Boyhood with Gurdjieff - Fritz Peters

[Inti]

I enjoyed reading this book, it is easy to read and full of short anecdotes that are thought-provoking and often amusing too. You get the impression that both Gurdjieff and Fritz Peters were very fond of each other and both shared a sense of mischief (the difference being that Gurdjieff's mischief was intentional, whereas Fritz Peters' was more automatic).

I will put some quotes here, just to give you an idea of some of the "lessons" that crop up in this book:

He agreed and then asked me how many of the acorns would become oak trees. I answered that I supposed only five or six of them would actually develop into trees, if that many.
He nodded. "Perhaps only one, perhaps not even one. Must learn from Nature. Man is also organism. Nature make many acorns, but possibility to become tree exist for only few acorns. Same with man - many men born, but only few grow. People think this waste, think Nature waste. Not so. Rest become fertilizer, go back into earth and create possiblity for more acorns, more men, once in while more tree - more real men. Nature always give - but only give possibility. To become real oak, or real man, must make effort. You understand this, my work, this Institute, not for fertilizer. For real man, only. But must also understand fertilizer necessary to Nature. Possibility for real tree, real man also depend just this fertilizer."
After a rather long silence, he continued: "In west - your world - is belief that man have soul, given by God. Not so. Nothing given by God, only Nature give. And Nature only give possibility for soul, not give soul. Must acquire soul through work. But, unlike tree, man have many possibilities. As man now exist he have also possibility to grow by accident - grow wrong way. Man can become many things, not just fertilizer, not just real man: can become what you call 'good' or 'evil' - real man only conscious, only wish acquire soul for proper development." (p.42)

...He added that, even with the best of intentions, most people would be too afraid to love another person in an active sense, or even to attempt to do anything for them; and that one of the terrifying aspects of love was that while it was possible to help another person to a certain degree, it was not possible to actually "do" anything for them. "If see another man fall down, when he must walk, you can pick him up. But, although to take one more step is more necessary for him even than air, he must take this step alone; impossible for another person to take it for him." (p.167)

Among the purposes of all leaders, messiahs, messengers from the gods, and so forth, there was one fundamental and very important purpose: to find some means by which the two sides of man, and therefore, the two sides of the earth, could live together in peace and harmony. He said that time was very short - it was necessary to achieve this harmony as soon as possible to avoid complete disaster. Philosophies, religions and other such movements had all failed to accomplish this aim, an the only possible way to accomplish it was through the individual development of man. As an individual developed his own, unknown potentialities, he would become strong and would, in turn, influence many more people. If enough individuals could develop themselves - even partially - into genuine, natural men, able to use the real potentialities that were proper to mankind, each such individual would then be able to convince and win over as many as a hundred other men, who would, each in his turn, upon achieving development, be able to influence another hundred, and so on.
He added, grimly, that he was in no sense joking when he had said that time was short. Further, he said that history had already proven to us that such tools as politics, religion and any other organized movements which treated man "in the mass" and not as individual beings, were failures. That they would always be failures and that the separate, distinct growth of each individual in the world was the only possible solution.
Whether one believed him whole-heartedly or not, he made a convincing and passionate case for the importance of individual development and growth. (p.160-161)

Some of the doubts that Fritz Peters raises I also found valuable, because whilst I cannot know the answers, at least at present, they seemed very reasonable doubts and questions to me and worth consideration. For example:

Much as I might have liked, at that age, to believe in "miracles" or to find reasons and answers concerning man's existence, I wanted some sort of tangible proof. Gurdjieff's own personal magnetism was often enough proof of his superior knowledge. He was generally credible to me because he was sufficiently "different" from other people - from anyone I had ever known - to be a convincing "super" man. On the other hand, I was troubled because I would always come up against a seemingly obvious fact: anyone who sets himself up as a teacher in any mystical or other-worldly sense had to be some sort of fanatic - totally convinced, totally devoted to a particular course, and, therefore, automatically opposed to the socially accepted, generally recognized, philosophies or religions. It was not only difficult to argue with him, there was nothing to argue against. One could, of course, argue about questions of method or technique but before that it was necessary to have agreed on some aim or purpose. I had no objection to his aim of "harmonious development" for mankind. There was nothing in the words that anyone could oppose.
It seemed to me that the only possible answer would have to lie in some sort of results: tangible, visible results in people - not in Gurdjieff - he was, as I have said, convincing enough. But what about his students? If they had been practising his method of harmonious development for several years, most of them, wouldn't it be somehow visible?
Except for Madame Ostrovsky, his deceased wife, I could think of no one other than Gurdjieff himself who had "commanded" any sort of respect by the simple fact of their presence.
One thing that a great many of the other, older students did have in common was what I thought of as a kind of "affected serenity". They managed to look composed and controlled or unruffled most of the time, but it was never quite believable. They gave an impression of being outwardly controlled that never rang quite true, particularly as it was easy enough for Gurdjieff to upset their equilibrium whenever he chose to do so, with the result that most of the senior students were always alternating between states of outward calm and hysteria. (p.136-137)

To me, Fritz Peters' question is really whether it is possible for mankind to achieve harmonious development. He would have liked some proof, at least at that age. The fact that there is little proof (except in Gurdjieff perhaps) does not mean that harmonious development is not possible nor does it mean that this method does not work. The example of the acorns and possiblity of becoming an oak is to show that it doesn't happen often and certainly not without effort. I can understand this concern and doubt on a personal level, it certainly seems dubious to me that I will come to something approximating this kind of development. However, I enjoy trying it out so it will probably never seem wasted effort to me.

