Imitation Fourth Way Groups Started by Gurdjieff Rejects

A few more strange connections:

From Wikipedia:

Alexander Francis Horn (1933–2007), known more often as Alex Horn, was a playwright and actor and the leader of a series of controversial groups which claimed a linkage to the teachings of G. I. Gurdjieff.

His groups have been classed by some as cults, although others believe he was attempting to promote the Fourth Way, which can involve a degree of intense confrontation on a personal level. Alex was married to Anne Burrage (later Anne Haas) in the 1960s during which time he was running Red Mountain Ranch, a part time commune located on Sonoma Mountain in northern California. The order of events is unclear, but Anne left this group in 1969 around the time that Alex became involved with and eventually married Sharon Gans. Anne took many of the members from the ranch and started The Group, amid claims that Red Mountain Ranch had become violent and dangerous, and that Alex was becoming a cult figure. Alex and Sharon ran the Theatre of All Possibilities until 1978 when it received unfavorable press from the San Francisco Chronicle in the wake of the Jim Jones tragedy in November 1978. Alex and Sharon both left San Francisco in 1978 and reportedly continued to run various groups in New York and Boston.[citation needed]

Alex Horn had five children with Anne Burrage, Maurice, Elaine, Matthew, Mary Ellen and Benjamin. He died on September 30, 2007.

Looking a bit further, there is this history written by an anonymous commentator here:

_http://defenseagainstevil.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/ten-warning-signs-of-a-potentially-unsafe-group-or-leader/

Alex Horn and protegés David Daniels and Robert Burton

By the time David Daniels obtained a high school diploma at 20 years of age in Chicago (1953) he had been Horn’s frequent companion for four years; Horn and Daniels came across Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous” (ISM) at this time. After a year at the Art Student’s League NYC, Daniels went back to Chicago. Horn was leading an ‘acting class’ there which included Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Ed Asner, David Daniels and Robert Burton. The group took an “esoteric” trip to Mexico, on account of Horn’s interest in Ouspensky biographer Rodney Collin, who had settled there.

In December 2007, Daniels posted the following about his relationship with Horn: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3225379245169244270&postID=2945426880804067124.

Collin had also been at Ouspensky’s Farm in Mendham, New Jersey. Daniels claimed to have been given authority at Mendham and The Gurdjieff Foundation, however Foundation head (Lord) John Pentland wrote that while Daniels had had nothing to do with the Foundation, he remembered seeing him and his wife Sally at Mendham sometime during the years 1959 to 1961, after which Daniels was institutionalized in Hillside Hospital Queens NY for year, where he learned about the structure of therapy groups and ’supervision’.

In 1966, Horn introduced Daniels to his NYC group, including Robert Burton, as “someone who knew about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and would show and teach them about their work.” According to a member “In the fall of 1966, Horn disappeared for a month; returned confused, contradictory, and incoherent; then, In 1967, under threat from members, Horn disappeared for good, handing over the group to Daniels and moved to London, then Berkeley/Oakland. When Daniels took over, he moved the group from a loft on Bleeker Street to meetings in people’s apartments.” Said a member, “Horn’s NYC meetings focused on Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous.” He picked ideas from this book and “harangued on subjects.” Horn was cruel and oppressive at times; so was Daniels. Neither gave straight answers. Horn had a number of ‘wives’ and ’screwed around’ with members of his group.” While Daniels continued his role as ‘teacher’, Robert Burton left this scene and by January 1970, he was in California, where he founded the Fellowship of Friends with ISM as a prop.

In 1971, Horn visited Daniels at the Elizabeth Street building in NYC. Shortly, Daniels had shaved his head and was requiring his temperature and pulse to be checked frequently. He later described having been visited by NY police who suggested that members of his group were extremely angry with him and that he might do well to leave town as quickly as possible. He persuaded teenager Sue Liebowitz, to travel with him and immediately left by train with her for Boston, where he quickly gained a following by repeating his Village Voice ad in the Boston Phoenix: “Ideas of Gurdjieff, Shah and their source.”

