Mouravieff's Gnosis

[Gaby]

I would something add even more heretical to to what Henry wrote: both Gurdjieff and Mouravieff should be read as an inspiration rather than as information.

Today I was looking for something inspirational from the book "Life is Real only then, when I am" by Gurdjieff which I read a couple of years ago in italian. So I looked randomly in my italian copy and found something that would be useful for an english post, so I went to my english copy ( I have the book in a PDF file in english and spanish) and I noticed that there was something missing from my useful quote. So I checked my spanish version and I found the missing part. The spanish and italian versions have a few extra-sentences that are missing from the english copy and I'm not sure why it is edited from the english version. This is something that I just randomly found, as I am not re-reading the whole book again (as of yet).

Here is the quote that I'm refering to, and then I will add a translation of what I found on the italian and spanish version of the book (with the aid of an automated google translation):

"It is interesting to note here that the expression often used by contemporary people, of course quite automatically, without any understanding of its hidden sense-'the first liberation of man'- signifies, according to the interpretation of initiates of one school existing presently in Central Asia, just that supposed figurative understanding which I in my writings formulated as the possibility for each drop of water of the prime general river to cross from the stream which is predetermined to disappear into the 'nether regions' into the stream which empties itself into the vast space of the boundless ocean.

"As to the possibility of this crossing for a man who in his responsible age has already entered into the stream of the 'nether region,' although it is given by Great Nature, I must warn you, in order not to provoke in you so to say 'light-hearted illusions' regarding this possibility to cross from one stream to another, that it is not so easy- merely to wish and you cross.

"For this it is indispensable, with a constantly active consciousness, first of all with extremely great intensity to obtain the intentional crystallization in oneself of the data for engendering in one's common presence an unquenchable impulse of desire for such a crossing, and then will follow a long inner struggle, requiring great tension of all the inner forces, with the obvious abnormalities crystallized in one's individuality and evident even to one's own self-reasoning, that is to say, a struggle with the crystallized habits unworthy for man even in his own understanding in a period of repose, which contribute, first, to the arising in us of our inner 'Evil-God' and second, to the supporting and increasing in us of its power and strength always and in everything, namely that 'Evil-God,' the presence of which creates ideal conditions, especially in contemporary people, for enjoying a state of 'immutable peace' -speaking shortly, there will be required all kinds of corresponding, very complicated and difficult preparations. . . ."

In the spanish and italian version, instead of "speaking shortly, there will be required all kinds of corresponding, very complicated and difficult preparations. . . ." one reads the following:

"In other words, you must die to everything what constitutes the ordinary life ".
"This is the death that all religions talk about".
"This is the meaning of the sentence that had reached us from the most remote times: "without death there is no resurrection". In other words: "If you don't die you won't be resurrected".
"In this case it is not the death of the body, because, for this death, there is no need of resurrection." "If there is a soul, and this one is inmortal, it doesn't need the resurrection of the body".
"This resurrection is not absolutely necessary to appear in the Final Judgement, before Our Sir, as the Fathers of the Church teach us."
"No, all the sent prophets from the High and Jesus Christ himself had talked of this death that can happen down here, in this life, in other words, the death of the 'tyrant' that makes of us slaves and without whose destruction the first great liberation of man cannot be assured.

["En otras palabras, ustedes tienen que morir a todo lo que constituye la vida ordinaria".
"Es de esta muerte que hablan todas las religiones".
"Ese es el significado de la sentencia que nos ha llegado desde los tiempos mus remotos: 'sin muerte no hay resurreccion'. Dicho de otro modo: 'Si no mueres no seras resucitado".
"En este caso no se trata de la muerte del cuerpo, porque, para esta muerte, no hay necesidad de resurreccion". "Si hay un amia, y esta es inmortal, no necesita de la resurreccion del cuerpo".
"Esta resurreccion no es en absoluto necesaria para comparecer en el Juicio Final, ante Nuestro Senor, como nos lo ensenan los Padres de la Iglesia".
"No, todos los profetas enviados de Lo Alto y Jesucristo mismo han hablado de esta muerte que puede sobrevenir aqua abajo, en esta vida, es decir, de la muerte del 'tirano' que hace de nosotros esclavos y sin cuya destruccion no se puede asegurar la primera gran liberacion del hombre". ]

There is the possibility that my english edition is incomplete. Other speculations are that maybe the translator didn't found appropriate to talk about end of times, prophets and death of ordinary life, etc as it could be misinterpreted. But I don't know for sure...

