Gurdjieff`s Buried Dog

[nemo]

Now this book by John Henderson (a pseudonym?), "Hidden Meanings and Picture-form Language in the Writings of G. I. Gurdjieff (Excavations of the Buried Dog)"
(Author House 2007) sounds like a very intriguing read for those who are trying to grok Beelzebub .

Those who haven`t read the complete All & Everything Series should be wise enough not to read the book yet.
But Henderson tells us it`s ok to peruse the first three chapters here: _http://www.gurdjieffsburieddog.com/uploads/1ST_3__shortened_PDF.pdf:

This book on hidden meanings and picture-form language has
been well trained specifically for that purpose, and will patiently
wait until you’ve done the required preparatory work. Also read
Meetings with Remarkable Men, and Life is real only then, when ‘I
am’. Then you will be at least somewhat prepared for Gurdjieff’s
use of picture-form language and Illustrative Inculcation, and the
personal instruction as given by one true initiate to another, as will
be found within his images.
Otherwise, if you read this book without first having read all of
Gurdjieff’s, what you find within these pages will be perhaps
informative, or entertaining; or, if you are so inclined as to enjoy
brain-teasers, puzzles, and such, you may even find it somewhat
intellectually stimulating. But it will also and without any doubt
whatsoever be just so much “head stuff,” which will do you little
good, “Cookie,” and, in terms of future benefit from your Gurdjieff
studies, perhaps more than a bit of harm.
I hope you don’t think me too fresh in calling you “Cookie,” seeing
as how we have just met, but it is like that, really. We are like...

Cookies in the Kitchen

We are all “cookies” in the same ‘Great Kitchen,’ but in various
stages of what is called ‘being done.’ Now, some cookies never
make it past the stage of being formed of raw dough, and so, not
being cooked or otherwise much used, at the “End of the Day” are
simply and abruptly folded back into the bowl of amorphous cookie
dough and put into the fridge to be used a wee bit here or there,
again, perhaps tomorrow, or the next day, and the next, and even
the day after that – and so on. Others, by chance, have wandered
into some leaky old low-temperature oven where they begin to
take on solidity of sorts, but only of sorts, and it is an excruciatingly
slow process.

But you, you “lucky cookie,” have wandered into the “fourth corner”
of the kitchen, Gurdjieff’s corner, where, with the skills of a Master
Chef, he will ‘Cook’ you – first adding certain special secret
ingredients which will not only make you much more tasty food for
the gods, but, if you do everything just right on your part, you will
find that as a result of certain spices included in his recipe you will
come out of his really hot oven no longer just an ordinary cookie,
but one in possession of both a subjectivised being and objective
consciousness. Conscious cookies, as you might well imagine,
are rare and much too valuable to be wasted as mere snack food.
No, such cookies are not eaten, but are immediately put to work
as part of the kitchen staff.

Seems like if we take Gurdjieff seriously studying Beelzebub will occupy our minds (and hopefully emotions) for a looong time.
i hope this book will be helpful!

 

[findit]

I read the book and enjoyed the points that the author was trying to make. The biggest point was a scathing review of revision by some of the students of Gurdjieff led by Jeanne de Salzmann. According to the author, G said it only takes three generations to completely destroy the work of an author and he knew in advance that this would happen to his work, so he devised a clever way to show future readers that his work would be tampered with. This is shown in detail in the book. There is also a copy of the "Herald of Coming Good" in the back of the book as this has significant relevance to the other books. This book is like reading how to put pieces of a large puzzle together, but to show what G was trying to say in hidden meaning. A fun and fascinating read.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I find this book to be a VERY astute piece of scholarship and turning some annoying 'flies' into elephants.

Kris

 

[phadreus]