Daniels established himself at 69 Walker Street, near Harvard and Leslie colleges, where he set up a network of naive group members as paid ‘psychotherapists’ who reported intimate details of group members lives to him and he began to conduct meetings running long into the AM hours. He had minor painting talent with which he decorated the Walker Street basement that he had directed group members to excavate with spoons. Seekers enticed by a promise of working in a group with powerful ideas, got nothing legitimate of Gurdjieff, but were ultimately held by the entertainment value of Daniels’ outrageous appeals to their base instincts, phony ‘psychotherapy’ and typical cult pressures; approximately 500 individuals during this Boston phase alone had most of their wish for spiritual development burned out of them. In the fall of 1972, Alex Horn visited Daniels in Cambridge. Back in NYC, David McClellan committed suicide by jumping from a window during a ‘group therapy session’ run by a Daniels follower.

In Cambridge, as with Horn in NYC and Burton in CA, Daniels continued to pick ideas from ISM and “harangued on subjects for hours.” Daniels’ earlier meetings focused on Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous, supplemented by Idries Shah’s teaching stories but later degenerated into quasi-sexual themes and so-called ‘therapy’, a la Milton Ericson, with whose hypnotic techniques Daniels had a natural affinity, a connection later made by cult specialists Margaret Singer, Jack Clark and Michael Langone. In 1976, he published a thin porn novel, “Sinfan the Savor” and snared a prominent member of the Transpersonal Psychology movement to endorse it. Horn and Burton’s penchant for writing has been chronicled elsewhere.

In the latter 1970s, his ‘talent’ for writing exhausted, Daniels collected just under $200,000 from his Boston group of up to 100 members and set up a complicated land trust on 160 acres of farmland in Western MA, in which he directed the deeding of a choice section to himself and had the group build him a cabin, tower and pond. Pam Mitchell, reportedly distracted by methods she learned from Daniels, was hit by a car and killed crossing a Boston street.

In 1978, Alex Horn was forced out of the Bay Area by a District Attorney and group pressure, as reported in the SF Bay Guardian. Horn’s 200 person SF area group had purchased a farm and bought a house in SF. Charges were made concerning Horn’s group regarding beatings, sexual misconduct, ordered pregnancies in which the father’s identity was not known, news articles, threats of lawsuits, etc. Horn left town. “He was run out of New York and now he’s been run out of San Francisco.” -Dr. Lee Sannella

After the news articles, and before Horn left town, Daniels had told a formerc NYC group member, who was a frequent visitor to Berkeley from NYC, “Be friendly to Alex Horn because he’s a teacher. Look him up. See if you can help him.” Sensing an opportunity to again take over a territory abandoned by Horn, he began talking about moving to California and convinced most group members to sell their posessions so they could “start over” with cash in Berkeley. In 1979, Daniels avidly watched a dramatization of the Jonestown cult massacre in Uganda and told his lieutenants, “You see what happens when you think big?”

Soon after, in 1980, Daniels left Cambridge and moved himself and 50 group members to the Bay Area, within 24 hours of receiving two lawsuits from ex-members; the first being a class action by 13 individuals for land fraud and the second a civil suit for the “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” as reported in the Boston Globe.

Henry Wilhite, a black sometime dog-groomer, was in Horn’s NYC group, Daniels’ NYC group, Daniels’ Cambridge group, and attended Daniels’ meetings in Berkeley. Wilhite and Daniels’ daughter Rita died of aids in the 1980s.

A very large percentage of ex-members of all the above groups sought psychotherapy as a means of recovery; several have PhDs and are practicing psychotherapists. Some have recovered and others have not fared as well.

Then, we find this:

_http://thealexhornpages.blogspot.com/

I knew Alex Horn in College at the U of Chicago from 1949 when I was 16 to 1952 and then until 1969. I was never in a group of Alex and/or Ann's.

