Approaching Infinity said:
Medhavi, you might want to read these two posts from Laura on Gurdjieff:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,23285.msg286978.html#msg286978
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20379.msg206323.html#msg206323
The point isn't the terms he uses, his sources, or anything like that. Yeah, that stuff can be useful, e.g. his terms and classifications can be strikingly accurate, and it can be fun to track the sources of his ideas, but the point is, despite the shady sources, metaphors, made-up stuff, air-tight classification schemes, etc., as Laura writes above, Gurdjieff was demonstrably right about a whole lot of stuff, particularly when it comes to human behavior. And that's the only reason we use him. But we don't stop there, and if you'll notice, we spend more time NOT talking about Gurdjieff, because there's so much else - cognitive science, diet, history, politics, etc. Anyways, I just saw Laura posted, and she says it better that I could.
But this was a useful post! I meditated on my core issue with Gurdjieff and, in combination with your point; this led me to recognize my error that I am making here:
Where I come from (Taiwan), I used to carefully gauge teachers I came across (still am doing that). I would mainly compare their behavior with their words and see whether their own standards were met by themselves. If I found contradictions and couldn’t assign these actions to “skillful means” to help their disciples, I tried speaking to them directly about these issues and look at their reaction. The results made me jaded and somewhat overcritical, even though it had saved my neck many times. It also made me overly confident in my ability to tell fraud from something genuine, as I was repeatedly shown that I was right about a certain “master” in retrospect, due to evidence in questionable behavior and words that followed. From that time, I got the habit of looking closely at the master himself and all details I could find; if he was dead, I’d refer to historical evidence, especially from unbiased sources, if possible.
Then I stumbled upon several esoteric masters that represented different schools (which don’t have English names, so I can’t write them down here) that reacted differently to me than more “orthodox” masters. They usually insisted on my own subjectivity and that I was projecting my own issues upon them, even though I thought I was pointing out their glaring issues. Furthermore, my state of being was made responsible for my apparently distorted views; I was, according to some of them, simply unable to see what they saw, and thus couldn’t understand their acts and words.
I was immediately reminded of the doctrine that is used among certain Vajrayanic sects, that a Lama never is at fault but that the student was harming himself through his suspicions. Obviously, this has been exploited way too much to the point that Western psychology would call denial, a case similar to the naked emperor metaphor. So keeping that in mind, I continued my investigations with some of them, and with the exception of two, I could safely dismiss them as psychopathic types. These two, however, I couldn’t keep close to, seeing as they wandered around and weren’t associated with institutes or anything like that. These two might have been right about me.
Nevertheless, these experiences that formed my habits continued as I went to England to study comparative religion and anthropology. There, I met some Fourth Way school representatives, or so I thought. They struck me as awfully intellectual, as I couldn’t feel anything despite hearing their words. There would also be discrepancies that would make me suspicious that it would all be just an intellectual game for them, seeing as within Daoist and Buddhist thought, superficial intellect is seen as weak and largely unable to affect change in being(i.e. empty words). It was just by sheer luck(is there such a thing?) that I stumbled upon the work here.
But from these experiences, it should be clear why I am reacting the way I am, specifically to anart who used similar words to the ones I already heard before in other contexts, which proved to be empty back then. My experience with the exceptional other two masters that managed to survive my inquiry has led me to consider that anart might be right, seeing as I can’t have done the same work as you’ve done and can’t claim to have walked the walk in the areas targeted by Laura’s questions:
Laura said:
Have you dealt with pathological people? Can you spot pathology in a few written sentences or a few spoken words?
As mentioned, I’ve come across certain types that would be labeled such, according to the psychology books here. I don’t think I am able to see that in the written words yet, because my main occupation has been to look at behavior. I don’t think I have experience dealing with pathological people either, seeing as I usually chose to avoid crossing their paths as they would have harmed me from their positions of authority(where they’re usually found)
Laura said:
ADDED: More than that, how many children have you raised?
How old are you?
What is your professional background? What kinds of jobs have you held?
None, seeing as I am just in my mid-twenties. I work as a translator, mainly with Daoist groups.
I see your point. I can easily see how you’re better equipped to understand where G. is coming from and what the Work entails. My own background is better suited to understand yogic paths, which are more concerned with the transformation of individuals and tend to leave global happenings out of the equation, which is problematical right now, given the world’s apparent situation.
