical reaction. Although I was powerless to stop it, I could attempt not to express it.

In working towards overcoming Chief Feature and awakening, as well as the work of Castaneda and the works of Ouspensky, I made use of the following quotes:

An exercise that we were given around that time was a big help. Whenever we were disturbed by something, or someone, we were to hold our disturbance by remembering neither to express it, nor suppress it – but simply to contain it.

I learned from this exercise that my reaction to everything is partial, that even if I am correct in what I see, I am only correct about my view of it, which is always limited because I look at everything from myself, from my own self-centered point of view. By practicing this exercise I began to widen the picture and, aided by the disturbance and the friction I caused in myself by neither expressing nor repressing my disturbance, I kept it alive in myself as a question, which sooner or later revealed a truth which, if it was not the final truth, was a definite step in the direction of reality.
[…]
As my understanding of my affliction began to deepen, I was able to refine the definition of my Chief Feature, for I had come to understand better and better where it came from, and even how it occurred.

Complaining was the manifestation, but what I was really doing inside was assigning blame. This is how I had responded to the criticism and prejudice that were imposed on me in school. Instead of accepting the discrimination I had suffered then, I turned the arrow against my tormenters: I was not at fault, they were. And it was just here that I took my twist. From then on, everything that seemed off was someone else’s fault, not mine. I realized now why I never apologized, even when I was able to concede that maybe I was partially to blame, and also why I was always scowling.

I was slowly building the muscle for self-observation, and when we were given again the exercise of observing our inner attitudes, which had always been so difficult for me to see, I decided this time that instead of observing my behaviour, I would attempt to ponder for long periods of time, asking again and again to be shown.

And then, one day, again mysteriously, it was given to me to see – and in the most amazing way. It felt as if I was plucking up my inner attitude – my chief inner attitude, which felt as significant for my work as the knowledge of my Chief Feature – from out of a deep, dark hole in myself. This attitude, I saw now, was something very real, as real as some inner, secret entity that is cloaked in silence and is able to operate without word, utterance or articulation, but that in fact defines itself, but never in words, so as not to be detected. But there were words for this, an exact phrase that fitted perfectly the action, the very life of this inner attitude. And the words were: I’ve been cheated, they owe me.

Just that – but exactly that. Now I saw how my life was controlled. This, more than self-love, and vanity, as Gurdjieff had said, marched ahead of me and arranged my life. When this button was touched, as it often was, I went into a mode – that the work called an “I,” – in which I could do things such as stealing, lying, falsifying, and in which I was totally justified. And I saw that I was able to commit these acts of violence – as I saw them now, on reflection – because I had felt myself wronged.

This one gift had the effect of changing my life to the extent that I could now see when I began to fall into this mode of self-pity which was always coupled with self-justification.

Repeating the phrase, I’ve been cheated, they owe me, to myself had the effect of exorcising this demon, which, although it had been tamed, still resided in the black chamber of my unbecoming, apparently conquered, but not yet subsumed.

[…] If we have learned anything about work, we will realize that our Chief Weakness, as with all mechanicalities of the machine, can be an instrument for the awakening on the machine. […]
[…]
But what is our enemy now can also be our greatest ally in the Work. One big part of work is to learn how to turn these involuntary enemies into friends fro work.

How can we struggle against our Chief Weakness when it is only active during periods of deep sleep of the machine and is therefore invisible to our observation? We can listen to the machine’s thoughts and words as if listening to a stranger speaking on a radio over a long distance. We may be very shocked to hear some of the ideas which spring from the mouth of the machine, but do not reflect our ideas at all.


You are to actively study [the repertoire of all negative manifestations of the machine] from now on, completely, closely, in every little detail, exactly as a scientist would study a newly discovered species.

If you have little love for science and even less for zoology, paleontology, biology or any of the ‘ologies’, you could, if you prefer, study the manifestations of the machine in another way, as a role would be studied by an actor preparing a character for the stage.

This should not be too difficult. According to observation, the number of manifestations existing in the human machine repertoire is absurdly limited… so limited that it is almost impossible to distinguish a human being from a store dummy.

As a matter of fact, several times in the course of a shopping expedition, we will find ourselves asking one or another store dummy for the exact time. And conversely we have occasionally been startled to discover that what we had first taken to be a store dummy was a living human being… in the rough sense of the word.

In the course of studying the machine, whichever of the two you decide to use, whether studying the machine as a crocodile or as a theatrical character, try to find that particular manifestation – usually seemingly trivial – upon which the machine depends the most.