I was in a group at the Gurdjieff foundation in NYC from 1956 until 1963. I could say many things about the absurd cruelty of some of the teachers there. Lord Pentland only knew Gurdjieff for one week.

Jeanne de Salzman answered questions of mine at meetings and she was VERY kind and helpful to me. She was the real thing.

Alex was almost always friendly to me. In the 50's we would go to ball games at the polo grounds. We once saw Stan Musial hit a 505 foot line drive to center field. We would have long discussions about Alex's favorite books, Paidea: Ideals of Greek Culture, and Stanislavsky and Tolstoy's What do men live for. He would ask me to attend his play rehearsals and comment.

Alex was put in an orphanage in Chicago when his father died when Alex was 11. He loved his father very much. I believe much of his human kindness to me was an attempt to treat me like his father had treated him.

Alex was very talented, energetic, and had the psychological condition where HE COULD NOT BE AFRAID OF ANYTHING. I am not bragging. Almost everything Alex learned about the real Gurdjeff Work I told him at his request.

But please try to understand that almost everything Alex and Ann and Sharon and the Rennaisance guy taught was nothing like what was taught by Gurdjieff or Mme de Salzman.

I don't want to hurt your feelings any more than you have been hurt. You people were truly led down a sad path and I hope you recover. What happened to Alex in the 60's was what happens to many poor orphans: He discovered he loved money. We argued sometimes about this. Me - Money is nothing. Alex - Money is eveything. I have not seen Alex since 1969-70. As we were jolly friends in our younger days I hope he is OK.

It really looks like all is not well in "authentic" Fourth Way Groups land.
 
Anart said:
Did you mean 'A' influence? For someone so taken with the 'Fourth Way', it seems you'd at least have the terminology correct. If you were attempting to insult or degrade the C's input, 'A' influences would have been more correct.

I thought Amir was attempting an insult by using the term "indulging in" as a way of saying the C's transcripts caused forum members (or whoever) to dabble in 'B' influences on the surface...not in actualization. Your take on it is more telling. Looks like Amir really wasn't paying attention if that is the case.
 
NormaRegula said:
I thought Amir was attempting an insult by using the term "indulging in" as a way of saying the C's transcripts caused forum members (or whoever) to dabble in 'B' influences on the surface...not in actualization. Your take on it is more telling. Looks like Amir really wasn't paying attention if that is the case.

Actually, Amir's problem with the Cs is pretty much defined by the opening post of this thread - that's Amir... He's just another dreamwalker who can't handle the facing negativity thing. As I wrote in this post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=215.msg700#msg700

... reality is too strong for Amir.

Despite our cerebral talents, the mental world of the human being is most often at odds with the true nature of things. Not only that, but we will fight to preserve what is false. We are able to do this while, at the same time, apprehending SOME areas of our reality with astonishing precision!

As Gurdjieff pointed out, man needs to realize "the terror of the situation." Why do you suppose he used the term "terror"? Because "Terror is the normal emotional state for someone in full view and bearing the full psychic brunt of reality."
 
I'm not sure if it's the correct thing to reply here since we all know the outcome but...what the heck?

PepperFritz: I'm not sure who you are or how long you have been involved here but I was an active participant of the yahoo.com group which served as the earlier platform for discussing the C-transcripts and all other related ideas the community studied. My participation slowed and eventually halted around the time that this forum came to be. You're right about my self-importance -- thank you for observing it. Regarding doing the Work by myself, I am not. A man needs to work on three lines which includes working with others.

anart: B-influence is what I meant. These are influences in the world which have their origin from outside the world. A particular man can seek, find, and absorb these types of influences like pac-man and upon sufficient saturation of them a magnetic center is formed. This magnetic center's purpose is to introduce discernment in a man regarding the quality of B-influences he encounters. Upon ideal conditions the magnetic center will draw a man to an esoteric influence, one which will be able to feed him C-influence directly. That is the aim of it. Once magnetic center finds it the aim changes to transform itself into something else. Magnetic center is not intended to exist indefinitely and sooner or later psychological features such as tramp or lunatic will turn it on itself and make a B-influence junkie of a man, or perhaps it will dry out and his interest in such things will be considered a fad he was once into. That this community panders to a medium (the C-transcripts) which explores every type of B-influence under the sun, is an indication that it is not connected to C-influence. It is an indication that what it considers to be C-influence is actually imagination.