Hello: This is phadreus. I just read PFHM last night and I believe having studied his works for over thirty years those of us interested in the 4th Way and the teachings of George Ivanovich are in for it now. "The Black Dabble" has come back form the grave to inform us what we have been doing is thanks to people like that Black magician Ouspensky, and her highness the arch-vainglorious Jean D'Salzisiano et al, is pouring very much of the empty into the void. Here hopefullu thanks to Mr. Henderson we have the first of what will be the restoration and real developmant of Mr. Gurdjieffs ideas concerning spiritual development. Let us see, said the blind man. We are approaching 2012 and there is much talk of a new or re-newal of a more real collective consciousness. That is collective in the sense of the development of individual consciousness on a broader, mass basis. If this is the case the "gems" Mr. Gurdjieff sent out all over will begin to turn up like so many bee's to the honey. Although it will mean a lot more work on our parts...but what else have we to do?
Until next time, may the Mullah Nasser Eddin bless your fleas and elephants!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Hello: This is phadreus. I just read PFHM last night and I believe having studied his works for over thirty years those of us interested in the 4th Way and the teachings of George Ivanovich are in for it now. "The Black Dabble" has come back form the grave to inform us what we have been doing is thanks to people like that Black magician Ouspensky, and her highness the arch-vainglorious Jean D'Salzisiano et al, is pouring very much of the empty into the void. Here hopefullu thanks to Mr. Henderson we have the first of what will be the restoration and real developmant of Mr. Gurdjieffs ideas concerning spiritual development. Let us see, said the blind man. We are approaching 2012 and there is much talk of a new or re-newal of a more real collective consciousness. That is collective in the sense of the development of individual consciousness on a broader, mass basis. If this is the case the "gems" Mr. Gurdjieff sent out all over will begin to turn up like so many bee's to the honey. Although it will mean a lot more work on our parts...but what else have we to do?
Until next time, may the Mullah Nasser Eddin bless your fleas and elephants!

Welcome to the forum, phadreus. We encourage all new members to post on the newbies board so we can get to know you better.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Hello: This is phadreus. I just read PFHM last night and I believe having studied his works for over thirty years those of us interested in the 4th Way and the teachings of George Ivanovich are in for it now. "The Black Dabble" has come back form the grave to inform us what we have been doing is thanks to people like that Black magician Ouspensky, and her highness the arch-vainglorious Jean D'Salzisiano et al, is pouring very much of the empty into the void. Here hopefullu thanks to Mr. Henderson we have the first of what will be the restoration and real developmant of Mr. Gurdjieffs ideas concerning spiritual development. Let us see, said the blind man. We are approaching 2012 and there is much talk of a new or re-newal of a more real collective consciousness. That is collective in the sense of the development of individual consciousness on a broader, mass basis. If this is the case the "gems" Mr. Gurdjieff sent out all over will begin to turn up like so many bee's to the honey. Although it will mean a lot more work on our parts...but what else have we to do?
Until next time, may the Mullah Nasser Eddin bless your fleas and elephants!

Hi Phadreus
I read this book also and was initially very interested in what the author had to say, and I do think he makes some very good points. However I also suspect that at times he cuts the clues to suit the theory.

Take one example: The Akhaldans. I have read BTs many times and I notice that each time Beelzebub talks of the Alkhaldans he does so revently as if they had strove towards and even attained something rare in man today. ( also The Akhladans seem to be identical with the 'Imastun brotherhood' of Meetings with Remarkable Men.)

As an experiment it might be useful to re-read chapters with references to Akhaldans and pay attention to the feeling that arises as Beelzebub speaks of the and compare it to the feeling arising as Beelzebub references 'scientists of new formation' and see if you still are in agreement whith Hendersons view of the Akhaldans.

His assertion that man number 4 and 5 are not really that far away and that students on the path are almost man number 4 obviously has appeal, who wouldn't like to enter heaven in their smoking jacket and slippers, but doesnt quite fit with the respect that G speaks of man number 4 and 5 with in ISOTM.

As an aside there was quite recently a modern school of Naqushbandi lineage in the west which used the language of the fourth way and stated man number 4 is has three centres in a balanced form - is almost free of body dominance - ie, free of the influence the body has over thought and emotion resulting in desire of life comfort, appetite appeasement, mechanical thinking, ease, tastes - etc and is reducing personal ego. They state that a man number four would also have heart to heart contact with his teacher - I recall Gurdjieff is reported by John Bennet to have that he was in conctact with his teacher 'even now' . G also performed a telepathic communication experiment with Ouspensky.
This school had the view that Gurdjieff was man number 4 held back by a very strong sex centre, and became man number 5 only in his later teacher years. They stated that to become man number 5 is an incredibly difficult step that only a few per generation make while on Earth where one goes beyond his sheikh to have direct heart communication with the Solar intelligence of world 12.


So much as I think I could almost qualify as man number 4 in Hendersons scale, it looks like most with exposure to 4th way ideas would but I can say with certainty that I am no where near man number 4 as I understand it in Gurdjieff's scale.

I have never tried Gurdjieffs movements but know if the physical/mental benefit one gets from a martial art and also hows ones sensitivty deepens as the understanding with practice of the art. I will make an assumprion and I state this is an assumption that these will be part of the benefit of the movements, and I emphasize only part. For Henderson to state that Movements are replaced by the book seems quite a leap. G states that the Fourth Way contained the way of the fakir/monk/yogi + a secret, but intellectual types such as Ouspensky appear to think that you can skip the Fakir/Monk side and merely self observe and self remember and exercise the thinking centre - would that not lead to lopsided development? By some accounts Ouspensky seemed to have developed lopsidedly with Nott and Heap of the opinion he was a great reporter a great intellect but man short of being.
Is Henderson encouraging us in the same direction as Ouspensky?

As to his critiscsim of Mme De Salzmann and her changing of the work I do not know enough about her or what she has changed other than the book revision to have an opinion on Hendersons stance here. I will say that in her recent book she writes as someone who seems to have experienced the things she writes about.

Anyway just some thoughts. I must emphasise that the above opinion is based on reading Hendersons book only once .

I think there are some very good points in the book and dont want to through the baby out with the bathwater though and I think that it would probably make for useful exchange if anyone was interested go through the book exchanging thoughts and understandings in the forum?

 

[RflctnOfU]

Hello: This is phadreus. I just read PFHM last night and I believe having studied his works for over thirty years those of us interested in the 4th Way and the teachings of George Ivanovich are in for it now. "The Black Dabble" has come back form the grave to inform us what we have been doing is thanks to people like that Black magician Ouspensky, and her highness the arch-vainglorious Jean D'Salzisiano et al, is pouring very much of the empty into the void. Here hopefullu thanks to Mr. Henderson we have the first of what will be the restoration and real developmant of Mr. Gurdjieffs ideas concerning spiritual development. Let us see, said the blind man. We are approaching 2012 and there is much talk of a new or re-newal of a more real collective consciousness. That is collective in the sense of the development of individual consciousness on a broader, mass basis. If this is the case the "gems" Mr. Gurdjieff sent out all over will begin to turn up like so many bee's to the honey. Although it will mean a lot more work on our parts...but what else have we to do?
Until next time, may the Mullah Nasser Eddin bless your fleas and elephants!

Hi Phadreus
I read this book also and was initially very interested in what the author had to say, and I do think he makes some very good points. However I also suspect that at times he cuts the clues to suit the theory.

I have a similar stance as this. While there is certainly a bit of wiseacreing going on, some of the conclusions reached seem beyond reproach - in particular 'Revision' and those responsible.

Take one example: The Akhaldans. I have read BTs many times and I notice that each time Beelzebub talks of the Alkhaldans he does so revently as if they had strove towards and even attained something rare in man today. ( also The Akhladans seem to be identical with the 'Imastun brotherhood' of Meetings with Remarkable Men.)

Agreed.
[...]

His assertion that man number 4 and 5 are not really that far away and that students on the path are almost man number 4 obviously has appeal, who wouldn't like to enter heaven in their smoking jacket and slippers, but doesnt quite fit with the respect that G speaks of man number 4 and 5 with in ISOTM.

Perhaps, in a relative way, Henderson IS correct. The laws of 3 and 7 state that the octave of our existence is but a single stopinder of some greater octave. Within that greater octave, Man big number 4 stands on the threshold of 4th density, while man number 4 and number 5, a la Henderson, are steps on the way towards the beginning of objective knowledge (4th density) which includes the above (greater) and the below (lesser).

Does this make sense?

As an aside there was quite recently a modern school of Naqushbandi lineage in the west which used the language of the fourth way and stated man number 4 is has three centres in a balanced form - is almost free of body dominance - ie, free of the influence the body has over thought and emotion resulting in desire of life comfort, appetite appeasement, mechanical thinking, ease, tastes - etc and is reducing personal ego. They state that a man number four would also have heart to heart contact with his teacher - I recall Gurdjieff is reported by John Bennet to have that he was in conctact with his teacher 'even now' . G also performed a telepathic communication experiment with Ouspensky.
This school had the view that Gurdjieff was man number 4 held back by a very strong sex centre, and became man number 5 only in his later teacher years. They stated that to become man number 5 is an incredibly difficult step that only a few per generation make while on Earth where one goes beyond his sheikh to have direct heart communication with the Solar intelligence of world 12.


So much as I think I could almost qualify as man number 4 in Hendersons scale, it looks like most with exposure to 4th way ideas would but I can say with certainty that I am no where near man number 4 as I understand it in Gurdjieff's scale.

I have never tried Gurdjieffs movements but know if the physical/mental benefit one gets from a martial art and also hows ones sensitivty deepens as the understanding with practice of the art. I will make an assumprion and I state this is an assumption that these will be part of the benefit of the movements, and I emphasize only part. For Henderson to state that Movements are replaced by the book seems quite a leap. G states that the Fourth Way contained the way of the fakir/monk/yogi + a secret, but intellectual types such as Ouspensky appear to think that you can skip the Fakir/Monk side and merely self observe and self remember and exercise the thinking centre - would that not lead to lopsided development? By some accounts Ouspensky seemed to have developed lopsidedly with Nott and Heap of the opinion he was a great reporter a great intellect but man short of being.
Is Henderson encouraging us in the same direction as Ouspensky?

As to his critiscsim of Mme De Salzmann and her changing of the work I do not know enough about her or what she has changed other than the book revision to have an opinion on Hendersons stance here. I will say that in her recent book she writes as someone who seems to have experienced the things she writes about.

Anyway just some thoughts. I must emphasise that the above opinion is based on reading Hendersons book only once .

I think there are some very good points in the book and dont want to through the baby out with the bathwater though and I think that it would probably make for useful exchange if anyone was interested go through the book exchanging thoughts and understandings in the forum?

bath water indeed :) I think, still, that this work is worthwhile becoming familiar with, but ultimately, one's understanding of Tales needs to be one's own

Kris

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I read this book also and was initially very interested in what the author had to say, and I do think he makes some very good points. However I also suspect that at times he cuts the clues to suit the theory.

I really enjoyed the book, but also agree with your view on how he argues his theories. In fact, in some cases I think he was right in his conclusions, but argued for them in a poor way. For example, the whole "addition" quote in Life is Real being a "wiseacre" of the original in BT. It turns out, now that early typescripts of LiR are available, that Gurdjieff himself "expanded" the addition. However, the other revisions he mentions and hypothesizes DID in fact occur. So he was right about the revision, but the clue that got him there wasn't in fact true. (That said, maybe that was Gurdjieff's intention?) Not only did Salzmann and the "editor-translators" make changes in meaning by changing words, sentence order, etc., they also moved the second chapter to the end, making it the last chapter. It looks like Gurdjieff intended to end the book with the "fifth talk", after he's described the exercise he gave to the NY crew (i.e. he ended the book with an example of the kind of "illustrative inculcation", or practical teaching, that characterizes the "third series"). I've checked the parts Henderson mentions as being revisions, and he's correct about all of them (except the Addition). But I haven't gone through systematically to find any more, except for the fact that the editors also changed how each chapter was referred to within the text (e.g. "the second chapter" changed to "the last chapter").

Take one example: The Akhaldans. I have read BTs many times and I notice that each time Beelzebub talks of the Alkhaldans he does so revently as if they had strove towards and even attained something rare in man today. ( also The Akhladans seem to be identical with the 'Imastun brotherhood' of Meetings with Remarkable Men.)

As an experiment it might be useful to re-read chapters with references to Akhaldans and pay attention to the feeling that arises as Beelzebub speaks of the and compare it to the feeling arising as Beelzebub references 'scientists of new formation' and see if you still are in agreement whith Hendersons view of the Akhaldans.

On one level I agree, but I think Henderson MAY have a point. For example, I read another paper hypothesizing that Beelzebub's fawning language in reference to all the angels and archangels was sarcastic in nature, the kind that people are forced to give in a totalitarian state. E.g., our great and mighty father figure Stalin. When read in this way, there's a kind of doublespeak that makes sense IF Gurdjieff is trying to get across that not all "angels" are benevolent beings. That would make sense given the similarity of what the Cs say about 4D STS messing with the human genome to what G said about the organ kundabuffer. But then, I don't know G's intention, so that could all be bunk.

His assertion that man number 4 and 5 are not really that far away and that students on the path are almost man number 4 obviously has appeal, who wouldn't like to enter heaven in their smoking jacket and slippers, but doesnt quite fit with the respect that G speaks of man number 4 and 5 with in ISOTM.

As an aside there was quite recently a modern school of Naqushbandi lineage in the west which used the language of the fourth way and stated man number 4 is has three centres in a balanced form - is almost free of body dominance - ie, free of the influence the body has over thought and emotion resulting in desire of life comfort, appetite appeasement, mechanical thinking, ease, tastes - etc and is reducing personal ego.

