Man-woman/male-female

[Inti]

I'm a bit confused over some words Gurdjieff said, cited in 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff' by Fritz Peters.

"You remember," he said then, "how I tell about good and evil in man - like right hand, left hand? In other sense, this also true of man and woman. Man is active, positive, good in Nature. Woman is passive, negative, evil. Not evil in your American sense like 'wrong', but very necessary evil; evil that make man good. Is like electric light - one wire passive or negative; other wire active, positive. Without such two elements not have light."

and then:

Shortly after the earring episode with Mme Schernvall, he brought up once again the question of men and women, their roles in life, and, as an additional element, the specific roles of the sexes in his work or, for that matter, in any religious or psychological work which had self-development and proper growth as an aim. I was surprised and puzzled then, and many times later when he spoke on the subject, by his reiteration of the fact that not only was his work "not for everyone" but that "women did not need it." 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. Among other things, he said: "Nature of woman is very different from that of man. 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. Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever: what you call 'aspiration'. In life, man use this thing - this aspiration - for many things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man - not woman - must climb mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures, write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self."

I'm not sure whether I'm understanding this properly because it just strikes me as sexist and I cannot see much evidence of these words in life.

It continues:

When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively confined to the world of the male, Gurdjieff laughed: "You ask question about woman artist, woman scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and this true thing I say. True man and true woman not just one sex - not just male or female. True human is combination of these things: active and passive, male and female. Even you," he made a sweeping gesture covering all of us, "sometimes understand this because you surprised when you see man who feel thing like woman, or woman who act like man; or even when in self feel feelings proper to opposite sex."
"We all live in what we call universe, but this only very small solar system, smallest of many, many solar systems, people bi-sexual: necessary have two sexes for reproduction of kind - primitive method, which use part of man's aspiration for creation of more people. Man who can learn how to achieve higher self - how go to proper Heaven - can use all this aspiration for development of self, for what you call immortality. In world as now exist, no man able to do this: only possibility for immortality is reproduction. When man have children, then all of him not die when his body die."
Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature."(p.114-115)

I don't understand! On the one hand he seems to be saying that a true man or woman is a combination of both feminine and masculine, but then he seems to be speaking about the whole of a woman and whole of a man as having different roles. Can anyone explain?

 

[obyvatel]

When G is speaking about a "man" and "woman" he is perhaps referring to the masculine (yang) and the feminine (yin) principles . The feminine principle is passive - so does not have aspiration in the context G is speaking about. A human is a combination of these active and passive principles. Typically perhaps we have preponderance of one principle over the other and can thus be more male or female in expression depending on the specific context. So a woman may "climb mountains, go under oceans ..." but she is using the masculine or active principle to do all this. From yin-yang theory, it is said that once a process has reached its maximum yang state, it must naturally change into yin and once maximum yin is reached, it must change into yang. I could be off track here but my thought regarding the Work and the present times is that the nature of effort required for self-development and the accompanying sense of urgency makes it a predominantly "yang" process for those aspiring to wake up. So I am inclined to interpret G's statement regarding women and the Work as the passive principle having relatively less importance in the Work in present times. As this process reaches its maximum and if the goals are reached, then this is likely to be followed by a period of relative calm or yin period where the learning and growing may take on a different character.
A balanced human is perhaps one where these opposing principles are dynamically balanced. As per the C's, males and females as we know them do not exist separately in 4D. So if becoming a balanced human in the sense of the Work is progress towards 4D, it may get confusing to speak about a "real man" and "real woman".
FWIW

 

[Inti]

Thankyou very much, Obyvatel. Once again, your explanation makes a lot of sense to me :) Your explanation is clearer to me than that of Gurdjieff's here. Perhaps it is also a question of language and the terms we humans use that sometimes makes it difficult to communicate certain concepts.

Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature."

I wonder also when he speaks in this way saying that if "woman can find real man" he is perhaps referring not necessarily to the female sex but to a person whose predominant characteristic is yin or "female" to meet another whose predominant characteristic is yang or "male". Perhaps a complementary relationship is one way of developing if the individual alone cannot balance both yin and yang energies?

 

[shellycheval]

Inti:

Perhaps it is also a question of language and the terms we humans use that sometimes makes it difficult to communicate certain concepts.

