Mouravieff - Ouspensky, Gurdjieff & Fragments

This seems to be an article by Mouravieff that discusses Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. I did a search on the forum but couldn't find any links to it. Can be downloaded for free from here:

_http://www.4shared.com/document/W_fROu2c/Mouravieff_-_Ouspensky_Gurdjie.html?fb_xd_fragment#?=&cb=f15c8a8733a748b&relation=parent&transport=fragment&frame=f5ba7d27709206

I've only read the first couple of pages (out of 23), but it seems to be worth reading. The writer states that his main disagreement with Ouspensky was that O. didn't separate the man (G.) from the message:

"For Ouspensky put the MESSENGER, that is Gurdjieff, at the exact centre of the events to which the turmoil was driving him. So much so that, in 1928, in Constantinople he was still comparing him to Socrates, leaving it to be understood that his own role was that of Plato. But Socrates was a hero, while Gurdjieff enjoyed the jolly life. We should never minimise the merits of Gurdjieff and we must not forget that he brought his message when he was no more than a primitive man, not having fallen into grave contradictions with himself. "

Does anyone know more about this article?

It took me a while to find my way to the article, Hithere.
Maybe because I'm using a Mac.
Interesting article. I have read several biographies of Gurdjieff, and articles about Ouspensky.
I am reminded of more contemporary gurus, the Maharishis and Muktanandas of the 1960s on, and their strange legacies.
I have always been uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of the Gurdjieff approach,
telling people of their uselessness and the emptiness of their lives, the bullying, the alternation between kindness and rage,
all reminds me of classical military brainwashing: tear the student down, reduce their self concept to ash and then rebuild it as the teaching requires.
I don't doubt the merit of Gurdjieff's ideas, but I worry about their application.
And that is what I have seen for decades around so many teachers:
the merit/validity/virtue (or appearance thereof) of the teaching or message vs the methods/motives of the Teacher/Messenger.
It seems that once one is revered as a teacher the temptation to take advantage of, or get messy with, that stature is almost inevitable.
On the other hand, I thought that Mouravieff's very cursory dismissal of the Islamic sources in Gurdjieff's work,
and the dismissal of Gurdjieff's own ideas and creations (pg 13, paragraph 2) way too facile, and quite surprising, and suspect, for that reason.
As a sentimentalist, I'm always bothered by the sniping between Teachers..

Hithere said:

"For Ouspensky put the MESSENGER, that is Gurdjieff, at the exact centre of the events to which the turmoil was driving him. So much so that, in 1928, in Constantinople he was still comparing him to Socrates, leaving it to be understood that his own role was that of Plato. But Socrates was a hero, while Gurdjieff enjoyed the jolly life. We should never minimise the merits of Gurdjieff and we must not forget that he brought his message when he was no more than a primitive man, not having fallen into grave contradictions with himself. "

Click to expand...

You may find this thread interesting. William Patrick Patterson has addressed the relationship between Mouravieff and Gurdjieff in his book "Taking with the left hand" - which is referenced in the linked thread.

"Struggle of the Magicians" by the same author explores the relationship between Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and others students. This book is referenced quite a number of times in the forum - here is one thread.

These two books (or quotes from them) and associated discussions may help in understanding some of the above comments/issues.

denekin said:

It took me a while to find my way to the article, Hithere.
Maybe because I'm using a Mac.
Interesting article. I have read several biographies of Gurdjieff, and articles about Ouspensky.
I am reminded of more contemporary gurus, the Maharishis and Muktanandas of the 1960s on, and their strange legacies.
I have always been uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of the Gurdjieff approach,
telling people of their uselessness and the emptiness of their lives, the bullying, the alternation between kindness and rage,
all reminds me of classical military brainwashing: tear the student down, reduce their self concept to ash and then rebuild it as the teaching requires.
I don't doubt the merit of Gurdjieff's ideas, but I worry about their application.

Click to expand...

I think that sort of sentiment arises from a vast lack of understanding of the 'ideas' of Gurdjieff, as you put it. It also has the flavor of the 'predator afraid of being discovered' talking. In fact, I would posit that a person with such an opinion on the work of Gurdjieff has no understanding of it at all.