Laura said:
I mean, forget theory and cultural misunderstandings, do you get down in the dirt, research not just eastern things, but what brings home the bacon in terms of helping people sort out their heads which is the FIRST thing that needs to be done before anyone decides to study anything at all. Have you read The Wave series? What about "Buffers, Programs and "the Predator's Mind" found here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,6419.0.html How about the Big 10 or so psychology and cognitive science books recommended here on the forum? How about the cognitive science forum?
And then, have you helped people to figure out what is really theirs and what is not FIRST and before any philosophical, abstract musings??? Like helping them give birth to themselves with all the mess that goes along with it?
Yes, I’ve read all these excellent writings except for the new Big Five, as I hadn’t the chance to catch up on the new Cognitive Science forum. I’ll try to get to that as soon as possible.
The type of help I have given and received so far is along similar lines (though I cannot be sure). However, it is difficult to apply the same concepts you are using here to the circumstances and situations I’ve been in. They require and prescribe different things, although the gist is to sort out your programs, study your mind and deal with the type of struggle I am going through myself right now. The forms are different.
Approaching Infinity said:
Yep. The vibe I get from you, Medhavi, is kind of: "Let's just stick to the topics. Leave me out of the equation." That's fine for an academic debate, but here, 'you' form an essential part of the equation.
Exactly. That is how I normally discuss academic matters. But I realized the futility of that kind of debate here, so I am balancing this out now with bringing myself into this. Apologies to the OP, as this is getting away from the topic.
Laura said:
Actually, as we have discovered, you can't even leave the personality out of an academic debate unless you are talking about HARD FACTS/DATA like the chemical composition of an artifact or a mathematical formula that is either correctly solved or not. In practically all other instances, there is bias and there is a LOT of bias in writings about Gurdjieff and reactions to Gurdjieff, in writings about me, reactions to me, etc. So I am in a fairly unique position to actually TEST his ideas and observations (as are most of us here). And, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
I've read probably every book about Gurdjieff of any significance. I know he did things that he had to do to survive. I know that he wasn't perfect; neither am I. But there is a huge, cosmic sense of purpose in what he tried to do and a whole lot of what he said has proven out over the years, again and again and again.
Medhavi, did you listen to our podcast discussions about Gurdjieff? It might be helpful to do so.
I will listen to that. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t know about this one before. My view already has changed, but this will clarify things further.
Buddy said:
Also, to Medhavi, I'd say this: many people have complained about Gurdjieff's teaching. They say things like 'it's fragmented', 'confused', with 'no clear outline' (which means no one-size-fits-all linear sequence), yada, yada. Well, classicists say the same thing about Quantum Reality and yet we know reality is quantum, so go figure! It's the Western mindset I tell 'ya!
That does turn up a lot when you talk to other Fourth Way groups though(I’ve read the Imitation groups thread now) And as has been rightly pointed out before, this probably has to do with what the person is actually looking for and how he/she is trying to bend the path towards his/her own liking. It is also looking for the “easy way out”, I think.
I’ve seen similar happen with yogic paths, where I saw students complain about not getting the right technique for achieving such and such realization right away. They were looking for a clear guidance system towards liberation, with all the signs along the way and doors opened for their convenience. I was like that, too, and still am, to a certain extent.
But this frustration with fragmentary teachings is common. In case of Fourth Way students I met, they usually complained about the lack of practicality and getting lost in the rich intellectual framework that it offers.
SeekinTruth said:
Just to add to what has been said already, Medhavi. Hiding behind your "academic stance," there is something that has become clear particularly in this thread. You think the student can know more than the teacher in any authentic "esoteric school." That simply is not possible. Only in an imitation "school" it MAY be possible. You mention if it wasn't G's students that realized the groups would not "cut it," naming Ouspensky specifically, for example, and implying the students left G because of this.
Ouspensky basically could not overcome the very first obstacle in the Work. One thing G possessed was he knew exactly what each of his students needed to overcome to make even the smallest progress ("thawing" his emotional center in the case of Ouspensky).That's one of the many indications that G possessed more than theory, HAD increased his own Being through the system he was teaching, AND his own teachers knew what THEY were doing when they entrusted G with his task. Ouspenksy left and began to "teach" the system he himself could not benefit from. This is astounding only in that he has written in ISOTM that this happens quite often in Work groups. Yet he spent the rest of his life pretending to be a teacher for something he was a failed student in. The last years of his life, he was an alcoholic and admitted he was addicted to the whole "teacher" role with everything that comes with that -- tuition fees, ego / prestige, etc.