In short, the spanish and italian versions have this quote accurately, word for word and the same quote is missing entirely in the english version that has instead a "speaking shortly, there will be required all kinds of corresponding, very complicated and difficult preparations. . . ."

I wonder what the original french version says. It seems that the italian version is translated from the original french one. In any case (or language), it is still a good source for inspiration ;)

 

[CarpeDiem]

Just wanted to say Thank you to Frai Jonah for this:

All I can think of is to go for it, doing what we can at each moment, let the path make itself. I see no great value in dwelling on the intrinsic limitations of our capacity of distinguishing what is what. Problems specific to each approach will manifest when the approach is pursued, so worry about them then. Charting a specific progression of steps to knowledge or verification of statements is problematical and not even a lot of fun. I recall the C's said to do what comes naturally and worry about what is at hand and let the path build itself.

 

[Pierre]

I wonder what the original french version says. It seems that the italian version is translated from the original french one. In any case (or language), it is still a good source for inspiration ;)

At last I found my French version.

It's very close to what you found in the Spanish and Italian versions :

"En d'autres termes il vous faut mourir a tout ce qui constitue la vie ordinaire.
"C'est de cette mort que parlent toutes les religions.
"Telle est la signification de la sentence qui nous est venue des temps les plus recules : 'sans mort, pas de résurrection'. Autrement dit : 'si tu ne meurs pas, tu ne seras pas ressuscité'.
"Il n'est pas question ici de la mort du corps, car pour cette mort point n'est besoin de résurrection.
"Si il y a une âme, et qu'elle soit immortelle, elle peut se passer d'une résurrection du corps.
"Cette résurrection n'est aucunement nécessaire pour comparaître au Jugement Dernier devant Notre-Seigneur, comme nous l'enseignent les Pères de l'Eglise.
"Non, tous les prophètes envoyés d'En-Haut et Jésus-Christ lui-même ont parlé de cette mort qui peut intervenir ici-bas, en cette vie, c'est-à-dire de la mort du 'tyran' qui fait de nous des esclaves, et dont la destruction peut seule assurer la première grande libération de l'homme.

One small detail about translation, you wrote :
"This resurrection is not absolutely necessary to appear in the Final Judgement"
From the French version a translation that might be closer to the original text is :
"This resurrection is not necesst aary all to appear in the Final Judgement"

 

[dant]

BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

[Moderators: Please put this thread in the correct place if I haven't
done so properly. Thanks!]

Perhaps this thread ought be for those who have questions regarding Gnosis?

I am not clear about Figure 4, where there are three centers, arranged
from top to bottom, the Head-Brain (3rd floor), the Chest-Heart(second floor),
and the Loins-Abdomen(1st floor) are also arranged as if in two columns; the top
two circles (2nd/3rd floor) are placed to the left column and the bottom circle (1st floor)
is placed to the right column? Any significance to this arrangement?

I do continue reading on, and I get to "page 46", figure 15, showing the usual circles
into the same columns but split into positive/negative halves, and each circle subdivided
into 3 parts but then the top two centers have added to the right column, two empty
circles... This is where I am not getting it..., the columns "left" and "right" is not
clear as to it's significance.

 

[Renaissance]

BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

I think the main significance of their being two columns is so Mouravieff can show how the higher centers (those without halves or subdivisions in fig. 15 and fig. 16) correspond with the lower centers.

If he had made additional stories for the higher centers it probably would have made it more confusing. The higher centers being placed in the same story as the corresponding lower center also makes it easier to see how they can act together - as shown in figure 16.