I am reminded of more contemporary gurus, the Maharishis and Muktanandas of the 1960s on, and their strange legacies. I have always been uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of the Gurdjieff approach, telling people of their uselessness and the emptiness of their lives, the bullying, the alternation between kindness and rage, all reminds me of classical military brainwashing: tear the student down, reduce their self concept to ash and then rebuild it as the teaching requires. I don't doubt the merit of Gurdjieff's ideas, but I worry about their application.

Click to expand...

I've had similar thoughts; but as I see it G probably often were able to handle people in this way and still make them see sides of themselves they wouldn't have chosen to look at otherwise. But I think a network is a superior approach to this, as people like G are rare.

And that is what I have seen for decades around so many teachers: the merit/validity/virtue (or appearance thereof) of the teaching or message vs the methods/motives of the Teacher/Messenger.
It seems that once one is revered as a teacher the temptation to take advantage of, or get messy with, that stature is almost inevitable.

Click to expand...

I agree again; this seems to be part of the Modus Operandi for most teachers before and after G, and the reason it seems to work may be because many searching people unconsciously want to find a leader; it looks to me as if this is part of the objective for many who are searching, esoteric or otherwise.

On the other hand, I thought that Mouravieff's very cursory dismissal of the Islamic sources in Gurdjieff's work, and the dismissal of Gurdjieff's own ideas and creations (pg 13, paragraph 2) way too facile, and quite surprising, and suspect, for that reason.

Click to expand...

I thought Gnosis was well-written and systematic, but it is difficult to know if M copied from G or if he had his own independent teachings (maybe from Mt Athos) that he then felt were challenged by G's teachings.
M seems to have insisted upon an elitist thinking as the solution to the worlds' problems, both in Gnosis and through his affilitaion with the Synarchists. To me it comes off like M felt himself to be too "refined" to "stoop down" to G's level; where G seems to have enjoyed his meals and his drinks, and also allegedly had erotic interludes with some females after his wife passed away, M seems to me to have been more of the academic in the ivory tower.

There is more on G, Ouspensky and Mouravieff in the threads that Obyvatel kindly produced, and also this thread:

_http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,215.msg90649.html#msg90649

Hithere, it seems clear that Mouravieff disliked or didn't trust the rustic and "crude" side of Gurdjieff's nature.
And it seems he was of the Ivory Tower, and so entrenched in his Christianity that he couldn't relate to, or maybe allow, other influences to be valid.

For anart, I am uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of Gurdjieff's approach, as I am uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of a great many teachers-
those who I have known and lived around and those I have heard about. That heavy handedness can be called for, that it can be the Perfect Teaching Instrument
for a given person in a given moment is without doubt. That it CAN be a moderately useful didactic device is also without doubt.
And, ,it seems to me, that it CAN also be a useless and stupid tactic is without doubt.
That Gurdjieff's Teaching is excellent is something I would not dispute. That Gurdjieff was omniscient and always behaved with perfect probity I would wonder about.

What I wrote was not an invalidation of the merit of Gurdjieff's teaching. At the same time, I would argue that almost all groups have an element of brainwashing to them.
That members of the group reward one for embracing the group's ideology, and punish one for "straying" is itself an accepted form of brainwashing.
Is the essence of my problem my "vast lack of understanding", (I wouldn't be terribly surprised), is it "the predator afraid of being discovered" (always a distinct possibility, I suspect),
is it that I have no understanding at all (sure, why not?)?

Or is the problem that I have revealed a disquiet I have with Gurdjieff, who is a very big part of the overall Cassiopaean enterprise.
To be direct, have I revealed my stature as barbarous heathen scum? I ask that question 50% with a wry sense of humour, and 50% seriously.

denekin said:

Hithere, it seems clear that Mouravieff disliked or didn't trust the rustic and "crude" side of Gurdjieff's nature.
And it seems he was of the Ivory Tower, and so entrenched in his Christianity that he couldn't relate to, or maybe allow, other influences to be valid.

Click to expand...

Putting Gurdjieff and Mouravieff on the same level could be problematic. Mouravieff collected and passed on an ancient tradition - but he may not have had the capability to "live" what he passed on. Here is what the C's had to say on Mouravieff
[quote author=C's]
A: Mouravieff, like many who have protected and passed on the "tradition" are merely carriers and not interpreters of the capacity of a Master.
[/quote]
In his encounters with G, M perhaps only saw what G wanted him to see - namely his crude or rustic side.

[quote author=denekin]
For anart, I am uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of Gurdjieff's approach,
[/quote]

Can you provide some examples? Merits or lack of it of any approach is heavily dependent on context. So looking at examples which may add some context may be helpful in better understanding.

[quote author=denekin]
And, ,it seems to me, that it CAN also be a useless and stupid tactic is without doubt.
That Gurdjieff's Teaching is excellent is something I would not dispute. That Gurdjieff was omniscient and always behaved with perfect probity I would wonder about.
[/quote]
Where did this idea that "Gurdjieff was omniscient" come from?

[quote author=denekin]
What I wrote was not an invalidation of the merit of Gurdjieff's teaching. At the same time, I would argue that almost all groups have an element of brainwashing to them.
That members of the group reward one for embracing the group's ideology, and punish one for "straying" is itself an accepted form of brainwashing.
[/quote]
G called his system 4th Way - where understanding is demanded of the students. Here is a relevant quote from "In Search Of the Miraculous" (ISOTM) - have you had the chance to read this book yet?

[quote author=ISOTM]
Schools of the fourth way demand understanding before anything else. Results of efforts are always proportional to understanding.
"Renunciation of his own decisions, subordination to the will of another, may present insuperable difficulties to a man if he had failed to realize beforehand that actually he neither sacrifices nor changes anything in his life, that all his life he has been subject to some extraneous will and has never had any decisions of his own. But a man is not conscious of this. He considers that he has the right of free choice. It is hard for him to renounce the illusion that he directs and organizes his life himself. But no work on himself is possible until a man is free from this illusion.
[/quote]

Washing of the brain is not a bad thing by itself - it gets the dirt and cobwebs out. ;)

[quote author=denekin]
Or is the problem that I have revealed a disquiet I have with Gurdjieff, who is a very big part of the overall Cassiopaean enterprise.
To be direct, have I revealed my stature as barbarous heathen scum? I ask that question 50% with a wry sense of humour, and 50% seriously.
[/quote]

This forum is modeled as a 4th Way school where understanding and not blind faith is encouraged. Take a look at the "NewAge and Cointelpro" section to see the amount of work that is done to study and analyze various so-called teachers and doctrines. So, having a "disquiet" with Gurdjieff is not a problem by itself - if you are willing to explore the issue and take on board the views of the network for your consideration. The founders of the forum (Laura, Ark) did not start with Gurdjieff - but through a lot of research and study, came to the point of accepting and building on the foundations that he had laid down.

By the way, you did not reveal yourself as "barbarous heathen scum" but as a "sleeping, dreaming machine" like the rest of humanity, including this forum. Only here, we are engaged in the effort to first see that we are sleeping and then work collectively to help each other wake up. :)

denekin said:

Hithere, it seems clear that Mouravieff disliked or didn't trust the rustic and "crude" side of Gurdjieff's nature.

Click to expand...

That is an enormous assumption, though from what you've written thus far on this forum, it appears you tend to make assumptions and not question them.

d said:

And it seems he was of the Ivory Tower, and so entrenched in his Christianity that he couldn't relate to, or maybe allow, other influences to be valid.

Click to expand...

There is a palpable biblical gloss to his writings, yet there is truth there for those with eyes to see.

d said:

For anart, I am uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of Gurdjieff's approach, as I am uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of a great many teachers-

Click to expand...

Just because you are personally uncomfortable means nothing. It is your subjective opinion and says much more about you than it does Gurdjieff or his approach.

d said:

those who I have known and lived around and those I have heard about. That heavy handedness can be called for, that it can be the Perfect Teaching Instrument
for a given person in a given moment is without doubt. That it CAN be a moderately useful didactic device is also without doubt.

And, ,it seems to me, that it CAN also be a useless and stupid tactic is without doubt.

Click to expand...

It seems quite obvious to me that you are measuring things you cannot See. A man cannot see above his level, yet you sit where you are and measure and weigh things you do not understand. This is obvious, yet you do not see it. Again, it says much more about you than it does about Gurdjieff or any other teaching.

d said:

That Gurdjieff's Teaching is excellent is something I would not dispute.

Click to expand...

Yet, you are. The teaching and it's form are inseparable, though the man and the message can be separate - can you see that?

d said:

That Gurdjieff was omniscient and always behaved with perfect probity I would wonder about.

Click to expand...

Who ever stated that he behaved with 'perfect probity'? Even Gurdjieff would not say that. You are not only confusing the man with the message, you are weighing and measuring from your limited vantage and are 'not even wrong'.

d said:

What I wrote was not an invalidation of the merit of Gurdjieff's teaching. At the same time, I would argue that almost all groups have an element of brainwashing to them.

Click to expand...

Brainwashing comes in many forms. Often, a person brainwashes themselves into thinking they know anything at all and into thinking they can tell good from bad or that their subjective opinions hold any objective value at all when they do not.

d said:

That members of the group reward one for embracing the group's ideology, and punish one for "straying" is itself an accepted form of brainwashing.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate an example of that in relation to Gurdjieff's original group or this forum, since you seem to be suggesting that. I ask that knowing that you won't find an example of that in either situation, though with your currently skewed viewpoint you may imagine all sorts of things that are not there.

d said:

Is the essence of my problem my "vast lack of understanding", (I wouldn't be terribly surprised), is it "the predator afraid of being discovered" (always a distinct possibility, I suspect),
is it that I have no understanding at all (sure, why not?)?

Click to expand...

I think the answer to this disingenuous question is quite plain to see, if one only takes the time to look. You see, what a person perceives and understands says quite a lot about them - it can be no other way. What a person values and discards paints the landscape of their psyche, so if you are sincere about your questions above, you must merely step away from yourself and look, if you can.

d said:

Or is the problem that I have revealed a disquiet I have with Gurdjieff, who is a very big part of the overall Cassiopaean enterprise.
To be direct, have I revealed my stature as barbarous heathen scum? I ask that question 50% with a wry sense of humour, and 50% seriously.

Click to expand...

You have revealed who and where you are as does everyone who posts on this forum. What matters here is not what you have revealed, but whether or not you are sincere about becoming more than you currently are. If your cup is full, then nothing can be done. If, on the other hand, you are willing and capable of emptying it, then the entire world opens up. That is up to you, but, make no mistake, as long as you put so much stock in your own subjective opinions, little can be expected. I think reading this thread on Opinions may benefit you - perhaps.

[quote author=denekin]
Or is the problem that I have revealed a disquiet I have with Gurdjieff, who is a very big part of the overall Cassiopaean enterprise.
To be direct, have I revealed my stature as barbarous heathen scum?[/quote]

To be direct, you seem to only have revealed a disquiet you have with your idea of Gurdjieff.

In the Fourth Way literature, Gurdjieff speaks and writes in the language of form. IOW, he combines the work of a precise and detailed analysis with an ability to cover all the bases of a subject within the bounds of his preferred syntax. In this way he addresses both the left and the right hemispheres of people capable of emotional cognition, regardless of whether or not a person "gets it" the first time around, OSIT.

That's why most people seem to have rather strong reactions upon encountering his Work. The right-hemispheric payload is what does it, OSIT. If you haven't read his work yet, I invite you to do so in order to meet the man himself as opposed to the pomposity and hearsay that is so very common. :)

denekin said:

I have always been uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of the Gurdjieff approach,
telling people of their uselessness and the emptiness of their lives, the bullying, the alternation between kindness and rage,
all reminds me of classical military brainwashing:

Click to expand...

Maybe what you're missing is a large enough perspective on Gurdjieff's teachings so that you're able to make an accurate assessment?

anart said:
"You have revealed who and where you are as does everyone who posts on this forum. What matters here is not what you have revealed, but whether or not you are sincere about becoming more than you currently are. If your cup is full, then nothing can be done. If, on the other hand, you are willing and capable of emptying it, then the entire world opens up. That is up to you, but, make no mistake, as long as you put so much stock in your own subjective opinions, little can be expected. I think reading this thread on Opinions may benefit you - perhaps."

Thank you. This fits the bill nicely...

m said:

denekin said:

I have always been uncomfortable with the heavy handedness of the Gurdjieff approach,
telling people of their uselessness and the emptiness of their lives, the bullying, the alternation between kindness and rage,
all reminds me of classical military brainwashing:

Click to expand...

Maybe what you're missing is a large enough perspective on Gurdjieff's teachings so that you're able to make an accurate assessment?

Click to expand...

Yes, and certainly not a consistent enough exposure over time. I first read ISOTM in 1967, and MWRM the same year. And have reread them since. I have read biographies of Gurdjief, Ouspensky and Orage. In 1984 (or so) I read All And Everything which I found nearly incomprehensible and strangely exhilarating. That haphazard exposure to the Fourth Way was complicated by simultaneous studies in psychology and alternative medicine. I think I had just enough of a minimal -or visceral- grasp of Gurdjieff to suspect that Castaneda was writing Fourth Way material with a shamanistic gloss. But I have not sat down and studied Gurdjieff...

Bud said:

[quote author=denekin]
Or is the problem that I have revealed a disquiet I have with Gurdjieff, who is a very big part of the overall Cassiopaean enterprise.
To be direct, have I revealed my stature as barbarous heathen scum?

Click to expand...

To be direct, you seem to only have revealed a disquiet you have with your idea of Gurdjieff.

In the Fourth Way literature, Gurdjieff speaks and writes in the language of form. IOW, he combines the work of a precise and detailed analysis with an ability to cover all the bases of a subject within the bounds of his preferred syntax. In this way he addresses both the left and the right hemispheres of people capable of emotional cognition, regardless of whether or not a person "gets it" the first time around, OSIT.

That's why most people seem to have rather strong reactions upon encountering his Work. The right-hemispheric payload is what does it, OSIT. If you haven't read his work yet, I invite you to do so in order to meet the man himself as opposed to the pomposity and hearsay that is so very common. :)

[/quote]"The pomposity and Hearsay that is so very common": Yes, and here is the crux of my own stupidity on the subject. My attitude to Gurdjieff is sadly - in inexcusably- tainted by my experience of self proclaimed Fourth Way adherents who have often behaved as awfully as true believers as any Scientologist or Baptist. So, yes, precisely, "my idea" of Gurdjieff. When I inspect my experience more carefully I can see that my reading of Gurdjieff and related Fourth Way material has not left me with a bad impression, quite the contrary; it has been the True Believer Syndrome I've encountered in some of his adherents that gave me my "disquiet". And this in spite of the fact that one of my favourite quotes is, "If you judge the merit of an idea by the behaviour of its adherents, then there are no good ideas...."
Thank you all
[/quote]

What I find encouraging about Gurdjieff and his ideas (wherever he got them from is still a matter of conjecture or dispute) is how closely they mesh with modern day cognitive science.

For example, if you will read Martha Stout's book "The Myth of Sanity" and Steve Mithen's "The Prehistory of the Mind", you will see how amazingly insightful and advanced Gurdjieff's ideas were.

What also amazes me is something that only has come over time, after spending a lot of time working with people, including on this forum - and that is Gurdjieff's assessments of what is really going on with people when they say or do certain things. Well, of course, for me, that is also informed by cognitive science but that takes us back again to the fact that Gurdjieff was way ahead of his time in analyzing the sleep/dissociative states of human beings.

I often quote Gurdjieff when analyzing a situation, but I also utilize science to understand - it's just that Gurdjieff said it first and better.

I just received Mithen's The Prehistory Of The Mind the day you wrote suggesting it.
I now have two thigh high piles of Forum recommended books to read...
That should keep me busy for a while.

Mouravieff was a fraud. You cannot learn anything from him.
See Patterson's book 'Taking With the Left Hand'.

Hi peterklok,

Welcome to the forum :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

peterklok said:

Mouravieff was a fraud. You cannot learn anything from him.
See Patterson's book 'Taking With the Left Hand'.

Click to expand...

Do you really mean we can't learn anything from his work or are you talking of specific inconsistencies, contradictions, biblical glossary...?