It will appear ridiculous to you to even concern yourself with such a trifle, but to others who know you, it is not at all insignificant, just by describing this one little feature you could easily be identified.

This little manifestation, as small and unimportant as it is, nevertheless appears many thousands of times each day and is your most customary posture. Taken as a fulcrum to give us leverage for the observation of the human biological machine, it is called the Chief Weakness.

The study of the negative manifestations of the machine helps us to record in our higher mental apparatus all those activities originated by the biological machine, but which we now attribute to our own will and initiation.

Simple observation will bring about slow change through the influence of the non-phenomenal self, using one of the very few techniques which can change our organic habits without making worse ones in their place.


When we can assure ourselves that we can re-enter the sleeping state whenever we wish, we will be far less reluctant to leave the sleeping state and enter the waking state. If we have the key for reintegration of the sleeping state, we also have the key to achieving the waking state.
[…]In a sense, the intentional disintegration and reintegration of the sleeping state is the key to the waking state. When we are able to freely leave the sleeping state, enter the waking state and then leave the waking state and reenter the sleeping state, the machine will no longer fear the waking state, and the defence mechanism will slowly disarm itself, almost effortlessly.

Ironically, the key to awakening is actually hidden in the sleeping state.

The determined – and successful – pursuit of the waking state eventually and inevitably activates the chronic, making someone who is working on himself about as pleasant to live with as an angry camel.

Naturally the machine avoids the waking state because it dreads having to put the meaning of its ordinary existence back together again. The sleeping state has to be reconstructed each time from the waking state. It is all shattered and fragmented into […] its primary components.
[…]
The machine wishes to avoid the fragmentation, the loss of face of the waking state, because to the machine the waking state is like death.
[…]
Only […] when we know how to consciously produce the sleeping state, will the machine no longer fear the waking state.

The essential self, of course, does not fear the waking state; it prefers it, […]

[…] once in the waking state, it will relax, and all the piss-and-vinegar will go out of the machine.
[…]

In the waking state, all the elements of sleep, all those things which make us suffer under their dominant force, will be absent.
The chronic and everything that serves the chronic will be absent. […] the chronic – and everything which serves the chronic – actually forms the sleeping state.

Unlike hypnotism, in the natural waking state there is no external source of will and therefore, when the machine enters the waking state, it tends to come to a grinding halt, because there’s no one out there to tell it what to do, and no hint from inside, either.

At this point, the machine is in danger of being conditioned by an external source of will. […] imposed upon a machine which has been brought into a temporary waking state through shock and strong emotion, in the same way that a hypnotist can impose his or her will, except that in the case of the hypnotist, the waking state also was imposed from outside.
[…]

The point is that, if an ordinary hypnotist can bring the machine into a waking state and then impose external will upon it, there must be a way of forcefully preventing the chronic defence mechanism from activating.

The waking state and the hypnotic state are related – the only serious difference is that in the waking state there is no hypnotist, but in both cases, the methods of bringing the machine into the waking state are more or less the same.

Almost every method of producing the waking state takes advantage of the fact that it is possible to use artificial means to prevent the machine from using the chronic to defend itself against the waking state.
[…]
But in any case, whether through hypnosis or self-produced efforts, we cannot successfully bring the machine into the waking state until the machine is absolutely convinced of its ability to reconstruct the sleeping state.
[…]
With the key to the sleeping state, we have eliminated the machine’s primary objection to the waking state.

Now I don’t know what people think of Gold’s work, but it does provide ideas to work on. Needless to say, the work is still ongoing!

And then there is this!?!
The following is the account of an experience which Janet, a medical doctor located in New York, had with her chronic and how she was able to use it to cross into the waking state.