Not only is language and the translation of language likely to be part of this question of interpretation of how G. regards the roles of men and women, but IMHO it is important to keep in mind that for all of his advancement G. was still a product of a very rigid patriarchal cultural system, a product of his times so to speak, a human, and still on this 3D earth. G.'s works provide essential knowledge to the study of The Work, but so do the C.s, Mouravieff, Castaneda, other esoteric teachings, as well as Laura, Ark, and the SOTT team. With the exception of the Cs, all are human--all are subject to the limitations of human perception, hence Laura's frequent advice to take/ use what works or resonates with you and leave the rest. Again IMHO I think part of learning to do The Work is learning to focus on what is relevant to growth by learning to sift through the noise in the various signals of knowledge we come across, Gurdjieff's works included. While I recognize G.'s writing is sexist in its tone, I also know it is almost impossible to know for certain what is any author's true intent, and I dismiss the sexist tone as a convention of his time and culture, and look for what I hope I can understand as the point of the lesson.
shellycheval

 

[Kesdjan]

Again IMHO I think part of learning to do The Work is learning to focus on what is relevant to growth by learning to sift through the noise in the various signals of knowledge we come across, Gurdjieff's works included.

Indeed, and if Gurdjieff's mission was to help his students do the Work independently, might he have made a few controversial statements to inspire them to form their own opinions?

Many of Gurdjieff's students were women (e.g. the all-women group "The Rope"), including Gurdjieff's successor, Jeanne de Salzmann. Therefore, it seems plausible that the above statements (assuming they are accurate) are deliberate attempts to provoke someone to think independently.

In any case, when reading pupil's recollections, one would do well to follow G's own advice:

Don't judge a man by the tales of others.

 

[kenlee]

I'm a bit confused over some words Gurdjieff said, cited in 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff' by Fritz Peters.

Along with the very good comments and observations that have already been made on this thread I'd just like to add that I think it should also be kept in mind that the quotes of Gurdjieff in Fritz Peters book is what Fritz Peters says Gurdjieff said. Maybe Fritz Peters account was accurate. Maybe not. Maybe it was Fritz Peter's subjective interpretation of what Gurdjieff said? You just don’t know. Then there is also your own interpretation of what Fritz Peters account was (and possibly influenced by his own interpretation of what G said). So you could be dealing with an interpretation of an interpretation. Were there others to verify Fritz Prters account?. Also, whatever it was that G may have said, or might have said, to Fritz Peters at that point in time, in that particular situation, was said at that point in time and now we are at another point in “time.” So I think all these things must be taken into account.

In my opinion it's best to stick with Ouspensky's account of what Gurdjieff said in the book 'In Search Of The Miraculous'. Not only can I verify much of what is said in that book with my own personal experience and studies but I think Gurdjieff even said that Ouspensky's quotations of him in the manuscript of that book were accurate and that Ouspensky had "a very good memory."

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think this is also worth considering, from http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=11550.0

The Knightly ideal seems to be a good model: There are dragons imprisoning the princess in the tower and the knight must slay them, but he needs SOME help from the Princess who must give him certain information to help him. Then, once he has freed her from the tower, she must help him rest and recover or even heal wounds received in the battle with HER dragon.

That's the metaphor for dealing with emotional programs and discombobulated (that's a technical term) relationships of centers.

What does it mean in practical terms?

Well, it will be different for different relationships because of the individual differences in nature and polarities and so on. Here's where Gurdjieff's remark about physical love also comes into play.

In general, we have observed that MOST of the time, the man plays the knightly role (we are talking about people working on themselves, not people “out there” who have no knowledge of The Work) but it does happen that this can shift back and forth depending on the issue at hand. SOMEtimes, the woman can be the symbolic knight and slay a dragon plaguing the man - but that is not very common. Usually, the dynamic follows the metaphor pretty closely.

How does this "dragon slaying" play out in practical terms?

It involves knowledge and elimination of barriers to intimacy. After all, the knight and the princess in the tower actually represent the two soul essences that wish to unite and become one.

Because of our life experiences, our dragons are programs (buffers in Gudjieffspeak) that form in our natures - our false personality, so to say - as a means of dealing with what amounts to crazy-making environments usually created by parents who married for the wrong reasons and live out their lives in dysfunctional situations that turn them into narcissists and vampires in respect of each other, their children, everyone they know to one degree or another.

When, as children, our expectations or trust has been repeatedly damaged in small and not so small ways, we become tense and suspicious and defensive. When we are tense and suspicious and defensive, we stop communicating openly. Our communication becomes "formulaic" - what we believe we can safely say without getting hurt - and narrow, what we think the other person wants to hear. This is a major dragon that must be slain.