Even though I am coming from a non-western worldview, I see the danger in myself being/becoming Ouspensky. This “thawing” is needed for me, if you keep in mind what I told you about myself in the beginning of the post.
SeekinTruth said:
Very early in studies / learning of what G was teaching, he already started skipping lectures when he thought he already knew / heard it before (when G was traveling and teaching between groups in Moscow and Petersberg). This attitude led to him abandoning the group and attempting to teach what he did not know or understand (just as he wrote in ISOTM often happens in such groups that G had talked about) to "save the system" from G.
In this, lays the blindness of mechanical man. They cannot see many of the most important aspects they need to overcome in themselves. And many, like Ouspensky, even throw away the chance, which certainly doesn't come easily, to get anything out of encountering Work such as he had. This all relates very closely to what anart wrote which G tried to make clear to all his students: no one can see above his own level of being.
But there is some faith involved there, I think. As in my case, if you’re used to finding ugly truths after being repeatedly told that you simply can’t see the Truth because of your level of being(something that is really common amongst the esoteric schools I’ve encountered so far), you’re much more careful before you accept that notion again. From the correlations that I saw in my last Meditation, I am inclined to this accept this again, even though I feel inner resistance that has to be worked on.
SeekinTruth said:
The reason I don't bother trying to guess what level G attained is because until I have attained the same level (at least Man #4 or higher) it would simply be impossible. So if I fall into wiseacring, I would hope that others would point this out to me (and I'm very confident they will in no time flat) on this forum, so that I can get on with doing and working on what's useful and not wasting time "pouring from the empty into the void," as G would say.
I hope to do the same now.
SeekinTruth said:
Finally, we can nitpick as you have chosen, and for example say that G did not teach about the diet issues, etc. and throw out all of the things he DID say that hit the nail on the head. But what exactly would be the point of such an attitude? By the way, have YOU undertaken any of the dietary issues we DO discuss here? While it is extremely important to read all the material about the dietary issues, just like anything else, just reading about it ain't gonna give the benefits of applying it.
Within most types of genuine Chinese Nei Gong schools(think Yoga), the diet is already the same as the one explained in “Primal Body, Primal Mind”. So I didn’t have to make any adjustments, as I already am on fatty meat diet with no grains/no diary and only water as part of the training.
The reasons given are of course, different. I don’t think the ancient Chinese yogis knew about Ketosis but they were aware about what sugar/grains/diary does to your mind and body, so it was thrown out early on. The theory is that if you can’t subsist on your refined qi alone(which is called辟穀; subsisting on your own energy without having to drink water or eat food), the next best thing is to avoid grains/diary/sweet/spicy stuff and eat as much fatty, protein rich food as possible, spreading them out onto many meals per day to facilitate digestion and Meditation.
For the interest of the diet research here, 辟穀 translates as 辟(bì=avoid) and 穀(gǔ=grains/cereals)
I’ve done that only for about a month once, but this is pretty difficult, if not impossible, in my current working environment and when I read. But I’ve met some who’ve done that for years. It is pretty amazing what it does for detoxification and enabling control over energy flows.
obyvatel said:
You are speaking for yourself here Medhavi. It is up to you whether it is going to be a standstill or not. Your participation in this forum has been fairly limited - so allow me ask you what are you really looking for here? You know that this is not a forum that debates comparative religion. It is clear that you have some academic and perhaps some experiential knowledge in Asian traditions. You have issues with Gurdjieff. This much was apparent last time you participated here. If you are serious about seriously working on yourself here, then it is up to you to find a way out of the "academic argument stalemates" that you appear to find yourself in.
I don't learn if I let this come to a standstill. So I am trying to make up for that now.
I am not looking for academic arguments, even though it started off like that. This wouldn’t work out in the end, because I am myself just learning and I expect that most people on the forum here do not undertake learning in Daoist or Tantric Thought and Practice. As such, we would be turning in circles and keep misunderstanding each other. What, however, attracts my attention, are what I perceive as overgeneralizations that are delivered as if they're sound facts; specifically statements such as:
anart in cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic said:
I think Gurdjieff made it quite clear that 'kindabuffer' is 'kundalini' and that it is the energy that keeps man trapped in illusion. It is the source of the living dream in which man is trapped. I also think there is a lot of evidence to indicate that this is why so many eastern traditions and new age traditions focus on 'raising' or 'utilizing' kundalini energy - it is a trap for the soul, and the strengthening of the dream - the opposite of awakening. These traditions are all corrupted and their main purpose, for quite some time now, is to keep man trapped more deeply in his illusion - sheep believing they are magicians. I think this is also why it is often represented as serpent energy.
anart on the same page said:
Because it is a trap, as are many (if not all) eastern traditions. It can be no other way, Medhavi, at this point in the history of 3D STS planet earth.
obyvatel said:
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.
While this is pretty accurate in terms of the overall gist I am perceiving myself, it still is awfully wide-sweeping, generalizing and one-sided, both practically and academically speaking.
Compared to the high standards in other areas here(diet, psychopathy, politics, history etc.), I find these statements to be way too confident and passing off as factual. As I’ve alluded to before, it would be equally unfair if one judges the Fourth Way, or even “Western Ways”(there is no such thing as “the West” or “Asian ways”) by looking at the majority of Fourth Way groups in existence without even talking to them, participating in their work and so on. How would Outsiders distinguish between something like an Imitation Fourth Way group and one that is functional without getting to know them? Especially when "Fourth Way" would be thrown into the same basket as all other "Western Ways", including New Age, Spiritualist movements, Religions and other Cointelpro.
I have not participated nearly enough here so far to grasp things properly, and I intend to change that now.
I can’t, however, expect people to do difficult fieldwork in alien cultures after much preparation of learning very difficult languages and breaking through cultural barriers. So what I think to be fair to expect from people here, in return for my admittance of my own inadequacy in the areas of life you have experience in and that helps you understand Gurdjieff and the overall gist of the work here better, is to perhaps see that you cannot easily pass off judgment in the areas you have not participated in yourself in adequate numbers and in-depth enough. That is what I am trying to get at with Anart. I could also ask you if you learnt the official and regional languages, did lengthy academic study, had enough fieldwork done, spoke and lived with the right people and so on, to be able to give off qualified opinions on these matters. But I don’t, because it is of no relevance to the Work here. That I have recognized.
But please be careful with wide-sweeping statements. Nobody can claim omniscience of what is exactly in existence on the whole planet, specifically when most of these claims are based on “what can be inferred” or “what can be seen(from what sources)”. It is likely that not everything can be understood from the Western logical and interferential framework alone. Monopoly of knowledge strikes many people as sectarian. I believe the Cassiopaeans have once stated that no one source contains all Truth and to seek Truth through a myriad ways.
As has been implied by one of the books in the Cognitive Science section, not everything can be found and resolved through introspection alone. The fact I am interested in your work here should tell you that I am not wholly satisfied with my own work and don't expect to solve everything worthwhile through that venue alone.
To be fair, it might also be that these types of knowledges I am after are no longer necessary due to the current state of the world. But these shamanic sub-cultures I am investigating have been dying out since quite a long time now, and I hope to find something valuable before it nears extinction. That is how I earn my living anyway. My original idea, when I encountered Fourth Way teachings first, was to put emphasis on knowing the “three ways” first before attempting to understand the Fourth Way, even though it is not emphasized by Gurdjieff. I thought one would run into danger of misunderstanding these first three when operating solely from the Fourth Way framework. These type of generalising statements alerted me to reply.
obyvatel said:
Hi Medhavi,
Just fyi, this forum has members who are from Asia and have had direct experience with some of the spiritual traditions there. I am from that part of the world, and have my personal views on the "living" traditions that I have experienced. So in my opinion there are practical results that can be observed as things stand at present. I refer specifically to traditions related to a house-holder, which is what is of interest here, rather than orthodox monasteries. Our collective knowledge in this forum with respect to the present day practicality of Asian traditions as a vehicle of work on the self is by no means exhaustive - but I would say that there is enough data to form a working hypothesis. Whether 4th Way schools existed in the distant past is a question which is more academic in nature and conclusive evidence is hard to come by in this respect.
My own hypothesis has been that most paths I had come across there are either closed off or dysfunctional, as it stands right now. I agree. They would closely correspond to anart's quote given above. It is not the end of the road, however. It is unscientific to stop at that, especially when I already have the tools for such work. I could have stopped looking for Fourth Way schools upon my initial disappointing run-ins with “Fourth Way” people. But I kept on searching. That’s how I found you.
I hope I am making it not too confusing in trying to explain where I am coming from or where I am struggling. I think the best thing to do for me right now is to follow anart’s advice and do the Work as it is laid out here. I do not quite understand it yet within your own terms, as reading alone does not do very much. I have to apply it and dig down deeper into my own issues before I can properly participate here and be of use to others.