“It was very late at night and I was working in the intensive care unit. The ICU, as we call it, is a very high pressure ward. I was exhausted and all I wanted to do was go to sleep, but I couldn’t. I had to follow one of my patients very closely if I didn’t want to lose him.
“I kept hoping I would be able to rest for a few minutes but it was impossible, I couldn’t take a break and lie down for a while, I just had to keep going.
“At that point, it was necessary to have a lab test done immediately. It was a question of life or death. I was really concerned with this patient. But I was so exhausted, all I wanted to do was to go to sleep. So I became annoyed that I couldn’t get any rest. My chronic just came right up and I got very angry.
“I already knew from prior observation that my personal chronic was anger, so I was not particularly surprised to see it once again. Anyway, I got angry, sharp and crisp as I usually do when my chronic is active.
“I took a blood sample and brought it over to an orderly and asked him to bring it to the lab for me and have the test run. The test takes about forty-five seconds all together. The orderly refused to bring the sample to the lab because of Union rights. You can imagine how that fired my chronic! I was furious!
I went to the lab myself and when I got there, the technician wasn’t in the lab to run my blood right away. So I had to do it myself. I was seething! My chronic was in full operation.
All of a sudden I caught my reflection in a little mirror hanging on the wall. I just happened to turn around and there I was face to face with my chronic. I saw my chronic fully operating. What a shock! That was it. Everything went boom and I was suddenly awake. My anger was gone.
“The room changed slightly. It wasn’t freaky and farout like it has been or could be. It was just what it was for that moment.
“But I knew, I absolutely knew that my machine was in the waking state and that this occurred in relation to the operation of my chronic. I understood in what way I could use my chronic to achieve the waking state. I knew how it worked and I knew that if I could use my chronic more often in that way then I could achieve the waking state more often.
“Now I know that the state I was in is the last step, the only thing that is in my way to the waking state. I know that this is my protection device, the thing that is protecting me from the waking state. For some reason at that moment there was no danger from my entering the waking state, so I was able to make that transition, I can’t tell why. At that moment I could, at other times I can’t.
“Maybe the reason that it happened to me is because I was aware of myself in that moment and I was provided with the shock of seeing my chronic in the mirror. It was as if some sort of strange alien mask had affixed itself over my face.
“The point is that maybe there is a way that we can provide a shock for ourselves at the point at which we can really be observing ourselves and know we are just about there. […]
“But we shouldn’t have to depend on accidental shock. There must be something that we can intentionally do, if we are aware enough to know that we are near the waking state.
[…]
“The thing that made the difference was that as a result of being aware of my chronic and using the presence techniques that I have learned over the past year from working with G.’s books, […] I become aware of the fact that my chronic is active and I remember to observe the machine under the spell of the chronic. […] observe the force of the chronic upon the machine.
[…]
…] The key to getting really close [to the waking state] is to not explode the energy. […] keep it on the inside, […] Anger is my key. This does not mean that I should go out of my way to make myself deliberately angry.
“When the chronic is working, it means that I am bumping into the waking state, […] And I have been able to even allow myself to cross over into the waking state by doing one of two things.
”Number one, certainly not trying to get rid of my chronic. And secondly not exploding. Not allowing the catharsis. […] the next step is either to stay where I am or to make the leap.
[…]
“We must remember that when our chronic is most powerful then we are at our closest point to the waking state, […]
[…]
“We must search out the situations which most activate the chronic. These are the situations we should be in most of the time, as much as we can tolerate it without making ourselves sick.
“If we can succeed in maintaining ourselves in these stressful situations, then eventually a shock will be provided. […]
…]
“You are going to try to get rid of the chronic by various means. And one of the ways is to judge it. Another way is to intellectualise it out of existence or to sublimate it and to bring it into a higher plane. You don’t want to do that. You want to wallow in the chronic without manifesting the chronic, although if you manifest a little bit that is fine. Not much though. And let it grab you by the hand. Let it take you to the promised land. The thing you hate most is your guide.
[…]
“It is just a matter of realizing that your chronic has been activated and allowing it to take you. Like a guide, it will take you by the hand and lead you to the waking state. (

The quoted references are:

Gold E J, (1989) Practical Work on Self, Navada City CA, Gateway/IDBHHB, Inc.
Gold EJ, (1991) The Human Biological Machine as a Transformational Apparatus, Navada City CA, Gateway/IDBHHB, Inc.
Kherdian D, (1998) On a Spaceship with Beelzebub, Rochester, Inner Traditions International

I recently read The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective, by: Richard Rohr and Andreas Ebert (trans. Peter Heinegg)- using this purely in terms of finding one's Chief Feature from the description of 'an' enneagram personality type - the one which gave you the most 'goose bumps' or 'laughter at self' identifying it, and from that discovering the 'root sin' of the type, and sugggesting ways to 'get out of the box that you're in'. It was close to what I'd previously discovered.

A massive wake-up call to get into action and do something about counteracting my Chief Feature. :)
 
[quote author=Bar Kochba]
I can look back at my posts from 2 years ago or so and I cringe a bit. I see a major chief fault there, which has lessened tremendously since. I suppose we can have more than one, and when you overcome one, another tries to take its place. Does this sound plausible?
[/quote]

Yes, as if examining the machine is like peeling an onion. Maybe we don't fully realise what the machine is made of until we get somewhere near the middle, then looking back at all the peelings scattered about the on the floor thus far and it falls into place - it's an onion.