Why?

Because if there is no true and honest, essence to essence communication, there is NO intimacy.

The most important thing about a relationship is that the two people share CLEAR and HONEST information about each other. And this means not just what the false personality judges to be clear and honest according to the emotional energy that can start running the show, but objectively clear and honest.

If information is shared that is cloudy or mystifying or confusing, intimacy is not possible.

Our wounded emotions will tend to make us hear and see only what we want to see and hear. We cherry pick info from our environment as "evidence" of what we want to be true. And very often, what we want to be true is that we want to replicate the environment in which we grew up where we were trying so desperately to get real love and attention. We want to replicate this old and dysfunctional environment because we want to "fix it." This is generally a function of the physical attraction which seeks to replicate that old dynamic ...

When, in a relationship, a person is blocked by either their own programs, (buffers) or by the behavior of the other person (their programs/buffers), from giving clear information and having that information received and understood, it feels like an invasion of our sanity. That is "crazy-making." It can be as crazy-making as not getting clear information from the other person. And it is particularly bad when it concerns our emotions.

The fear of communicating directly and the fear of receiving direct and honest communication is equally bad... and can destroy a relationship even between two people who are "right" for each other.

The fear of saying what we feel can result in us shutting down our feelings altogether!!! We begin to censor not only externally, but internally. We get caught in a trap of denying to others AND TO OURSELVES, what we really feel.

We all have the right to our feelings. But, as children, the actions begin that shut those feelings down, stunt them, freeze them at an infantile state of development. When our parents try to impose THEIR views on us, to convince us that we do not feel the way we do, that we must feel the way THEY do, we also become angry. And the feeling of anger, not being acceptable, is also suppressed. We may get angry at our parent and they then switch into "victim" or "martyr" mode, and we feel guilty for our feelings of aggression, so we sacrifice our feelings for peace and goodwill.

All of these programs are dragons that must be slain so that the knight and princess can come together.

Good mental health and good physical health requires that we perceive the realities of our lives as clearly and accurately as possible.

A good relationship requires that we can share these perceptions honestly and openly and even find resonance in our partner.

When the other person constantly forces us (by subtle or not-so-subtle means) to constantly deny or suppress reality as we perceive it because THEY have some kind of program running, when we must deny what we see, hear and feel for the sake of "peace and goodwill," life and the relationship is deteriorating and out of control.

In the mind of the individual who is thinking with emotional energy or sexual/moving center energy, the person who is running false personality programs and so on, there is the conviction that what they are doing is being "right" and "good" and "doing their duty as they perceive it" and so on. But essentially, they are only trying to cope with their own lack of inner control (unable to resist the negative introject that runs their life also known as programs/buffers) by trying to control another.

Recognizing these dynamics is "seeing the dragon."

<snip>

So, to recap: one soul meets another, the two souls make themselves known to one another via true communication and this creates a REAL emotional bond, and from there, the energy spreads and the body can be properly set on fire for the fusion of true love where the two people grow together day by day until they are no longer two, but one.

Becoming one is not just self-integration... it can be the union of souls where the communication is the means of the completion - communication on ALL levels: intellectual, emotional, physical which then leads to the birth of the spiritual One.

As the Cs described it: "I am become One, Creator of Worlds."

I think that our cultural thinking on the subject of sexes is heavily influenced by some rotten ideas, like cultural and moral relativism, and unilevelness in general. It has become taboo to say there are sex differences. If they're acknowledged, they must be socially created, not biological. Unfortunately, the same thinking promotes ideas that "we are all the same", eliminating any true variations between both sexes AND individuals. Such a statistical look at humanity eliminates what should be meaningful differences between humans (like pathology and high levels of development). But if Gurdjieff said the above, I think he has some points. For example, yes, humanity is mixed. Because of its varied nature you will have males who are more passive and females who are more active. However, this is "abnormal" in the sense that it deviates from the statistical majority (and of course, abnormal in this context does not mean "morally wrong").

But doesn't it make sense that male and female roles should be different in most cases? In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment. The man whose emotional center is atrophied must Work to achieve what many women already have. As Gurdjieff allegedly said above, "women [do] not need it" because "woman already know everything." I agree with the sentences, "Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature." I think that is the essence of chivalry, i.e. becoming a man to protect a woman. Isn't it "natural" for real men to protect women and children from harm? To comfort her when distraught? A real man is able to help a woman become a real woman, and the two feedback between each other.

I also think the justified desire and fight of many women for equality in the West over the past 2 centuries easily degrades into desire to be pathological, i.e. to "ascend" the corporate ladder of material success. I think in a sane society such avenues would be open (even today, they are not), but it may be that roles between sexes would be different. And if sexism is a product of pathocracy (which makes sense, as psychopaths are predominantly male and stamp out creativity), then I don't think a sane society would come close to resembling our corporate and capitalistic culture, anyway.

 

[anart]

But doesn't it make sense that male and female roles should be different in most cases? In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment.

And if you re-read what you've written above replacing your concept of 'Maiden' as a female human with the concept of 'Maiden' as Divine Creativity that resides within each of us - would it not follow that the Knight, be he male or female - must do the Work to protect (and call forth) the 'Maiden' of Divine Creativity within and bring it to bear in the world/his or her life, to be nurtured and protected by 'her'? I think, due to residing in these limiting physical bodies, that we tend to fall into linear and dualistic thinking (especially regarding gender) - when there may be much, much more going on than that.

Of course, this would apply to a segment of humanity at a certain level - and the literal interpretation might apply to another segment. In this current 'realm' - the Maiden (Divine Creativity) is in distress, and it is up to all Knights - (male or female) to Work to find, protect, rescue 'her'. We live in a symbolic reality - to pull those symbols down to 'clay' and to physical vehicle - is to lose the finer essence of the matter. At least, this is how I see it.

Of course, one must keep in mind that not all of humanity can currently grasp the finer essence of the matter - though one day they might - and they might start by grasping the literal (physical) interpretation (or not, it is just an idea).

The man whose emotional center is atrophied must Work to achieve what many women already have.

All men and women with atrophied emotional centers must Work to bring forth Divine Creativity - I think that Divine Creativity cannot survive through us in this realm without those in which 'she' exists having an active emotional center - which is rather like air to 'her' (though 'her' is a limiting word to use for the Essence of Life - it is also 'him').

I do get your point about the physical female 'default setting' of a more active emotional center and think it likely applies in a lot of cases, but in this exceedingly toxic world, it is not - in any way shape or form - a given. I also think that the masculine and feminine attributes are spoken of here symbolically - our true essences are neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' - and each person has specific blocks to overcome (programs to rewire) depending on their nature, nurture, soul imprint, etc. - in order to find/call forth/rescue and protect/become a representative of Divine Creativity in this realm. The point seems to me to be the use of an archetype to illustrate that what is missing must be actively found, protected, nurtured and it takes the attributes of a Knight to do so - whether that Knight is male or female - but that's just my take and I tend to 'think outside of the box' on this topic.

;)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

But doesn't it make sense that male and female roles should be different in most cases? In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment.

And if you re-read what you've written above replacing your concept of 'Maiden' as a female human with the concept of 'Maiden' as Divine Creativity that resides within each of us - would it not follow that the Knight, be he male or female - must do the Work to protect (and call forth) the 'Maiden' of Divine Creativity within and bring it to bear in the world/his or her life, to be nurtured and protected by 'her'? I think, due to residing in these limiting physical bodies, that we tend to fall into linear and dualistic thinking (especially regarding gender) - when there may be much, much more going on than that.

Absolutely. I think that's the beauty of alchemical/mystical/Work imagery and symbols: they work on all levels. I think the main point I wanted to make was that, in the context of relationships, the "pairing" or "marriage" of individuals is similar to any pairing in nature: opposites complement each other. This can apply to individuals in Work, couples, ideas, chemical reactions, music, art, etc. Two "soul essences" uniting can be the individual soul essences of two people, or the energy (or "tinctures") of the two "higher centers" that unite in the alchemical "mysterium coniuntionis". The archetype applies to all possible expressions, only one of which is expressed in relationship dynamics.

 

[Inti]

Thanks for all the replies and thoughts on this matter.

Along with the very good comments and observations that have already been made on this thread I'd just like to add that I think it should also be kept in mind that the quotes of Gurdjieff in Fritz Peters book is what Fritz Peters says Gurdjieff said. Maybe Fritz Peters account was accurate. Maybe not. Maybe it was Fritz Peter's subjective interpretation of what Gurdjieff said? You just don’t know. Then there is also your own interpretation of what Fritz Peters account was (and possibly influenced by his own interpretation of what G said). So you could be dealing with an interpretation of an interpretation. Were there others to verify Fritz Prters account?. Also, whatever it was that G may have said, or might have said, to Fritz Peters at that point in time, in that particular situation, was said at that point in time and now we are at another point in “time.” So I think all these things must be taken into account.

I was thinking about all that too...because, after all, Fritz Peters was only a teenager when all this happened. If I think back to being a teenager, I cannot remember that many conversations with teachers clearly.

In my opinion it's best to stick with Ouspensky's account of what Gurdjieff said in the book 'In Search Of The Miraculous'. Not only can I verify much of what is said in that book with my own personal experience and studies but I think Gurdjieff even said that Ouspensky's quotations of him in the manuscript of that book were accurate and that Ouspensky had "a very good memory."

I have read ISOTM and it is definitely worth reading, but I also think Fritz Peters' book is worth reading - whether misguided interpretation or not - there are some interesting perspectives and lessons in there.

The Knight, be he male or female - must do the Work to protect (and call forth) the 'Maiden' of Divine Creativity within and bring it to bear in the world/his or her life, to be nurtured and protected by 'her'? I think, due to residing in these limiting physical bodies, that we tend to fall into linear and dualistic thinking (especially regarding gender) - when there may be much, much more going on than that.

I agree with this.

I also think that the masculine and feminine attributes are spoken of here symbolically - our true essences are neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' - and each person has specific blocks to overcome (programs to rewire) depending on their nature, nurture, soul imprint, etc. - in order to find/call forth/rescue and protect/become a representative of Divine Creativity in this realm. The point seems to me to be the use of an archetype to illustrate that what is missing must be actively found, protected, nurtured and it takes the attributes of a Knight to do so - whether that Knight is male or female.

Thankyou for explaining it so well, Anart! :)

I think we often fall into problems when we talk of 'masculine' or 'feminine' because they are classically attributes that are assigned to a gender, yet these attributes are never limited to the gender they are assigned to! I think, as Anart says, our essences are neither 'masculine' or 'feminine'. My take is that we are a combination of different potentials or forces or energies that we should work at to balance, internally and externally. I think that when we use the words 'masculine' and 'feminine' to describe these forces or energies it confuses the matter and hides much of the truth.

 

[Inti]

I just remembered something that Nemo cited in another thread and thought it might have some relevance here:

Also let`s not forget:

Never believe anything you hear me say. Learn to discriminate between what must be taken literally and what metaphorically.

Yup.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I'm a bit confused over some words Gurdjieff said, cited in 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff' by Fritz Peters.

"You remember," he said then, "how I tell about good and evil in man - like right hand, left hand? In other sense, this also true of man and woman. Man is active, positive, good in Nature. Woman is passive, negative, evil. Not evil in your American sense like 'wrong', but very necessary evil; evil that make man good. Is like electric light - one wire passive or negative; other wire active, positive. Without such two elements not have light."

and then:

Shortly after the earring episode with Mme Schernvall, he brought up once again the question of men and women, their roles in life, and, as an additional element, the specific roles of the sexes in his work or, for that matter, in any religious or psychological work which had self-development and proper growth as an aim. I was surprised and puzzled then, and many times later when he spoke on the subject, by his reiteration of the fact that not only was his work "not for everyone" but that "women did not need it." 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. Among other things, he said: "Nature of woman is very different from that of man. 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. Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever: what you call 'aspiration'. In life, man use this thing - this aspiration - for many things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man - not woman - must climb mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures, write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self."

I'm not sure whether I'm understanding this properly because it just strikes me as sexist and I cannot see much evidence of these words in life.

It continues:

When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively confined to the world of the male, Gurdjieff laughed: "You ask question about woman artist, woman scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and this true thing I say. True man and true woman not just one sex - not just male or female. True human is combination of these things: active and passive, male and female. Even you," he made a sweeping gesture covering all of us, "sometimes understand this because you surprised when you see man who feel thing like woman, or woman who act like man; or even when in self feel feelings proper to opposite sex."
"We all live in what we call universe, but this only very small solar system, smallest of many, many solar systems, people bi-sexual: necessary have two sexes for reproduction of kind - primitive method, which use part of man's aspiration for creation of more people. Man who can learn how to achieve higher self - how go to proper Heaven - can use all this aspiration for development of self, for what you call immortality. In world as now exist, no man able to do this: only possibility for immortality is reproduction. When man have children, then all of him not die when his body die."
Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature."(p.114-115)

I don't understand! On the one hand he seems to be saying that a true man or woman is a combination of both feminine and masculine, but then he seems to be speaking about the whole of a woman and whole of a man as having different roles. Can anyone explain?