 

[Bar Kochba]

I am reading this one now - I havent really read anything 'negative' about Gurdjieff until this book. For example (whether true or not), Peters mentiones in an off-handed way how Gurdjieff got a girl pregnant a few months after his wife died. It makes Gurdjieff more human in my eyes. Gurdjieff also makes some strange remarks about women which surprised me. Ex: "He said that the nature of women was such that self development in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve...he said, 'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man.'" pg 114.

 

[agni]

Gurdjieff also makes some strange remarks about women which surprised me. Ex: "He said that the nature of women was such that self development in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve...he said, 'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man.'" pg 114.

Hi Bar Kochba,

Could it be a possibility that he talks about feminine/masculine forces within ?

 

[nwigal]

I am reading this one now - I havent really read anything 'negative' about Gurdjieff until this book. For example (whether true or not), Peters mentiones in an off-handed way how Gurdjieff got a girl pregnant a few months after his wife died. It makes Gurdjieff more human in my eyes. Gurdjieff also makes some strange remarks about women which surprised me. Ex: "He said that the nature of women was such that self development in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve...he said, 'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man.'" pg 114.

This is similar to a native american teaching- Woman is of the earth, Man is of the sky. The explanation I was given: spiritual energy must be grounded to the life force of the planet to complete a circuit in order to flow "upward" (for organic beings). Some of the old native american symbols and pictograms involved with this teaching sure look to me like some kind of alchemical circuit diagrams...lost science about FRV, perhaps?


Edit=Quotes

 

[Bar Kochba]

He does talk about male/female forces within. But, he also says that his work is not for women because women already know what he teaches - they just need the right man (a 'real' man) to to activate the knowledge in them. And by 'right' man Gurdjieff meant a fully developed man. I am paraphrasing, but can produce quotes if desired. This was written by someone recalling life when he was a child, so there is a good chance his recollections may be skewed.

 

[agni]

He does talk about male/female forces within. But, he also says that his work is not for women because women already know what he teaches - they just need the right man (a 'real' man) to to activate the knowledge in them. And by 'right' man Gurdjieff meant a fully developed man. I am paraphrasing, but can produce quotes if desired. This was written by someone recalling life when he was a child, so there is a good chance his recollections may be skewed.

Have you ever done something knowing it's not a right thing to do, but you've done it anyway ? Ever ate something, knowing it's not good for you, but ate it anyways ? Ever KNEW something about self, but chose to surpress it ?

Question is: Who already KNOWS and who DOES ? Who needs to do work ?

Perhaps, I am far away with what was meant, will be more than happy to be corrected :)

 

[RflctnOfU]

I am reading this one now - I havent really read anything 'negative' about Gurdjieff until this book. For example (whether true or not), Peters mentiones in an off-handed way how Gurdjieff got a girl pregnant a few months after his wife died. It makes Gurdjieff more human in my eyes. Gurdjieff also makes some strange remarks about women which surprised me. Ex: "He said that the nature of women was such that self development in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve...he said, 'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man.'" pg 114.

One thing to keep in mind, especially with some of the more 'outlandish' statements made by gurdjieff, is that he told ALL of his pupils "never believe anything you hear me say". G also said (I don't have the exact quote in front of me - so I am paraphrasing) 'truth can only be assimilated in the form of a lie'. Based on all accounts, Conscious lying was valuable to Gurdjieff, and this particular quote fits the bill.

I think what he means by this, is that the passive force cannot transmute alone, without the active force --- the blending of the two manifesting the neutralizing force. This can be seen in the creation of a human being - with the blending of active and passive Exioharies becoming a zygote (neutralizing). An ovary is just an ovary without blending with sperm.

I suspect that some of his most valuable teachings are contained within just these 'lawful inexactitudes'. Shocks, if you will.

Just my $.02

Kris

 

[Beau]

He does talk about male/female forces within. But, he also says that his work is not for women because women already know what he teaches- they just need the right man (a 'real' man) to to activate the knowledge in them. And by 'right' man Gurdjieff meant a fully developed man.

My thinking here is that Gurdjieff is referring to women generally having a working emotional center. G's work was focused on awakening man's sleeping emotional center. He also noted that no true work can begin until that occurs. So, I don't think G is "putting down" women here, to the contrary. In fact, later in his life, he formed an all-women's group, The Rope. It's also entirely possible that G's views on women changed over time and later in life he grew more open to idea of woman being able to progress without the aid of a man, especially since it seemed The Rope was a collection of some of G's most advanced students.

 

[Bar Kochba]

I just finished this book. I must say, when he and Gurdjieff say farewell, my tear ducts reacted in such a way that I had to blink furiously for a moment. Most of the book focused on Peters' perceptions of Gurdjieff and life at the Prieure. He arrives in France as an 11 year old, and the book ends when he leaves at 13 years old. Only in the final few chapters does Peters discuss the work in any substantial detail. According to the epilogue, Peters did not pursue the work after he left France.

 

[Bar Kochba]

One thing stood out to me in Peters' description of Gurdjieff. He said that G exuded the aura of always being genuinely calm and in control, even if he was "raging." Everyone else, including the senior pupils, seemed to try to emulate this but it was obvious that it was fake. That when they were "calm" in a given situation, he could tell that underneath they felt something else entirely. If this is true, then it goes to show how difficult this work really is. No wonder so many give up or delude themselves.

 

[Psalehesost]

Something I remembered but didn't come to post until now:

Things discussed in this thread regarding men, women and the Work has also been covered in the thread 'Man-woman/male-female'. EDIT: And a bit more extensively, which is why I mention it.

 

[Bar Kochba]

Thanks for the info, Psalehesost, I will check that out.