I'm curious, what's the source for this?

For Henderson to state that Movements are replaced by the book seems quite a leap.

Given that Henderson got that from something Orage wrote, I'm more inclined to take it as a possibility. I get the impression G tried to get his work in book form so that it would survive even if the G groups did not.

G states that the Fourth Way contained the way of the fakir/monk/yogi + a secret, but intellectual types such as Ouspensky appear to think that you can skip the Fakir/Monk side and merely self observe and self remember and exercise the thinking centre - would that not lead to lopsided development? By some accounts Ouspensky seemed to have developed lopsidedly with Nott and Heap of the opinion he was a great reporter a great intellect but man short of being.
Is Henderson encouraging us in the same direction as Ouspensky?

Well, Henderson DOES recommend some form of systematic "movement", just not the "Movements" per se (he mentions karate, for example).

As to his critiscsim of Mme De Salzmann and her changing of the work I do not know enough about her or what she has changed other than the book revision to have an opinion on Hendersons stance here. I will say that in her recent book she writes as someone who seems to have experienced the things she writes about.

I was pretty shocked to hear what Salzmann did with G's texts. Even though she appears to have practiced what she preached, I don't think she was perfect, so the deviations she brought in are understandable. That's exactly what G talked about in ISOTM. So even if Henderson is perhaps overharsh in his opinion of her, I think he's got the right idea, that G was taking steps to avoid as much "well-intentioned deviation" as possible.. Salzmann did a lot of good for organizing and making G available for a lot of people, but she also messed up a few things (like formalizing "sittings", IMO).

I think there are some very good points in the book and dont want to through the baby out with the bathwater though and I think that it would probably make for useful exchange if anyone was interested go through the book exchanging thoughts and understandings in the forum?

I think one of the most interesting points about the book is his breakdown of what G meant by saying the first series had 3 books, the second series had 3 books, and the third series had 4 books. I won't spoil it for others, but I'd come to a similar conclusion while reading Henderson's book (before he spelled it out). It makes sense to me and it works enneagrammatically. It gives his writings a kind of fractal-like structure, each book serving more than one purpose and at three levels of interpretation.

Along with Tamdgidi's book and Buzzell's three, I think it makes a good contribution to analysis of G's writings. And while I've read at least one scathing review (in Patterson's journal, written by a Foundation dude, it sounded like), I actually enjoyed his style, despite the flaws.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

I'm curious, what's the source for this?

Sorry, answered this, pressed submit before finishing , had a cut and paste disaster and have totally lost my reply, - I am off till Saturday now, I will redo it then. Apologies.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

I'm curious, what's the source for this?

Sorry, answered this, pressed submit before finishing , had a cut and paste disaster and have totally lost my reply, - I am off till Saturday now, I will redo it then. Apologies.

I heard about this line in 1984/1985 when visiting Bulent Raufs* Beshara IIRC this Naqushbandi school was in Australia and used fourth way terms - eg , Negative emotions feed the moon, humans as sex energy producers are necessary for the earth , their Astral body concept was more like the taoist schools stating 3 years seeding 18 yrs growing and 'bodies' related to glands in the body. As to what they practiced I have no idea. I was at the same time informed of a Naqshbandi group in the UK who at that time held meetings in High Gate Library London, I never followed that up as I was told they were very austere, strict fasting and IIRC one had to profess to Islam to be accepted by the London Group and as an 18yr old dabbler/dilletante who like a drink at the weekends this was just too much. There are now Naqshbandi schools/ groups in many major cities linking to Abdullah Dagnestanis lineage , Gurdjieff is said to have spent some time with Dagnestani according JG Bennet I am not sure if this is documented in the book Witness or in Journeys in Islamic Countries.


My appetite has been whetted to pick this book up again and give it another go.

*Bulent Rauf started an centre of intensive education based on the teachings of Ibn Arabi, he died in 1987, the centre still exists but seems to have 'branched out' a little since Bulents passing with courses on Ecology and Yurt making now offered.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Approaching Infinity this is totally off topic for this book and thread but it does refers to 'Buried Dogs' :) and I hope you find it of interest.

http://gurdjieffbooks.wordpress.com/sophia-wellbeloveds-gurdjieff-academic-research-page/a-note-on-the-dog-gurdejiff-buried/

 

[phadreus]

April 2, 2011 Wow! I am somewhat surprised at the commentary on my comment to Hendeson's PFLHM. I have to be ultra brief in I am in computer lab and my rather extensive but informal reply will have to wait until next time. However, I would really like to thank Stevie A. for beginning what I hope will be an ongoing and helpful dialogue concerning the 4th Way and it current state of affairs. Some bio material in the time I have left. I am 59 years old and have been studying what we can 'system ideas since 1978 although I first became acquainted with G in 1971 but did not know who he was or the breath and depth of what he represented. Next posting I hope to present some of my own insights into what I believe is going on and at any case I hope to further the aims of 'OUR COMMON ALL-FATHER ENDLESSNESS' even if possible in my sleep. Until next time thank you all!