What needs to be kept in mind, is that, essentially, G was teaching a psychological system. He told his students never to believe him. His talk about 'man' and 'woman', refers to the divided psyche within man.

[...]...man has in general two kinds of mentation: one kind, mentation by thought in which words, always possessing a relative sense, are employed; and the other kind, which is proper to all animals as well as to man, which I would call "mentation by form."

The second kind of mentation, that is, "mentation by form," by which, strictly speaking, the exact sense of all writing must be also perceived, and after conscious confrontation with information already possessed, be assimilated, is formed in people in dependence upon the conditions of geographical locality, climate, time, and, in general, upon the whole environment in which arising of the given man has proceeded and in which his existence has flowed up to manhood. [...]

Left brained - deniarb thgiR

His teaching was aimed at the creation of an 'intermediary'...or, rather, "I". 'One' who spoke 'both languages'. This intermediary or 'I' is the birth of which he speaks, and man and woman must unite for this to occur - [Man-not-in-quotation-marks]'s Reconciling/Third Force. This duality is gratuitously 'peppered' throughout his writings and teachings. At it's core (the teaching, NOT his writings), it is VERY simple, but our 'men' complicate things in linear fashion. Our 'women' get it, like a picture{form}. . . a picture is worth a thousand words eh??

I will say that a perusal of ALL of G related literature would be a "not-so-bad-idea", as there are a couple of 'pretty major gems in the cracks of the pavement' regarding the Primer to his Opus, which, contrary to popular opinion, was definitely NOT un-finished. He just hid it very cleverly.

Happy Hunting

Kris

 

[Eongar]

There really are differences between men and women?

I'm not sure how to raise the subject. The question is one that gives title to the post. There really esoteric level differences between men and women?
Mouravieff states that women can not reach the goal if not guided by a man, for example. In other teachings say that the woman is the absolute most important, life-creating, so to speak.

What can make this idea? Really no difference in the aspect of the Work?

Apologies for my English.

Eongar

 

[RyanX]

Re: There really are differences between men and women?

Hi Eongar,

If you haven't already read through this thread, you might want to check it out.

Man-woman/male-female

You might find an answer to your question there. In short, I think that at an esoteric level one must be careful not to read the words "man" and "woman" as being a physical gender, but the masculine and feminine principles which live in both men and women.

 

[Eongar]

Re: There really are differences between men and women?

Anart says:

I do get your point about the physical female 'default setting' of a more active emotional center and think it likely applies in a lot of cases, but in this exceedingly toxic world, it is not - in any way shape or form - a given. I also think that the masculine and feminine attributes are spoken of here symbolically - our true essences are neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' - and each person has specific blocks to overcome (programs to rewire) depending on their nature, nurture, soul imprint, etc. - in order to find/call forth/rescue and protect/become a representative of Divine Creativity in this realm. The point seems to me to be the use of an archetype to illustrate that what is missing must be actively found, protected, nurtured and it takes the attributes of a Knight to do so - whether that Knight is male or female - but that's just my take and I tend to 'think outside of the box' on this topic.

And obyvatel:

When G is speaking about a "man" and "woman" he is perhaps referring to the masculine (yang) and the feminine (yin) principles . The feminine principle is passive - so does not have aspiration in the context G is speaking about. A human is a combination of these active and passive principles. Typically perhaps we have preponderance of one principle over the other and can thus be more male or female in expression depending on the specific context.

As mentioned in several places, the usual language is no longer appropriate for transmitting certain knowledge and
is necessary to use analogies and symbolism for to make them understand you are ready to understand.
The similarity of yin and yang by what is expressed as man-active woman-passive helps me understand it better . The making of one man could be passive-yin and a woman making yang-active form, but do not stick to the form the literal and physical meaning "man" and "woman" to understand. We must reach an understanding symbolic
and the person walking on Esoteric Way go with symbolism.

You have to know a "special language" to understand what is said in the esoteric field.

Gurdjieff said:

" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently.

"This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being.

"If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. "

I hope you understand me, I try what I can to communicate in English and I know I can be misunderstood.