[quote author=Jakesully]
If I could hazard at least an educated guess as to my own Chief Feature, I would say it has something to do with overconfidence that results in a rather reckless disregard for pitfalls that result from my own subjectivity. Or in other words, I try to "go it alone" too much because I haven't yet fully understood the value of the give-and-take relationship in a community that leads to objectivity. Not to mention a deathly fear of embarrassment for being discovered as flat out wrong, despite my own assertions to the contrary.
[/quote]

To carry on the vegetable theme, one can explore further by looking for the root of a thing. The machine will ascribe qualities to itself that it likes and call them chief feature, when they are a manifestation of something else, hidden. The machine, the predator's mind working on its own will only produce what it wants you to see, what leads in the wrong direction.

Part of the problem is that the machine will not of its own accord do anything to undermine itself, it is quite happy ruling the roost. But it is possible begin seeing elements of chief feature in ourselves by consciously working against the machine. By taking the knowledge gathered and applying it to ourselves. Bit by bit one gets a pretty good idea what 'it' does not like that way, each of the things that 'it' does not like becomes a layer of what we are trying to see.
 
Strange. As I was reading your post, Trevrizent, and contemplating on what my Chief Feature could be, I eventually honed in on the fact that I have the tendency to wring my hands together and roll the flakes of dead skin into a ball that I then roll between my first/middle finger and thumb endlessly. Not sure if this IS the Chief Feature or a subsequent program.

In any case, as I was reading, I decided to stop fidgeting like this, and instead of acting or resisting, simply observing the sensation of *wanting* to fidget. And as I continued reading and observing myself, I suddenly felt overcome with a very intense and emotional release in the form of laughter. Still trying to get a handle on what's happening and what's being released, if anything.

Alada: thanks for the response, I can see how that is so.
 
Jakesully said:
Strange. As I was reading your post, Trevrizent, and contemplating on what my Chief Feature could be, I eventually honed in on the fact that I have the tendency to wring my hands together and roll the flakes of dead skin into a ball that I then roll between my first/middle finger and thumb endlessly. Not sure if this IS the Chief Feature or a subsequent program.

In any case, as I was reading, I decided to stop fidgeting like this, and instead of acting or resisting, simply observing the sensation of *wanting* to fidget. And as I continued reading and observing myself, I suddenly felt overcome with a very intense and emotional release in the form of laughter. Still trying to get a handle on what's happening and what's being released, if anything.

Alada: thanks for the response, I can see how that is so.

I don't think that a chief feature is fidgeting; it is rather a psychological thing, usually doing or thinking something that one thinks (lies to the self) is one thing, but is actually something else altogether. Probably a good passage to contemplate in this regard is Gurdjieff's comments on "abuse of sex" and the "Louse on the Lady's Bonnet" post that is somewhere here in the forum.
 
I apologise for creating noise with bringing in the quote about Gurdjieff.

I think I got carried away by the charming aspects of the anecdote which diminished my discernment quite considerably. Therefore it seemed plausible to me.

Thanks to obyvatel for setting me straight on this with the much valued extra info I apparently needed here. Thank you.
 
Laura said:
Jakesully said:
Strange. As I was reading your post, Trevrizent, and contemplating on what my Chief Feature could be, I eventually honed in on the fact that I have the tendency to wring my hands together and roll the flakes of dead skin into a ball that I then roll between my first/middle finger and thumb endlessly. Not sure if this IS the Chief Feature or a subsequent program.

In any case, as I was reading, I decided to stop fidgeting like this, and instead of acting or resisting, simply observing the sensation of *wanting* to fidget. And as I continued reading and observing myself, I suddenly felt overcome with a very intense and emotional release in the form of laughter. Still trying to get a handle on what's happening and what's being released, if anything.

Alada: thanks for the response, I can see how that is so.

I don't think that a chief feature is fidgeting; it is rather a psychological thing, usually doing or thinking something that one thinks (lies to the self) is one thing, but is actually something else altogether. Probably a good passage to contemplate in this regard is Gurdjieff's comments on "abuse of sex" and the "Louse on the Lady's Bonnet" post that is somewhere here in the forum.

Thanks Laura, reading the Louse on the Lady's Bonnet post was VERY informative and helped me understand some things.

The way I've been behaving has been a more subtle form of the "right man". Not so strong that I have been turned off by being provided a mirror, but still enough that I was subconsciously "self-calming" and compensating. And now I understand why Anart specifically used the word compensating in the other thread.

Furthermore, I think I work in the way of Man #2.

Going to read Gurdjieff's comments on abuse of sex in a moment. Time for a healthy smoke break. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom