A Question for the Cs (and the rest of the forum)

[Medhavi]

maybe there are real 4th way schools left somewhere I don't know, but IMO the best 4th way school you can find today is this forum.

I should clarify. By Fourth Way School, I refer NOT to the Gurdjieff schools specifically. I am aware of them very well.

Rather I refer to alternative Fourth Way Schools. Firstly, Gurdjieff had to learn from someone. Speculation about the origins of his knowledge aside, his teachings do not coincide with the idea of a single student bearing the weight of the school alone. The 'school' requires multiple participants, and there are of course the other members of his 'seekers of truth' group of 30 or so, if I remember correctly. Historical accuracy aside, Gurdjieff could not have escaped from the 'prison' alone or without help.

Such schools are not at all comparable to the distorted versions of Gurdjieff's disciples. I cannot have been the only one to consider the existence of such schools.

It was my mistake for using the term "Fourth Way School" without clarifying that I meant 4th way in terms of structure and operation (prioritizing understanding, working on body, mind, emotions all at once).

That is what I would like to ask the Cs. Are any such schools in existence? The question arises because I have found something interesting and am curious as to what they think.

I had thought someone would've asked this one suggestion, but found no trace in my cursory search (though I have yet to read all the Cs transcripts, still on the Wave).

This is how I understood you as well. You are asking if there are any schools out there which are common in spirit, and not necessarily in the way they're named.
I don't think the traditions Gurdjieff received part of his knowledge from called themselves anything we'd recognise now. You might notice that whenever the Cassiopaeans talk about a certain group or tradition that is connected to deeper knowledge in any way, the names they give don't match anything you can find; at least within the English sphere(i.e. the Internet)
So even if they exist, how'd you find them? If you have paid attention to the way the C's convey information, you wouldn't expect them to just give out the names and addresses of such organisations, would you?

Anart has raised a good point. It would be helpful if you formulated your questions in a more precise way. Is there anything here you don't see as valid, by your definition? That might motivate you to go search elsewhere, after all.

The question arises because I have found something interesting and am curious as to what they think.

I have to say I find it a bit disingenuous of you to play hide and seek with us about what you have found and I fully concur with the remarks of obyvatel. This is not the way in which this forum operates most of the time. As the C's could have said (I presume): vague in, vague out.

I meant 4Th way in terms of structure and operation (prioritizing understanding, working on body, mind, emotions all at once).

The most pressing feature of any 4Th Way activity or school (apart from searching for B an C influences) would constitute: Being IN this world but not OF it - which means that 4Th way activities exercised in separation or isolation, like in convents or cloisters and such, don't count as 4Th Way. Any of those preoccupations count as either the way of the fakir, or the monk, or the yogi - as is further explained here: http://cassiopedia.org/glossary/4Th_Way.

There it is implied that a 4Th Way school completely separate from what Gurdjieff tried and teached, and afterwards wrote, is a contradiction in terms because Gurdjieff has been indispensable for introducing the concept of doing work on all fields of endeavour simultaneously, complementary to a normal everyday life, as a distinctly shaped 4Th Way, for specific circumstances and with specific aims. For instance, growing into becoming/being man #4 and beyond.

Thus, the thought that you could have found something similar elsewhere of equal value and worthy of the name 4Th Way without any reference to Gurdjieff's work or at least to the core of his method and concepts, seems very unlikely to me. But, who knows...?

We'll have a clue once you reveal what you have found.

This classification of paths into the fakir/monk/yogi variety isn't very helpful in my opinion, as you won't find many people in actual field research that neatly fit into that scheme. No one is that one dimensional. Of course, if you check Gurdjieff's writings against those of his era, you might notice that he must have been influenced by common culturual views of his time. For every application of his "Four Ways", you're going to find an exception to the rule, which makes wide sweeping statements impossible.
For example, how'd Gurdjieff categorise Tantric householders, one of the major spiritual ways in South Asia since thousands of years? Depending on their sect, they advocate being in the world but not of it. They do not isolate themselves since they have families to support. They employ techniques for bringing about mind and body transformations using everything from breathing and meditative absorption techniques to shocking themselves awake through unconventional means. This is normally supplied with mindfulness throughout the day and research when they have free time to spare. They generally are on a meat heavy diet. They have to interact with several adepts in their own lineage to keep watch over their progress(in the ideal situation), which is sort of equivalent to the forum we have here using the Internet.

I actually think that what Gurdjieff called the "fourth way" is basically a "lay yogi" approach to spirituality, but with the addition of an esoteric doctrine handed down through a lineage. For example, two hundred years ago, you might have grown up within society until you were of middle age and then you suddenly stumbled upon a master of a particular lineage that managed to impress you. You did have obligation towards society and your family, so that becoming a full time yogi wasn't an option. Therefore you became a lay yogi who practised and read as much as you could whenever you had the time and tried to integrate the things you learnt with your actual life. These masters you learnt from could have held esoteric lineages, which meant a certain doctrine was passed onto you as well, which did not correspond exactly with "orthodox" understanding, meaning most Sutras/Shastras in South/East Asia.
These "unorthodox" lineages were often called "teachings outside of the scriptures"- most likely teachings from remote antiquity(that's what I assume considering you can hardly track them in recorded histoy).

What I am getting at here is that there is a good chance that there might still be groups out there that are connected with what G. would call "Fourth Way" ideas. But you wouldn't have an easy time finding and understanding them, since they most likely aren't found in the West anymore(where you will find offshoots of corrupted Fourth Way Schools and the Ouspenskian take on things)
G. travelled pretty far to gather his ideas and he tried to make it understandable for the Western mind of his time and thus he employed easy classification schemes such as the faqir/monk/yogi divide, even though it is a caricature of reality. But for the purpose of this forum, at least how I understand it, that is sufficient. Trust me, you'll find good spiritual guidance and applicable detoxification methods here. If you do all that is required to actively participate here, watch yourself and read up on all the material here, you won't even have time researching other possible Fourth Way schools.

I am bringing up these examples to counter some of the ideas G. employed mainly because I am researching East Asian cultivation schools; not because I think they're superior but rather because I have the distinct feeling that I can find missing parts of the puzzle since you can find many more alchemical traditions in South and East Asia than in Europe, considering that the former was not persecuted as much. I have also grown up in both hemispheres, so I am utilising what has been given to me. I haven't met anyone yet that has access and practice in genuine Asian traditions but who has also studied the C's material. I think this type of understanding could be missing from this forum here. What I've learnt from this school here so far has helped me to great extent in understanding difficult practises and idea presented in the traditions I am researching, and I hope I can explain the more opaque statements by G. and the C's one day with a more coherent understanding gained from a more diversified approach to research.
But if you've already found the C's and are from the West, then I can't think of any better place right now in terms of understanding and actualising Fourth Way ideas.
So I wouldn't recommend wasting time chasing corrupt schools or what is left of valid traditions, unless you see it as a skillful way to further your own self-knowledge.

 

[Laura]

Question for Wu Wei Wu: can you define disingenuous?

Do you understand Gurdjieff's teaching on "sincerity"?

 

[obyvatel]

This classification of paths into the fakir/monk/yogi variety isn't very helpful in my opinion, as you won't find many people in actual field research that neatly fit into that scheme. No one is that one dimensional. Of course, if you check Gurdjieff's writings against those of his era, you might notice that he must have been influenced by common culturual views of his time. For every application of his "Four Ways", you're going to find an exception to the rule, which makes wide sweeping statements impossible.

The Ways of the fakir, monk, yogi corresponded to Man 1, 2,3 according to G. From my understanding, it is not about one-dimensionality but the primary line of force through which the work on the self progresses.

[quote author=Medhavi]
For example, how'd Gurdjieff categorise Tantric householders, one of the major spiritual ways in South Asia since thousands of years? Depending on their sect, they advocate being in the world but not of it. They do not isolate themselves since they have families to support. They employ techniques for bringing about mind and body transformations using everything from breathing and meditative absorption techniques to shocking themselves awake through unconventional means. This is normally supplied with mindfulness throughout the day and research when they have free time to spare. They generally are on a meat heavy diet. They have to interact with several adepts in their own lineage to keep watch over their progress(in the ideal situation), which is sort of equivalent to the forum we have here using the Internet.
[/quote]

Perhaps he would classify them as not belonging to any Way at all. If people perform certain activities which they think are making them spiritually evolved - and if through certain ritualistic (magickal) practices gain certain powers, it does not necessarily mean they are on a Way as is understood in this context.


[quote author=Medhavi]
I actually think that what Gurdjieff called the "fourth way" is basically a "lay yogi" approach to spirituality, but with the addition of an esoteric doctrine handed down through a lineage.
[/quote]

That is not what Gurdjieff considered as the fourth way. As this Way is supposed to combine various practices which are not fixed in stone, we fall into error as classifying a lot of things as fourth way when they may not belong to any Way at all.

[quote author=ISOTM]
"The fourth way differs from the old and the new ways by the fact that it is never a permanent way. It has no definite forms and there are no institutions connected with it. It appears and disappears governed by some particular laws of its own.

"The fourth way is never without some work of a definite significance, is never without some undertaking around which and in connection with which it can alone exist. When this work is finished, that is to say, when the aim set before it has been accomplished, the fourth way disappears, that is, it disappears from the given place, disappears in its given form, continuing perhaps in another place in another form. Schools of the fourth way exist for the needs of the work which is being carried out in connection with the proposed undertaking. They never exist by themselves as schools for the purpose of education and instruction .
[/quote]

There is a higher aim - something that starts beyond life as we know it - which drives a 4th Way school - not the personal desire to gain enlightenment. Personal transformation would happen through the practices - but it has to be understood as serving a cause in the larger context.

[quote author=Medhavi]
For example, two hundred years ago, you might have grown up within society until you were of middle age and then you suddenly stumbled upon a master of a particular lineage that managed to impress you. You did have obligation towards society and your family, so that becoming a full time yogi wasn't an option. Therefore you became a lay yogi who practised and read as much as you could whenever you had the time and tried to integrate the things you learnt with your actual life. These masters you learnt from could have held esoteric lineages, which meant a certain doctrine was passed onto you as well, which did not correspond exactly with "orthodox" understanding, meaning most Sutras/Shastras in South/East Asia.
These "unorthodox" lineages were often called "teachings outside of the scriptures"- most likely teachings from remote antiquity(that's what I assume considering you can hardly track them in recorded histoy).
[/quote]

You have described what Gurdjieff called the "good obyvatel" in ISOTM. He is the person considered suitable for a Way - perhaps the 4th Way. But whether he finds such a Way during his life time would depend on circumstances beyond his control - like whether there is a larger purpose being fulfilled by a 4th Way school during his time.

fwiw

 

[Medhavi]

The Ways of the fakir, monk, yogi corresponded to Man 1, 2,3 according to G. From my understanding, it is not about one-dimensionality but the primary line of force through which the work on the self progresses.

This is also my understanding but my comment was aimed at the notion of hastily assigning things to the three ways based on the idea of isolation or institutions when G. basically said that there are three "common" personality types representing the starting points from which people can evolve until Man 7 on his scale.

Perhaps he would classify them as not belonging to any Way at all. If people perform certain activities which they think are making them spiritually evolved - and if through certain ritualistic (magickal) practices gain certain powers, it does not necessarily mean they are on a Way as is understood in this context.

Maybe he did not have enough exposure to such approaches to be able to formulate something sensible in this context. After all, his travels seemed to be limited to Eastern Europe/Near East/Central Asia and it is unclear if he ever had enough time to properly investigate what was going on in the countries he visited. Also take into account that he likely didn't speak the local languages and encountered cultural barriers in addition to the British occupation and the travel issues shortly before World War 1 in South Asia, where other more well-known explorers detailed these very problems which made them unable to gain in-depth knowledge of local culture, nevermind the esoteric traditions. From such a standpoint, I think it is very difficult to classify something as being a "Way" or not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the particular name "Fourth Way" not a deliberate way to make itself distinct from three other ways G. previously considered? The tantric counter-example was thrown in to introduce the idea that there might have been a very similar development going in, especially in Southern Asia, considering that G. said that the Fourth Way might be what is needed for man for whom the three ways are no longer practical. Such ways arose in the context of people no longer being satisfied by orthodox or ritualistic ways so they sought other ways to develop their awareness effectively.
Since G. is opaque about where he exactly got what from, we need a good standard by which to judge a "way", especially when looking at something that wasn't created in our time but which might still be relevant for the purpose of self-knowledge.

That is not what Gurdjieff considered as the fourth way. As this Way is supposed to combine various practices which are not fixed in stone, we fall into error as classifying a lot of things as fourth way when they may not belong to any Way at all.

Is the definition of this Way the collective practice of objectivity, detoxification, networking and a higher collective purpose to work on? I'd appreciate some help in this area. After all, Gurdjieff did teach some form of breathing exercise, but certainly not EE as we know it. He hadn't formulated a proper diet, if I recall correctly. His notions of objectivity were limited by his time. How did his disciples network? Looking at the G.-Ouspensky relationship, it sounds like the ups and downs of a normal Master-disciple relationship.
The false classification of many things as "Fourth Way" may unintentionally be promoted by this idea of a higher aim because of its nebulous nature and the rare discussions about it. If a Fourth Way is supposed to combine various practices which are not fixed in stone, how can a Fourth Way group decide if another unorthodox path is a "Way" or not, based on unfamiliarity? I also need clarification here.

There is a higher aim - something that starts beyond life as we know it - which drives a 4th Way school - not the personal desire to gain enlightenment. Personal transformation would happen through the practices - but it has to be understood as serving a cause in the larger context.

This sounds good to me. Very good. But haven't the C's stated that it is basically impossible for us to not be STS while we're here? Ok, we can work towards STO, but I think you have real trouble if you try to eliminate personal cravings such as the desire to gain enlightenment, since I assume that most people have come to this place with that very craving in the first place, only to change their perspective a bit later. But deep down, it might not have occured since there might be some basic STS alignment in all of us. For example, there is this complicated problem in Theravada and later Mahayana Buddhist practices where the latter complains about the selfishness/desire for personal enlightenment and isolation for cultivation that are allegedly promoted by the former. Mahayanis of course claim that they're following the Bodhisattva ideal for postponing their own enlightenment for the benefit of all others, which I think is only STO on the surface when you actually examine their practise, which still heavily borrows from Theravadin practises. But what they changed was to declare a higher cause that somehow helped all other beings, either through direct interaction or just by being in the world. But this brings the whole thing into the realm of metaphysics where you can't prove or disprove anything anymore but have to rely on faith.

I notice that quite a lot of societies from the 19th and 20th century declared to affect real change or serve a greater cause not bound to a single individual.
There was Blavatsky and the Theosophists, Falun Gong, Aurobindo and the Mother; heck even Osho claimed something along these lines.
Their track record isn't exactly good and when they can't truly transform their disciples and offshots, you have to resort to look at what they may have set in motion. Gurdjieff wasn't that successful with his disciples, but I suppose the Cassiopaean Experiment may not have occured without him laying the groundwork?
Still, this is pretty vague when not counting in the things the C's have said about the global context, the STS-STO interplay and the Wave.

My personal question here is, getting back to the OP: Was Fulcanelli a Fourth Way practitioner or a representative of the western alchemical tradition? Where does the Western alchemical tradition fit in? Considering that the closest equivalent in South Asia are the Tantric Mahasiddhas and the Nei Gong adepts in East Asia, who not only practised eerily similar things but also created forms of twilight language and metaphors similar to what might be found in a Middle German Alchemical treatise from Augsburg here in Germany.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

So, you're basically asking the C's if the '4th Way Group' that you are involved with is valid? It says quite a bit that you would have to ask. That speaks volumes in itself. There are many things to be learned through many venues, but it seems to me that you are asking an extremely vague question, here. The question can't even be answered without knowing your exact definition(s) of 'valid'.

No, this is not my intent. If anything, its my duty to determine whether or not a group I research is valid. I'm familiar enough with the Cs and the forum to know that research is always encouraged, and its a practice I've integrated into my own life. The 'valid' point is a good question too, but only in regards to the larger question. Mentioning the TDS group has detracted away from my initial question, my mistake.

Validity in the sense that it has produced men number 4 and above, that is as basic as we can get. If the school has produced or is in the process of producing conscious adepts, thats a good sign that they're onto something.

Before we eventually start discussing this school and said website which I have to further delve into first, I would like to reference now at least one contribution of interest pertaining to the gist of their activities, namely this one (and subsequent posts):

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,6873.msg67092.html#msg67092

I've read this article before, its an excellent example of why magick is dangerous to the self, particularly western ceremonial. I'm in agreement with the author very much so I was somewhat involved in a similar community in the past and as far as developing consciousness goes it cannot compare. The analysis of rituals was particularly well considered. The TDS group has not manifested any such behavior that I know of, but when/if it does that will be pretty good sign to hightail out of there.

Hi Wu Wei Wu.
You see, every now and them appears someone questioning either if following Gurdjieff is valid, or if there are true 4th Way Schools out there, or something along these lines.
But you are incorrect. I was not trying to defend the Cassiopaea forum, because this forum and Laura's work speaks for itself, and the people against who attack this forum usually don't hear explanations and ideas contrary to their pathology anyway.
My phrasing was perhaps unclear in the first post, as you seem to have not grasped what I meant. My apologies for that. I hope that what follows next is clearer.

To me your question is like finding a good bakery, with solid reputation of making excelent bread, but whose "chefs" don't wear "true" bakery hats and asking there where you can find a good "true" bakery, instead of eating the bread that is offered.

As for the rest, I agree with Anart. We would have to hear from you what you think that qualifies a 4th Way school as valid.

I misunderstood as well, so no worries. Your example was very useful, I think I have a better grasp on what you mean, and it is not my intention to go bakery hopping persay at all. Again, the benchmark for the validity comment is whether the school has or is in the process of producing conscious people. Were we to get more specific we'd have to make further judgements (divisions on speed, lifestyle, STS/STO, and so forth) but the first step is to see if they can produce any escapees from the matrix at all.

This is how I understood you as well. You are asking if there are any schools out there which are common in spirit, and not necessarily in the way they're named.
I don't think the traditions Gurdjieff received part of his knowledge from called themselves anything we'd recognise now. You might notice that whenever the Cassiopaeans talk about a certain group or tradition that is connected to deeper knowledge in any way, the names they give don't match anything you can find; at least within the English sphere(i.e. the Internet)
So even if they exist, how'd you find them? If you have paid attention to the way the C's convey information, you wouldn't expect them to just give out the names and addresses of such organisations, would you?

Although I have not completed the C material (I'm still on the Wave series) I recognize your point, and agree. I have absolutely no idea how I would, they would probably not draw attention to themselves either. I don't think the Cs would assist much in this regard. And if they did, I don't think I'd have the means to go searching for them anyways. There appears to be perception that I am asking the Cs to tell me about another school so I could go there... that is not the case. The Cs wouldn't answer that question, or so I think after my readings of their responses. I have every intention of staying here. I don't think its necessary to list all the positive features of the Cassiopaean community, so I'll just say that the applied knowledge available here in conjunction with a community headed in the same direction is invaluable.

I am bringing up these examples to counter some of the ideas G. employed mainly because I am researching East Asian cultivation schools; not because I think they're superior but rather because I have the distinct feeling that I can find missing parts of the puzzle since you can find many more alchemical traditions in South and East Asia than in Europe, considering that the former was not persecuted as much. I have also grown up in both hemispheres, so I am utilising what has been given to me. I haven't met anyone yet that has access and practice in genuine Asian traditions but who has also studied the C's material. I think this type of understanding could be missing from this forum here. What I've learnt from this school here so far has helped me to great extent in understanding difficult practises and idea presented in the traditions I am researching, and I hope I can explain the more opaque statements by G. and the C's one day with a more coherent understanding gained from a more diversified approach to research.
But if you've already found the C's and are from the West, then I can't think of any better place right now in terms of understanding and actualising Fourth Way ideas.
So I wouldn't recommend wasting time chasing corrupt schools or what is left of valid traditions, unless you see it as a skillful way to further your own self-knowledge.

That was very interesting Mehdevi, I was unaware such traditions existed in the east. While I don't necessarily agree that the Fourth Way is a lay-yogi approach, its clear that I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to make a sufficiently well considered judgement on the topic. I was totally unaware of such traditions, almost all of my research has concerned the western world, unfortunately.

Question for Wu Wei Wu: can you define disingenuous?

First word that came to mind was dishonest. Not telling the truth as dishonest.

Do you understand Gurdjieff's teaching on "sincerity"?

I couldn't remember it right away, so I opened my copy of ISOTM. I quote from page 230, "But sincerity in the group is an absolute demand, because, if a man continues to lie in the group in the same way as he lies to himself and to others in life, he will never learn to distinguish the truth from a lie."

I think I understand it now. Within the group, one must be open and honest. In this sense I would certainly say I have been insincere. Mentioning TDS in the beginning, among other things, would have be a sincere way to approach my original question. If we count insincerity as has been laid out among the disingenuous, then upon reflection I conclude that was a just remark, I was lying to myself.

There is a higher aim - something that starts beyond life as we know it - which drives a 4th Way school - not the personal desire to gain enlightenment. Personal transformation would happen through the practices - but it has to be understood as serving a cause in the larger context.

I have read this passage several times, but I had not come to the conclusion as you put it which seems very appropriate. I had thought that the temporary nature and the fluid and diverse practices were the hallmarks of the Fourth Way School (along with the tri-focused practices). Yet this remark on purpose was clearly missing from my description.

 

[obyvatel]

The Ways of the fakir, monk, yogi corresponded to Man 1, 2,3 according to G. From my understanding, it is not about one-dimensionality but the primary line of force through which the work on the self progresses.

This is also my understanding but my comment was aimed at the notion of hastily assigning things to the three ways based on the idea of isolation or institutions

Did you see an evidence for such haste in the present context? Just curious.

Perhaps he would classify them as not belonging to any Way at all. If people perform certain activities which they think are making them spiritually evolved - and if through certain ritualistic (magickal) practices gain certain powers, it does not necessarily mean they are on a Way as is understood in this context.

Maybe he did not have enough exposure to such approaches to be able to formulate something sensible in this context. After all, his travels seemed to be limited to Eastern Europe/Near East/Central Asia and it is unclear if he ever had enough time to properly investigate what was going on in the countries he visited. Also take into account that he likely didn't speak the local languages and encountered cultural barriers in addition to the British occupation and the travel issues shortly before World War 1 in South Asia, where other more well-known explorers detailed these very problems which made them unable to gain in-depth knowledge of local culture, nevermind the esoteric traditions. From such a standpoint, I think it is very difficult to classify something as being a "Way" or not.

Usually, the results or "fruits" can be used to gauge the measure of a path. Asian ways are no longer as much shrouded in mystery as it was during Gurdjieff's times. The results as apparent today are not encouraging.

[quote author=Medhavi]
Correct me if I am wrong, but is the particular name "Fourth Way" not a deliberate way to make itself distinct from three other ways G. previously considered? The tantric counter-example was thrown in to introduce the idea that there might have been a very similar development going in, especially in Southern Asia, considering that G. said that the Fourth Way might be what is needed for man for whom the three ways are no longer practical. Such ways arose in the context of people no longer being satisfied by orthodox or ritualistic ways so they sought other ways to develop their awareness effectively.
[/quote]

I do not think so. 4th Way as G described it would not exist primarily as a path towards personal evolution but for serving a bigger purpose.

[quote author=Medhavi]
Since G. is opaque about where he exactly got what from, we need a good standard by which to judge a "way", especially when looking at something that wasn't created in our time but which might still be relevant for the purpose of self-knowledge.
[/quote]

I would think it is difficult to set up an academic standard for this type of issue. If one is interested in personal development for serving a bigger purpose, then one takes a pragmatic approach and takes what is useful for his aim and leaves aside what is not useful.

[quote author=Medhavi]

That is not what Gurdjieff considered as the fourth way. As this Way is supposed to combine various practices which are not fixed in stone, we fall into error as classifying a lot of things as fourth way when they may not belong to any Way at all.

Is the definition of this Way the collective practice of objectivity, detoxification, networking and a higher collective purpose to work on? I'd appreciate some help in this area. After all, Gurdjieff did teach some form of breathing exercise, but certainly not EE as we know it. He hadn't formulated a proper diet, if I recall correctly. His notions of objectivity were limited by his time. How did his disciples network? Looking at the G.-Ouspensky relationship, it sounds like the ups and downs of a normal Master-disciple relationship.
[/quote]

Notice the "may not" in what I wrote. If one is interested in personal development for serving a bigger purpose, then one takes a pragmatic approach and takes what is useful for his aim and leaves aside what is not useful.

As pointed out to you before, G's track record about understanding people - wherever he might have got those skills from - has proved out to be quite good, specially in light of what cognitive science and psychology have to say today through experimental evidence. The research and efforts of the founders of this forum and this network has advanced G's ideas further imo. So our position in this regard is clear.

[quote author=Medhavi]
The false classification of many things as "Fourth Way" may unintentionally be promoted by this idea of a higher aim because of its nebulous nature and the rare discussions about it. If a Fourth Way is supposed to combine various practices which are not fixed in stone, how can a Fourth Way group decide if another unorthodox path is a "Way" or not, based on unfamiliarity? I also need clarification here.
[/quote]

That question needs to be answered in the specific context. As far as the original poster and the topic of "theurgy" or "magick" is concerned, we are not so unfamiliar.Have you read Laura's post linked by Palinurus earlier which quotes the experiences of a member who has walked that path?

You have brought forth South Asian householder tantra sects. These are not as much shrouded in mystery anymore either. Based on familiarity with the fruits of some such paths, one could say that stripping the cultural gloss away, it is similar in essence to what has been described so well by the person versed in magick. And since the very term under discussion "4th Way" is one that has been coined by G, it is logical to use what G used to describe the "4th Way" to compare other paths. It is by no means the "final word" - it is just an informed opinion based on experience, data and analysis.

[quote author=Medavi]
This sounds good to me. Very good. But haven't the C's stated that it is basically impossible for us to not be STS while we're here? Ok, we can work towards STO, but I think you have real trouble if you try to eliminate personal cravings such as the desire to gain enlightenment, since I assume that most people have come to this place with that very craving in the first place, only to change their perspective a bit later. But deep down, it might not have occured since there might be some basic STS alignment in all of us.
[/quote]

There is no denying that we are STS. But as can be seen in real life non-esoteric examples, diverse group of people with varying agendas can come together to work for a bigger purpose. One does not need to eliminate personal cravings - just assign primary importance to the bigger goal.


[quote author=Medhavi]
I notice that quite a lot of societies from the 19th and 20th century declared to affect real change or serve a greater cause not bound to a single individual.
There was Blavatsky and the Theosophists, Falun Gong, Aurobindo and the Mother; heck even Osho claimed something along these lines.
Their track record isn't exactly good and when they can't truly transform their disciples and offshots, you have to resort to look at what they may have set in motion. Gurdjieff wasn't that successful with his disciples, but I suppose the Cassiopaean Experiment may not have occured without him laying the groundwork?
Still, this is pretty vague when not counting in the things the C's have said about the global context, the STS-STO interplay and the Wave.
[/quote]

Higher awareness is said to be rare in this part of the universe according to the C's. There are very strong forces which act against spiritual evolution of man - since man is food for 4D STS. So it is not surprising that real transformation is difficult to achieve.

Many people claim to be enlightened - yet they seem to be abysmally ignorant about psychopathology. Does such "enlightenment" help in learning the lessons of 3D? If the "Mahasiddhas" or "Great Adepts" know about psychopathology, they do not seem to have taken steps to make that knowledge public. There is no judgment involved here. It is simply about taking a pragmatic approach and taking what is useful for one's aim - that of learning lessons of 3D and helping others who ask.

Edit: Clarity

 

[SeekinTruth]

I have to agree that what is THE defining aspect of The Fourth Way is that it is connected to a specific task in a specific time and place. There is a definite need for a definite aim to be undertaken and accomplished that is defined outside of the ordinary life of mechanical man. The group will be deeply involved in the Work being carried out for this specific task (that is generally not noticed as being needed outside of that Work). G is very clear about this and that a person's only chance of finding a true 4th Way teaching is to come across the Work being done by such a group (at a time where the specific goal has not yet been accomplished but is still being Worked on).

G is also very clear that the sooner a student of this way understands what the Work goal is, the sooner they can be useful to it and the more they themselves will get out of it. In my opinion, this is the only real standard of judging authentic ways from the imitation ways. The person coming into contact with such Work must be able to discern clearly that this is NECESSARY at the given time and place (for a greater purpose than individual "enlightenment"). If they never establish this for themselves -- that there is something extremely important that needs to be done in their own time and that a group has formed to undertake it, which they can join and prioritize the accomplishment of the task above all else, then there is no other way for them to determine whether it's a "valid" 4th Way group or not.

 

[Medhavi]

Thanks obyvatel and SeekinTruth, you pretty much cleared up my question and I also think the OP's original one.

Did you see an evidence for such haste in the present context? Just curious.

I was referring to a continuing trend I've noticed on the forums in the past years whenever a discussion about the "Ways" in relation to the Fourth Way turned up. The only evidence presented was usually the quote from ISOTM. Same goes for phenomena seen outside of the Fourth Way, where usually quotes from Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson are used. The problem I see here is, that, as someone who has been around since a couple of years, I am beginning to understand certain things based on a critical amount of information; but I still maintain the awareness that "outsiders", mainly people reading these forums and writings for the first time might be turned off by this usage of Gurdjieff quotes for this specific context as a means to drive the discussion.
It seems to be rather weak in terms of argument, knowing that it only works within and from the perspective of Gurdjieff's established ideas. But I think his message and certain perceptions he made were more impressive than the man himself, for he clearly didn't became Man 7 on his own scale and neither was he successful in producing realised individuals himself(although I find Madame de Salzmann to be more impressive than the rest). If you count in what you and SeekinTruth said with the higher purpose to be accomplished beyond the evidence for personal evolution, then this balances the argument, for my main issue with Gurdjieff's legacy is his troublesome relationship to his disciples and what became of them. From that perspective, I think it is often with haste that people jump to conclusions on the forums, even though we don't have much in the way of good evidence in areas that Gurdjieff apparently judged(and so do certain members on the forum, though not all) but didn't have good access to. So to repeatedly refer to a ISOTM or Beelzebub quote is not very scientific and might strike people as dogmatic.

In this thread in particular, I was replying to these quotes:

The most pressing feature of any 4Th Way activity or school (apart from searching for B an C influences) would constitute: Being IN this world but not OF it - which means that 4Th way activities exercised in separation or isolation, like in convents or cloisters and such, don't count as 4Th Way.

The assumption here is based on Gurdjieff's definition alone.

And

Thus, the thought that you could have found something similar elsewhere of equal value and worthy of the name 4Th Way without any reference to Gurdjieff's work or at least to the core of his method and concepts, seems very unlikely to me.

This again jumps to conclusions based on the need to see things from the perspective of Gurdjieff's work alone.

This is all fine until people start to continously quote from Gurdjieff to establish a certain worldview. Haste to jump to conclusions appears once unidentified schools turn up and their relationship to the Fourth Way itself is discussed, as in this context; that's why I am interested in where exactly Gurdjieff got what from, since I see many of his ideas mirrored in East and South Asian schools I am accustomed to. There is a good thread here discussing the problem of Fourth Way schools versus Imitation schools(which is also relevant to the OP). That's why I am careful. I do not like to rely on Gurdjieff too much, especially with that crucial period before World War 1 when he travelled and supposedly received much of his knowledge, but shrouded many things in mystery on purpose. This was common for explorers of his time who wanted to become popular and establish societies in Europe and the USA. But it is a hindrance for anyone trying to inquire into the truth of the situation. Since the man isn't alive anymore, we have to rely on his few books. So there the danger to jump to conclusions is present. This is not apparent when Western things are discussed. But this becomes rather ugly when things alien to Western thinking are discussed.

Usually, the results or "fruits" can be used to gauge the measure of a path. Asian ways are no longer as much shrouded in mystery as it was during Gurdjieff's times. The results as apparent today are not encouraging.

See, that is the problem. If you establish the higher purpose as the main guidance and characteristic of a path, that kind of works and can be felt somewhat. You can clearly see how people transform on these forums over the years. But I've also seen that in a multitude of other ways I've researched and practised in. Gurdjieff's track record himself, as for his disciples, isn't that impressive in my humble opinion. That should make one careful. Gurdjieff clearly had something figured out, but he wasn't that good at transmitting that to his spiritual offspring. I think the C's forum here already has a better track record than Gurdjieff.
You are making the same wide-sweeping generalisation as Anart in the Long Hair thread. We are very specific with the contrast between this Fourth Way school here and the other ones in in the West, mostly designed as Imitation groups. If I were to look around(and I did with other Ouspenskian Fourth Way groups), the results are also not encouraging. But I don't say that generally, "Western Ways" do not yield any apparent fruit. Because it would be a huge assumption based on lack of data what "Western Ways" are and what they are not. Years ago, I hadn't even heard of the C's and it was by sheer chance that I stumbled upon this important work here. If I hadn't, I would likely make ignorant statements about the state of Fourth Way groups in the West.

Direct knowledge of "Asian ways" has not improved since Gurdjieff's time. Within the South Asian context, scholars have been very careful not to "lose their objectivity" by participating in direct fieldwork and practice, which is the equivalence of understanding the C's work by reading and participating in the forums here. The publications on Tantric householder traditions, for example, are so scarce that you can count them on one hand. We have not progressed very much since Sir John Woodroff's "The Serpent Power". Less than 5% of Classical Tibetan writings have been translated and less than 15% of the Classical Chinese ones. This is the comfortable "translate scriptures in the Oxford Sanskrit Clay Library work". But what about those who tried to gauge the living traditions? They are few and far inbetween. It takes a lot of cultural understanding, a decade of attaining fluency in the spoken language and then you still have miscommunication which routinely yields popular misconceptions. There's even less work done on what is left of East Asian Nei Dan/Nei Gong/Ch'an/Longmenpai- nevermind the South East Asian context which has been like a white spot on the map until today, even though a potentially interesting melting pot of Sufi/Chinese Nei Gong/Indian Yogic traditions had been in existance there for quite some time.
So there is no such thing as "results as apparent today". I have to concern myself with the C's for a long time before things sink in and before things start to make sense. Practically nobody is investing such effort in the aforementioned areas. It is like looking at EE and saying: Oh, Pipe Breathing is just a renamed Ujjayi Breathing because it sounds similar, right? Well, no, it isn't. But that is what happens when research is superficial, which is as bad back then as it is today(sadly).

I do not think so. 4th Way as G described it would not exist primarily as a path towards personal evolution but for serving a bigger purpose.

But through serving this bigger purpose, personal evolution should happen simultaneously or not? Is that why it is hard to gauge whether or not Gurdjieff's own direct disciples became something between Man 4 and 7?

As pointed out to you before, G's track record about understanding people - wherever he might have got those skills from - has proved out to be quite good, specially in light of what cognitive science and psychology have to say today through experimental evidence. The research and efforts of the founders of this forum and this network has advanced G's ideas further imo. So our position in this regard is clear.

Nobody is arguing with his cosmology and ideas presented. They should be quite accurate. But when we come back to the "fruits" in terms of personal development, he himself did not escape the Matrix and even less so did his disciples. I think it is pretty safe to make that statement. So the problem doesn't lie with his information presented, but rather with the actualisation of the very same.

That question needs to be answered in the specific context. As far as the original poster and the topic of "theurgy" or "magick" is concerned, we are not so unfamiliar.Have you read Laura's post linked by Palinurus earlier which quotes the experiences of a member who has walked that path?

Yes, it is a good article on Golden Dawn and Thelema and how its ritualistic emphasis can't compare to sincere work on the Self.

Based on familiarity with the fruits of some such paths, one could say that stripping the cultural gloss away, it is similar in essence to what has been described so well by the person versed in magick.

We are familar with neither the fruits, nor the gloss. There was an early observation during the time of the creation of Theravada that rituals cannot equal work on yourself and don't actually yield anything but superficial results. That is a natural result of direct experience. But to get to this realisation, you have to put in work. And many people already put more faith into rituals before they can gain such realisation(few truly meditate)
Things you have to get used to in the South and East Asian context is that they will likely design different practices and different teachings based on the perceived capacity and inclination(similar to the Man 1, Man 2, Man 3 system) of the individual. This gets lost when an institution gets set up. However, it is apparent that the early and also modern British perception of such paths doesn't strip away the cultural gloss(because they would understand the symbols about as much as we do the Medieval Alchemical Treatises of Germany and France- in other words- they don't) but rather takes that gloss as the essence of the path. To then compare that to psychopaths like Crowley is pretty far off(though they are psychopaths everywhere).

Many people claim to be enlightened - yet they seem to be abysmally ignorant about psychopathology. Does such "enlightenment" help in learning the lessons of 3D? If the "Mahasiddhas" or "Great Adepts" know about psychopathology, they do not seem to have taken steps to make that knowledge public. There is no judgment involved here. It is simply about taking a pragmatic approach and taking what is useful for one's aim - that of learning lessons of 3D and helping others who ask.

Did the Esoteric forms of Christianity as explained by Mouravieff or the Cathars or the Sufis take steps to make such knowledge public? They were persecuted, just like their Eastern counterparts. There are actually many treatises I've studied(mainly stemming from the dhyana and tantric traditions) which have rather long sections on the different types of pathology(designed as delusional states) from which one should stay away from or learn how to deal with. There also was no Internet back then, so how would you make things public? If this is part of oral transmission, you'd have no historical reference, just like in the West, where no steps were taken either. You may also assume that the forms that have been assumed at this time(proper to the Fourth Way) correspond with what you can find in history, which, I think, is contrary to definition of the transient Fourth Way forms given in the ISOTM.

The "many people claim to be enlightened" is mainly a modern phenomenon, tracing back to the 60's onwards. If someone had gone deep into self-knowledge, they'd hardly make such claims.

G is also very clear that the sooner a student of this way understands what the Work goal is, the sooner they can be useful to it and the more they themselves will get out of it. In my opinion, this is the only real standard of judging authentic ways from the imitation ways. The person coming into contact with such Work must be able to discern clearly that this is NECESSARY at the given time and place (for a greater purpose than individual "enlightenment"). If they never establish this for themselves -- that there is something extremely important that needs to be done in their own time and that a group has formed to undertake it, which they can join and prioritize the accomplishment of the task above all else, then there is no other way for them to determine whether it's a "valid" 4th Way group or not.

This sounds very good. Did G. ever make clear what this goal is beyond the evolution along the Man 4-7 ladder? It is the higher aim I am curious about.
For C's through SOTT, it is much clearer than with G. His writings seem to point towards individual "enlightenment", unless I am mistaken:

FIRST SERIES: To destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises whatsoever, in the mentation and feelings of the reader, the beliefs and views, by centuries rooted in him, about everything existing in the world.
SECOND SERIES: To acquaint the reader with the material required for a new creation and to prove the soundness and good quality of it.
THIRD SERIES: To assist the arising, in the mentation and in the feelings of the reader, of a veritable, nonfantastic representation not of that illusory world which he now perceives, but of the world existing in reality.

So if this higher aim is the striking feature that makes a Fourth Way group distinct from other groups(as many groups claim the same), I'd appreciate less vagueness:

There is a higher aim - something that starts beyond life as we know it - which drives a 4th Way school - not the personal desire to gain enlightenment. Personal transformation would happen through the practices - but it has to be understood as serving a cause in the larger context.

If by personal transformation, you mean more than intellectual insights and psychological transformation, this is probably unlikely for the "sly man" approach, considered he doesn't have much time for mind-body transformation(that is alluded to in the Man 4-7 scale).
So it would come down to the higher aim. Is it the same as the aim of SOTT or to do something about the STO-STS struggle/balance, which seems like a truly new concept?

 

[anart]

Haste to jump to conclusions appears

Medhavi, I've been following your posts here and it's quite obvious that it is you who are jumping to an enormous amount of conclusions. You presume to know what Gurdjieff did and did not know. You presume to know what level of Being he had attained. You presume to know what level of Being his students reached. You presume to know what he meant, specifically, by his descriptions of the other 'ways'. You even go so far as to entirely miss the whole crux of the matter that his students at the time simply may not have been capable of more since things - at that time on this planet - were at a certain state that limited certain possibilities.

In short, it is vital to remember that a man cannot see above his level of Being, so what you are evidencing here with the totality of your presumptions (not based on fact, only based on your subjective understanding) is YOUR level of Being. You cannot equate your understanding of the totality of the information and implications that 'are' Gurdjieff to the totality itself, because you cannot see above your level of Being. This is clearly evidenced by the vast number of conclusions you are jumping to, while never hesitating to take them as 'fact'. It would be enormously worthwhile for you to consider emptying your cup a bit and realizing that just because you cannot currently see something does not mean it isn't there. fwiw.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Gurdjieff's task was to prepare a "nucleus of people" that would be able to understand and transmit the knowledge of a cataclysm in the time of the coming generations. He realized that his students would not be able to constitute that nucleus so he began to write for a future generation to pick up the task if they are able. He clearly stated to Ouspenky (as is written in ISOTM) that our "ray of creation can be destroyed," that when it comes to "evolution, nothing is guaranteed." He even said that if a certain thing is not accomplished by a certain time -- a time which is known -- humanity itself can be destroyed because they would not serve the purpose for which they exist.

He also left behind very important information about the problems of creating groups to accomplish the tasks that are always connected to the Fourth Way. And he conveyed the problem of pathological influences on the general public. He also brought out the problem of man being "food for the moon" into the public domain. He did not ever say that the groups he formed were real groups -- he stated this often. It was an experiment of how to forge a group from the mechanical circle of humanity. An experiment to forge greater ties to real esoteric centers which never make direct contact with mechanical humanity and do not disclose the crux of the problem humanity is submerged in outside of their esoteric schools/circles.

In that sense G opened the possibilities in a way that you seem to be underestimating quite a bit. He dedicated his life to accomplishing that one thing: to make it possible for a greater number of people to form a "nucleus" capable of facing the task in their own time. I don't think we can even properly estimate how much G has influenced this group (QFG) and it's projects AND these times in general.

 

[Medhavi]

Haste to jump to conclusions appears

Medhavi, I've been following your posts here and it's quite obvious that it is you who are jumping to an enormous amount of conclusions. You presume to know what Gurdjieff did and did not know. You presume to know what level of Being he had attained. You presume to know what level of Being his students reached. You presume to know what he meant, specifically, by his descriptions of the other 'ways'. You even go so far as to entirely miss the whole crux of the matter that his students at the time simply may not have been capable of more since things - at that time on this planet - were at a certain state that limited certain possibilities.

In short, it is vital to remember that a man cannot see above his level of Being, so what you are evidencing here with the totality of your presumptions (not based on fact, only based on your subjective understanding) is YOUR level of Being. You cannot equate your understanding of the totality of the information and implications that 'are' Gurdjieff to the totality itself, because you cannot see above your level of Being. This is clearly evidenced by the vast number of conclusions you are jumping to, while never hesitating to take them as 'fact'. It would be enormously worthwhile for you to consider emptying your cup a bit and realizing that just because you cannot currently see something does not mean it isn't there. fwiw.

May I ask what your sources are then? Since G. has been dead for quite some time, I assume you know him from the same books I know. When you look at recent research like in "The Harmonious Circle" and the accounts of his direct disciples of him, a rather Castaneda like picture emerges(G's ambigious relationship to his frustrated disciples, especially his treatment of women) The message was good, but the man wasn't holy.
He did not ascend the scale he created himself. I would doubt that he was Man 7, from all accounts you must know yourself. So on his own scale, he probably didn't get beyond Man 5, since he still had egocentric attributes and nearly raped a woman, according to Webb(how true this is difficult to say, though but it may have motivated Ouspensky's leave to England).
What about the attainments of his students? If you look closely, pretty much everyone continued a rich intellectual framework, but that essence Gurdjieff emphasised seemed to have been lost. After all, it is obvious that G. had "something", but he seemed uninterested or unable to transmit it.

He realized that his students would not be able to constitute that nucleus

Was it him or the students though?

Anart, normally I deepy respect your work here. But I think you replied in the same mechanical manner as in the Long Hair thread. You dish out wide sweeping statements without even replying to specific arguments in particular.
You seem to imply that you know what your understanding is of the matter and where we might all be coming from with our own research.
It may benefit you to check whether or not you are projecting things into areas that you can't have specialist knowledge of. It is fine if you don't concern yourself with areas that you are not interested in, but it becomes a bit outrageous if you start making claims about what is and what is not. I am not making that either, I don't see myself presenting things as permanent fact and neither do I use that matter-of-fact speech style that you use here. I am reacting to people making claims about poorly researched areas and the overused citation of ISOTM for definitions.

I am pointing out the limits of certain concepts in the intellectual framework of Gurdjieff's/Ouspensky's presentation and how well or not they mesh up with we can actually find now, specifically in areas that were/are poorly researched or that Gurdjieff talked about, but did not research himself.

What I am trying to point out to you, Anart, is that you come across as awfully dogmatic and matter-of-fact, something you seem to be projecting onto my commentary. I don't mind this myself but I perceive others to take they way you reply to these discussions as rather off.

It is ironic that you point out to me that an empty cup would benefit me- I assume you don't need that, even though you likely did not concern yourself with the areas in question so far?

He dedicated his life to accomplishing that one thing: to make it possible for a greater number of people to form a "nucleus" capable of facing the task in their own time. I don't think we can even properly estimate how much G has influenced this group (QFG) and it's projects AND these times in general.

Yes, that saves his endeavour in my opinion. For if you take a look at most of his legacy through the generations of his students, all that remained was his rich intellectual framework which might only draw attention from Man 3 types I assume.

 

[Cosmos]

Gurdjieff's task was to prepare a "nucleus of people" that would be able to understand and transmit the knowledge of a cataclysm in the time of the coming generations. He realized that his students would not be able to constitute that nucleus so he began to write for a future generation to pick up the task if they are able. He clearly stated to Ouspenky (as is written in ISOTM) that our "ray of creation can be destroyed," that when it comes to "evolution, nothing is guaranteed." He even said that if a certain thing is not accomplished by a certain time -- a time which is known -- humanity itself can be destroyed because they would not serve the purpose for which they exist.

He also left behind very important information about the problems of creating groups to accomplish the tasks that are always connected to the Fourth Way. And he conveyed the problem of pathological influences on the general public. He also brought out the problem of man being "food for the moon" into the public domain. He did not ever say that the groups he formed were real groups -- he stated this often. It was an experiment of how to forge a group from the mechanical circle of humanity. An experiment to forge greater ties to real esoteric centers which never make direct contact with mechanical humanity and do not disclose the crux of the problem humanity is submerged in outside of their esoteric schools/circles.

In that sense G opened the possibilities in a way that you seem to be underestimating quite a bit. He dedicated his life to accomplishing that one thing: to make it possible for a greater number of people to form a "nucleus" capable of facing the task in their own time. I don't think we can even properly estimate how much G has influenced this group (QFG) and it's projects AND these times in general.

yep. I fully agree with that satement.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Medhavi, I think your problem is that you are trying to grasp something with your intellectual center only -- which is really the "formative apparatus" -- where the only way you can have a chance of grasping it would be to use all centers at once. And your approach to the whole issue of what is and is not 4th Way and the other 3 ways is colored by this approach. G used to say you cannot sit on two stools at once. But from what you have written on this forum, I get the impression what you're doing is akin to saying: "there's a stool over here; another one there; another on over there," etc. Comparing and contrasting stools is also missing the point. The only way you can get anything out of the Work is by doing it. In other words choosing a stool and sitting on it, so to speak.

You are also mistaken in saying "He did not ascend the scale he created himself." G did not create the "scale," you realize that right? He did not create the Fourth Way either. Why are you saying he did?

In terms of G's accomplishment of a task set out in genuine esoteric circles he came in contact with, the overall gist of what he transmitted was very similar to what Fulcanelli transmitted in his two books. From the available evidence, Fulcanelli DID accomplish the Great Work. But that's besides the point. Because the message that was deemed to be crucial was the same as Gurdjieff's, only written in the green language and really obscured and written under a pseudonym -- all traditions of alchemy.

 

[anart]

The message was good, but the man wasn't holy.

Do you see your subjective judgment in this statement? How do you define 'holy'? Just because you presume that he didn't live up to your idea of 'holy' means nothing. Do you see? You are projecting your subjective understanding onto him and thinking it is an objective understanding. It's not.

He did not ascend the scale he created himself.

Sez who? What proof do you have of that?

I posit that you have none, because there is none to have. He was working in a very specific time and place with very specific people - you cannot know what you so assuredly state as fact. That's my point. No one has ever said he was perfect, as a human being he could not have been - it's a ludicrous thing to suggest.

I would doubt that he was Man 7, from all accounts you must know yourself. So on his own scale, he probably didn't get beyond Man 5, since he still had egocentric attributes and nearly raped a woman, according to Webb(how true this is difficult to say, though but it may have motivated Ouspensky's leave to England).

Oh, please. Who is Webb? I mean, really - who IS Webb? You are swallowing elephants and straining at fleas and - not once - do you question your own understanding. My point - again - is that you are blind to the objective truth of Gurdjieff's understanding because you are measuring and weighing things you have no capacity to weigh and measure. If that were not the case, you would See what he was doing, which was more than almost any other human being on the planet to bring a means of escape to humanity at large. Of course, most, like you, do not have eyes to See.

Anart, normally I deepy respect your work here. But I think you replied in the same mechanical manner as in the Long Hair thread. You dish out wide sweeping statements without even replying to specific arguments in particular.

You are mistaken and if you actually 'respected' my work here, then you would listen rather than argue. You would stop, for one infinitesimal moment, to consider that you are mistaken rather than defend yourself and your ensconced viewpoints. Your actions speak very clearly, as they always have. Can you see it?

You seem to imply that you know what your understanding is of the matter and where we might all be coming from with our own research.
It may benefit you to check whether or not you are projecting things into areas that you can't have specialist knowledge of. It is fine if you don't concern yourself with areas that you are not interested in, but it becomes a bit outrageous if you start making claims about what is and what is not. I am not making that either, I don't see myself presenting things as permanent fact and neither do I use that matter-of-fact speech style that you use here. I am reacting to people making claims about poorly researched areas and the overused citation of ISOTM for definitions.

I am pointing out the limits of certain concepts in the intellectual framework of Gurdjieff's/Ouspensky's presentation and how well or not they mesh up with we can actually find now, specifically in areas that were/are poorly researched or that Gurdjieff talked about, but did not research himself.

What I am trying to point out to you, Anart, is that you come across as awfully dogmatic and matter-of-fact, something you seem to be projecting onto my commentary. I don't mind this myself but I perceive others to take they way you reply to these discussions as rather off.

It is ironic that you point out to me that an empty cup would benefit me- I assume you don't need that, even though you likely did not concern yourself with the areas in question so far?

All of the above is a deflection. You are trying to tell me what is wrong with my thinking rather than - for one infinitesimal moment - looking at yourself. Until you are ready to look at yourself, being here on this forum will not benefit you at all, in any way. When you display a level of understanding that approaches Objectivity, then you can instruct me. You are not a moderator on this forum, nor are you a teacher on this forum (not all teachers are moderators) - those who are teachers, those who instruct me, display a level of understanding that is very, very clear. You can't See it because you only see yourself. So, until you develop that level of understanding, focus on yourself, it is the only way to proceed.

 

[Laura]

Medhavi, do you work with people? As in teaching and managing large groups? Giving aid and assistance, that sort of thing?