 

[phadreus]

April 13th 2011: Well now this is phadreus and hopfully this posting will generate some discussion concerning issues raised by Mr. Henderson's work concerning the state of Gurdjieffian 4th Way studies. Let me start here. I have only read Mr. Henderson's book once which is something I intend to rectify as soon as possible yet in the mean time i also intend to re-read all of Gurdjieff's books. Also I have intended to make a study of the other material which claims to represent the ideas presented by Mr. Gurdjieff. I have already read both books by Mr. Nott and intend to study them also with the aim of trying to see what Mr. Henderson is suggesting concerning Mr. Nott (and Mr. Pinder and Mr. Orage) as being the (or at least some of the) specially prepared by him students for the spreading of his ideas. While I agree with both Henderson and Nott with regard to Gurdjieff as 'being the school' and feel more and more over the years Ouspensky behaved in an unbalanced fashion regarding the Work, I still find him and Nicoll quite useful in helping me understand what the Work is about. I have been studying 'Work' ideas specifically since 1978 buthave not formally worked with any group associated with the Work although I did meet Thurmond before he pasted through 'The Friends' chapter here in Cleveland about twenty years ago. The idea Mr. Gurdjieff finished the series in the way Mr. Henderson suggests is intriguing and bares investigating although I tend to agree with Steve concerning the development of Man number 5 (or even 4 for that matter). I was re-reading chapter 15 in ISOM and realized Mr. Gurdjieff was including himself in his descriptions of the difficulties which would occur in trying to recognize 'conscious people'. Also the fact the 4th Way appears for its own reasons and follows its own laws etc. is intriguing also given the plethora of 4th Way and Gurdjieff study groups and institutions etc which have arisen even in the last ten years. In my own studies the other system which I believe may fall within the category of the 4th Way is The Yaqui Way of knowledge. Both are practical methods of human spiritual development. When I have read accounts of those who worked with Gurdjieff, over the years I have come to realize some (like Ouspensky and Bennett) were not with him very long at all. Others who were with him didn't necessarily leave much in the way of detailed accounts of what he actually taught and what he intended.
Henderson for example suggests we might question why did Gurdjieff allow D'Salzmann to do what she did. I wonder if he may not have even encouraged it in order to actually create a 'shock' of this very nature in order we might become collectively more observant regarding the tendency for 'B influences to become A'. Just a thought. And of course there is the notion of the spread of the ideas regardless of how they are spread. Now it seems to me those of us who are interested at least will be even more wary of what it is we are in fact studying.
I have noticed how contemporary humanity tends to selectively chose what it wants from the presentation of someone and actually determine what it is the person is presenting. An example is Marc Edmond Jones. Mr. Jones presents a very comprehensive model for modern astrology and most astrologers I have studied have lifted his tempramental patterns out of his method and ignored the natural dispotion or the mode of self-integration etc.
I have seen certain authors attempt to do this with Mr. Gurdjieff's ideas and understand there are still people in organizations who have determined the ideas are Ouspensky's and Ouspensky's assessment of Gurdjieff was correct and there was something wrong with Mr. Gurdjieff etc.
All of which to me under scores the need for more study from the perspective Mr. Gurdjieff has presented us with. Finally and again I hope we will see and if we do see somewhat soon it should some what confirm Mr. Henderson's idea... we should see some of those original manuscripts begin to turn up as well as the creation of the small groups which will study Gurdjieff ideas outside the official organizations.
Anyway just some thoughts until next time.
May the Force be...with you? Phadreus Ashe!

 

[hendmail]

Has the topic "Gurdjieff's Buried Dog" gone dormant. The last post I see is 2011.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Hi hendmail,

Seeing that this is your first post, I would like to welcome you to the forum. When you get a chance, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief introduction about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, a little bit about yourself, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc. Thank you so much.

:)