And yes, I have an agenda when it comes to replying to this thread. The initial post has an agenda -- it's called a topic. Laura took her position in responding to an inquiry I made about 3 years ago. And like many things in life where people interact I took my corresponding position. The way you use the term agenda is how I used to use it when I was part of the community. Your psychological posture towards me is like it always is in groups like this: you bark like a dog or wolf marking its territory, confidently aware that it has its pack right behind and all around it.

Laura:
The "terror of the situation" refers to a man coming to grips with what he is: a machine. He step by step realizes his position and step by step recognizes that qualities which he ascribed to himself (the ability to do, will, consciousness, conscience, individuality) are in fact nonexistent in him. He step by step begins to find himself a marionette, a creature which is pulled and pushed according to the whims of external influences. Everything happens; he does nothing. As he begins to learn his machine and function from the intelligent dimension of his centers, his emotional understanding grows and, with it, his sensitivity to the reality of the situation. He realizes this is the case for all mankind (except for exceptions of course) and that wars, politics, careers, ambitions, dreams are all induced upon us by external forces. Add to this the theory of eternal recurrence and you have dire conditions which, indeed, should arise some terror in the heart of a man aiming to escape.

Laura, your tendency is to reference copious amounts of material and make statements which have the air of final verdicts. It is clear to me that you are seeing things from one hell of a warped pair of glasses. How do you think you are going to pass through the eye of a needle when you carry so much luggage? The sheer level of complication you and your group create and maintain is the opposite of what it is to develop in the Work.
 
Amir has been removed from the forum, so he is free to wander off more deeply into his subjective lack of understanding and become a dream of the past.

Just a note that the definition Amir has given of how a magnetic center is formed could not be further from correct - of course that applies to the entirety of his post. He has become what he described - a lunatic, lost in an angry dream.
 
I feel sorry for Amir. :(
But when I checked his statistic of "Total Time Spent Online: 1 hours and 3 minutes" in his 3 years membership here shows his 'wrong' learning attitude. So it seems to me that before he gets precious knowledge presented here his Sacred Cow that is his "forth way" belief system blocked them. (The expression "forth way belief system" sounds contradicted but it can happen, which I know from my experience :-[ and that is exactly related to this thread, I think).


anart said:
Just a note that the definition Amir has given of how a magnetic center is formed could not be further from correct

Anart, do you think you can explain your understanding of how a magnetic center is formed?
I checked Magnetic Center page but I could not say "(Amir's definition) could not be further from correct" (It is possible my understanding is also a result of 'distorted' teaching :-[).
 
anart said:
Just a note that the definition Amir has given of how a magnetic center is formed could not be further from correct

I too was a bit baffled with this Anart's comment.
Did you mean to say that Amir has formed black magnetic center?
 
GotoGo said:
(It is possible my understanding is also a result of 'distorted' teaching :-[).

I think I found the reference where my understanding came from.
Ouspensky - Psychology of Mans Possible Evolution p52-3 in my pdf virsion said:
But if, on the other hand, man is not completely in the power of influence A and if influences B attract him and make him feel and think, results of the impressions they produce collect in him together, attract other influences of the same kind and grow, occupying a more important place in his mind and life.

If the results produced by influence B become sufficiently strong, they fuse together and form in man what is called a magnetic centre. It must be understood at once that the word 'centre' in this case does not mean the same thing as the 'intellectual' or the 'moving' centre; that is, centres in the essence.

Magnetic centre is in personality, it is simply a group of interests which, when they become sufficiently strong, serve, to a certain degree, as a guiding and controlling factor. Magnetic centre turns one's interests in a certain direction and helps to keep them there.

At the same time it cannot do much by itself. A school is necessary. Magnetic centre cannot replace a school, but it can help to realise the need of a school; it can help to begschool, or if one meets a school by chance, magnetic centre can help to recognise a school and try not to lose it. Because nothing is easier to lose than a school.

Possession of a magnetic centre is the first, although quite unspoken, demand of a school. If a man without a magnetic centre, or a small or a weak magnetic centre, or with several contradictory magnetic centres; that is, interested in many incompatible things at the same time, meets a school, he does not become interested in it, or he becomes critical at once before he can know anything, or his interest disappears very quickly when he meets with the first difficulties of school work. This is the chief safeguard of a school.

Without it the school would be filled with quite a wrong kind of people who would immediately distort the school teaching. A right magnetic centre not only helps one to recognise a school, it also helps to absorb the school teaching which is different from both influences A and influences B and may be called influence C.

Influence C can be transferred only by word of mouth, by direct instruction, explanation and demonstration.

When a man meets with influence C and is able to absorb it, it is said about him that in one point of himself; that is, in magnetic centre, he becomes free from the law of accident. From this moment the magnetic centre has actually played its part. It brought man to a school or helped him in his first steps there. From then on the ideas and the teaching of the school take the place of magnetic centre and slowly begin to penetrate into the different parts of personality and with time into essence.
 
Corto Maltese said:
anart said:
Just a note that the definition Amir has given of how a magnetic center is formed could not be further from correct

I too was a bit baffled with this Anart's comment.
Did you mean to say that Amir has formed black magnetic center?


What struck me about Amir, was his statement that he is not doing the Work alone....then stating the following:

Laura, your tendency is to reference copious amounts of material and make statements which have the air of final verdicts. It is clear to me that you are seeing things from one hell of a warped pair of glasses. How do you think you are going to pass through the eye of a needle when you carry so much luggage? The sheer level of complication you and your group create and maintain is the opposite of what it is to develop in the Work.

This tells me he does not have the ability to 'see a bigger picture'. He doesn't collate data or consider it important. If you sift through what he says for content, there is none.

His focus is linear and personal/subjective, and restricted to hairsplitting.

What does that tell you?
 
Hi GotoGo

GotoGo said:
But when I checked his statistic of "Total Time Spent Online: 1 hours and 3 minutes" in his 3 years membership here shows his 'wrong' learning attitude.

No necessarily, I think he managed to show his 'wrong' learning attitude by demonstrating his subjective views on this topic and attitude towards those here. I've been here about 2 years not and my 'time spent online' is about 3 days. I tend not to log in to read the forum, which I read several times daily. So time spent online may not be a good indicator of learning attitude.

Gimpy said:
What does that tell you?

That he spends more time/energy defending his (faulty) position/small (subjective) world view rather than examining/questioning it osit.
 
RedFox said:
Gimpy said:
What does that tell you?

That he spends more time/energy defending his (faulty) position/small (subjective) world view rather than examining/questioning it osit.

I still think that his main problem is what I pointed out from his emails to me that I discussed in the first post of this thread: weak mindedness - that he so desperately wants to believe in a world where "evil" is explained away, or at least not acknowledged, that he is running into the arms of whatever system will do that for him. It matters not at all to him that we take the time and trouble to check and cross check, use science, empirical observation, personal experiences, and so on to draw conclusions - he just wants to believe some guy like Rodney Collin who worshipped Ouspensky, who couldn't "get it" to begin with. Ouspensky's own description of why he broke with Gurdjieff be damned, Amir's gotta make up stuff - or believe other people who made up stuff after the fact - to smooth everything over and maintain the illusion.

Amir couldn't traverse the barrier of facing the reality of the positive/negative nature of the Universe. All of this is quite accurately described by Ouspensky in his account of his interactions with Gurdjieff.

"The struggle against the 'false I,' against one's chief feature or chief fault, is the most important part of the work, and it must proceed in deeds, not in words. For this purpose the teacher gives each man definite tasks which require, in order to carry them out, the conquest of his chief feature. When a man carries out these tasks he struggles with himself, works on himself. If he avoids the tasks, tries not to carry them out, it means that either he does not want to or that he cannot work.

"As a rule only very easy tasks are given at the beginning which the teacher does not even call tasks, and he does not say much about them but gives them in the form of hints. If he sees that he is understood and that the tasks are carried out he passes on to more and more difficult ones.

"More difficult tasks, although they are only subjectively difficult, are called 'barriers.' The peculiarity of barriers consists in the fact that, having surmounted a serious barrier, a man can no longer return to ordinary sleep, to ordinary life. And if, having passed the first barrier, he feels afraid of those that follow and does not go on, he stops so to speak between two barriers and is unable to move either backwards or forwards. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man. Therefore the teacher is usually very careful in the choice of tasks and barriers, in other words, he takes the risk of giving definite tasks requiring the conquest of inner barriers only to those people who have already shown themselves sufficiently strong on small barriers.

"It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the smallest and the most simple, people turn against the work, against the teacher, and against other members of the group, and accuse them of the very thing that is becoming revealed to them in themselves.

"Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame others, then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that shows up a man better than his attitude towards the work and the teacher after he has left it. Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"But this is not the chief thing; the chief thing is his own personal attitude, his own valuation of the ideas which he receives or has received, and his keeping or losing this valuation. A man may think for a long time and quite sincerely that he wants to work and even make great efforts, and then he may throw up everything and even definitely go against the work; justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong meaning to what he has heard, and so on."

"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience.

"Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?

This is what happened to Ouspensky and what has happened to others, and to Amir.

Regarding Collin and Bennett and some others - possibly even Patterson and certainly Ouspensky, it strikes me that they became "Black Magicians."

"Questions have often been asked at these lectures as to what is 'black magic' and I have replied that there is neither red, green, nor yellow magic. There is mechanics, that is, what 'happens,' and there is 'doing.' 'Doing' is magic and 'doing' can be only of one kind. There cannot be two kinds of 'doing.' But there can be a falsification, an imitation of the outward appearance of 'doing,' which cannot give any objective results but which can deceive naive people and produce in them faith, infatuation, enthusiasm, and even fanaticism.

"This is why in true work, that is, in true 'doing,' the producing of infatuation in people is not allowed. What you call black magic is based on infatuation and on playing upon human weaknesses. Black magic does not in any way mean magic of evil. I have already said earlier that no one ever does anything for the sake of evil, in the interests of evil. Everyone always does everything in the interests of good as he understands it. In the same way it is quite wrong to assert that black magic must necessarily be egoistical, that in black magic a man strives after some results for himself. This is quite wrong. Black magic may be quite altruistic, may strive after the good of humanity or after the salvation of humanity from real or imaginary evils. But what can be called black magic has always one definite characteristic. This characteristic is the tendency to use people for some, even the best of aims, without their knowledge and understanding, either by producing in them faith and infatuation or by acting upon them through fear.

"But it must be remembered in this connection that a 'black magician,' whether good or evil, has at all events been at a school. He has learned something, has heard something, knows something. He is simply a 'half-educated man' who has either been turned out of a school or who has himself left a school having decided that he already knows enough, that he does not want to be in subordination any longer, and that he can work independently and even direct the work of others.

All 'work' of this kind can produce only subjective results, that is to say, it can only increase deception and increase sleep instead of decreasing them. Nevertheless something can be learned from a 'black magician' although in the wrong way. He can sometimes by accident even tell the truth. That is why I say that there are many things worse than 'black magic.' Such are various 'occult' and theosophical societies and groups. Not only have their teachers never been at a school but they have never even met anyone who has been near a school. Their work simply consists in aping. But imitation work of this kind gives a great deal of self-satisfaction. One man feels himself to be a 'teacher,' others feel that they are 'pupils,' and everyone is satisfied. No realization of one's nothingness can be got here and if people affirm that they have it, it is all illusion and self-deception, if not plain deceit. On the contrary, instead of realizing their own nothingness the members of such circles acquire a realization of their own importance and a growth of false personality.

Notice these two remarks in particular:

What you call black magic is based on infatuation and on playing upon human weaknesses. ... But what can be called black magic has always one definite characteristic. This characteristic is the tendency to use people for some, even the best of aims, without their knowledge and understanding, either by producing in them faith and infatuation or by acting upon them through fear.

As you can see in the email I wrote the opening post in this thread about, it is the FEAR of Evil that works on Amir. He desperately needs a world where this is not a real factor to be faced. It is a very human weakness and it was also Ouspensky's weakness. Fear of realization of nothingness is entwined with this acknowledgment.

So all of those who followed Ouspensky were individuals who could not face this Fear of the reality of Evil (even as described by Gurdjieff) nor could they cross the barrier of realization of their nothingness. As Gurdjieff - and many others in the true esoteric tradition - have plainly stated, you must DIE before you can be reborn. And you must awaken before you can die. Amir almost awoke but what he saw in that glimpse of reality was so terrifying that he immediately had to shove it away, go back to sleep, and find some system that would help him stay asleep. The same is true for many others.

Let's acknowledge that facing reality IS terrifying. We really are alone and left to our own devices. There is nothing holy or special about human beings - we are just "food for the Moon" or some sort of organic transformer and transmitter of energy for the cosmos. We are lunch.

Unless we are Reborn into the Law of Exception. And to to that, we must DIE in the esoteric sense. And to do that, we must awaken.

Amir (and many others) are so afraid of this "death" that they will do anything to avoid it. Well, let me put that another way: the predator's mind will do anything to survive; the False Personality will do anything to survive.

On one occasion, at one of these meetings, someone asked about the possibility of reincarnation, and whether it was possible to believe in cases of communication with the dead.

"Many things are possible," said G. "But it is necessary to understand that man's being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death, may be very different in quality. The 'man-machine' with whom everything depends upon external influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, the next moment another, and the next moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies to him.

In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a certain fusion of man's inner qualities, a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death of the physical body.

But think for yourselves what there is to withstand physical death in a man who faints or forgets everything when he cuts his finger? If there is anything in a man, it may survive; if there is nothing, then there is nothing to survive. But even if something survives, its future can be very varied.

In certain cases of fuller crystallization what people call 'reincarnation' may be possible after death, and, in other cases, what people call 'existence on the other side.' In both cases it is the continuation of life in the 'astral body,' or with the help of the 'astral body.'

You know what the expression 'astral body' means. But the systems with which you are acquainted and which use this expression state that all men have an 'astral body.' This is quite wrong.

What may be called the 'astral body' is obtained by means of fusion, that is, by means of terribly hard inner work and struggle. Man is not born with it. And only very few men acquire an 'astral body.' If it is formed it may continue to live after the death of the physical body, and it may be born again in another physical body. This is 'reincarnation.' If it is not re-born, then, in the course of time, it also dies; it is not immortal but it can live long after the death of the physical body.

"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is.

But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.'

But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation.

'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

"Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still.

Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved.

In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it? A man of this kind becomes an 'immortal thing,' although a certain amount of consciousness is sometimes preserved in him. But even this, it must be remembered, occurs very rarely."

Sad. :(
 
It is very sad.

Thanks for the explanation Laura. I must have missed some of these points when you first started the thread because the explanation seems so much clearer to me now (although maybe I've just learnt more context to reference it to?).

Something that did hit me like a ton of bricks...

"More difficult tasks, although they are only subjectively difficult, are called 'barriers.' The peculiarity of barriers consists in the fact that, having surmounted a serious barrier, a man can no longer return to ordinary sleep, to ordinary life. And if, having passed the first barrier, he feels afraid of those that follow and does not go on, he stops so to speak between two barriers and is unable to move either backwards or forwards. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man. Therefore the teacher is usually very careful in the choice of tasks and barriers, in other words, he takes the risk of giving definite tasks requiring the conquest of inner barriers only to those people who have already shown themselves sufficiently strong on small barriers.

...was the idea that as I learn more I can see that between determining the needs of others (which I have a tendency to do), grasping the horror of the situation (slowly mind), a desire to bring other along (perhaps so I don't feel as alone/face the prospect of leaving them behind) and most probably the predators mind resisting.....I can see where I have had the potential too (and may even have done....but I pray not) placed an inappropriate hurdle in front of others (for that matter automatically assuming the role of teacher)...
The idea that I could cause someone to be stuck in that hell between two hurdles (and for some reason I feel I've been there before...perhaps many times) is probably the most horrific example of seeing my own blindness/mechanicalness/selfishness I've come up against.

Inflicting suffering on another is my personal idea of hell. Think I may need to take stock of my interactions with others.
 
RedFox said:
The idea that I could cause someone to be stuck in that hell between two hurdles (and for some reason I feel I've been there before...perhaps many times) is probably the most horrific example of seeing my own blindness/mechanicalness/selfishness I've come up against.

Inflicting suffering on another is my personal idea of hell. Think I may need to take stock of my interactions with others.

As I see it you are responsible in the extent of your level of consciousness and we are learning not only of your results also from your mistakes.
Suffering is also necessary for others to learn not only for you...

Sure if you where doing what you explain above people here had told you, as there are many eyes looking.. :whistle:
Well I just want to tell you I do really apreciate your thoughts and interaction here.
 
[quote author=Redfox]...was the idea that as I learn more I can see that between determining the needs of others (which I have a tendency to do), grasping the horror of the situation (slowly mind), a desire to bring other along (perhaps so I don't feel as alone/face the prospect of leaving them behind) and most probably the predators mind resisting.....I can see where I have had the potential too (and may even have done....but I pray not) placed an inappropriate hurdle in front of others (for that matter automatically assuming the role of teacher)...
The idea that I could cause someone to be stuck in that hell between two hurdles (and for some reason I feel I've been there before...perhaps many times) is probably the most horrific example of seeing my own blindness/mechanicalness/selfishness I've come up against.

Inflicting suffering on another is my personal idea of hell. Think I may need to take stock of my interactions with others. [/quote]

Hi RedFox,

Thank you for bringing it up, it's good points indeed.

I am guilty of determining needs of others as well. There could be many reasons for that (some you've already mentioned): laziness to do own work (putting burden of work on others), teaching (taking a position of rescuer & assuming one knows something), and perhaps not knowing what to do (attempt to change environment around to suit own perception & how things should be), and I am sure there are many others reasons that are not that obvious. Desire to bring other along, I think, is not only about feeling alone, but projecting image of self upon others.

Idea of getting someone stuck between barrier, is horrific indeed. However, it serves as a good fuel not to engage in such behaviors if this horror is really felt & remembered. Which seems you able to use, if it makes you revisit your interactions with others.
 
Amir couldn't traverse the barrier of facing the reality of the positive/negative nature of the Universe. All of this is quite accurately described by Ouspensky in his account of his interactions with Gurdjieff.


Yeah. :(

Lots of Amir's in my life at various points. I've walked away from the majority of them and moved on, especially when it dawned on me, that by just being myself: questioning and researching everything, it was hurting them...really hurting them.

When it dawns on me, and when I see it in someone now, I keep my distance and don't get too close.

Folks tend to tell me I'm an Ice Queen, or 'standoffish', any one have any thoughts on what else can be done to be externally considerate without appearing 'cold'?

Or does that even matter?
 
Back
Top Bottom