For those without the book at hand here's the diagrams:

 

[Craig]

BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

The diagram is supposed to be a side cross-section of the human body with the front on the left, the back on the right. The centre of gravity of the intellectual and emotional centres you could say are more to the front of the head and body. For the former you have the cerebral cortex mediating not only speech and formulatory ability but many other functions such as memory, foresight, abstract conceptual processes, perceptions of relationship, recognition, and so on. Emotional responses, although affecting many portions of the organism, have their centre of gravity, as it were, in the nervous nodes of the upper trunk, i.e. in the sympathetic nervous system, felt in the solar plexus. Moving/instinctual responses are more centred along the spinal column.

As to whether these generalisations could apply to the two higher centres, I don't know. As to why they aren't divided into halves and sectors, that's apparently the quality of only the lower; there is no yes/no at this level. The empty space on the bottom story of the left column is where the sexual centre - for obvious reasons - is placed.

That's what C. Daly King has to say about it, and it seems pretty reasonable though I don't think the details of these diagrams are terribly important.

 

[Tigersoap]

BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

The diagram is supposed to be a side cross-section of the human body with the front on the left, the back on the right.

Do you think that Barbara Brennan's knowledge of Chakras is corresponding to this diagram ?
There is this drawing :

There are three centers for her :

Mental centers
Feeling centers
Will centers


There is an "explanation" over there http:(slash)(slash)www(dot)kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras-BAB(dot)htm

 

[Green_Manalishi]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

Instead of creating a new post, I decided to utilize this one, which I think suits my intent.

I was wondering if the following proposition would be welcomed by the forum.

I’m about to start the second pass through Gnosis Vol. 1, so my idea was, if anyone is reading at this moment or has reed it, we could for example in a week read a determined number of pages and then discuss what we find more relevant. When everyone is satisfied with the conclusions we would then move on.

I really don’t know if something like this has been tried here in the forum, or if it could work, but it could be a very good way of networking.

 

[Bernhard]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

I’m about to start the second pass through Gnosis Vol. 1, so my idea was, if anyone is reading at this moment or has reed it, we could for example in a week read a determined number of pages and then discuss what we find more relevant. When everyone is satisfied with the conclusions we would then move on.

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "what we find more relevant" and "satisfied with the conclusions". Seems these are very subjective judgments that may be different for anyone who is reading Gnosis. Maybe it would make more sense if you have specific questions about "Gnosis" which then can be addressed by forum members who can share their insight and understanding of the material.

 

[Rauno]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

[quote="Green_Manalishi"]
  Instead of creating a new post, I decided to utilize this one, which I think suits my intent.

  I was wondering if the following proposition would be welcomed by the forum.

  I’m about to start the second pass through Gnosis Vol. 1, so my idea was, if anyone is reading at this moment or has reed it, we  could for example in a week read a determined number of pages and then discuss what we find more relevant. When everyone is satisfied with the conclusions we would then move on.

  I really don’t know if something like this has been tried here in the forum, or if it could work, but it could be a very good way of networking.  
  
[/quote]

I have read Gnosis vol. 1 once and I am ready for a more deep study. To be honest I want just talk about this matrial. How it relates with other systems and etc. It is like deep internal urge for verbal expression which when done feeds back into emotions and ratio. With this I don't want to claim absolute knowledge but have a steady and fulfilling romance. I am not interested in consensus or conclusions. But I want to be ready to listen and receive.

To concentrate for a one chapter for a week has been on my mind.

But first of all I want to verbalize here some thoughts I have had concerning reading and studying important texts.

A text can be thougt of as a pattern or formula. And another pattern or formula are we by ourselves. By relating this static formula or text with our dynamic processes which run according some quite inert pattern - we can change. One possible question is how to manage this relation between man and text to facilitate more real change? And we generally have only one quanitative expression for this forspoken ralation - I read that book. Also we use - to study a material. But how to study important verbal knowledge, which are static monuments of higher mind? How to reach the experiential dimensions or how to be that which the sources of this knowledge were? 

Next some methods and suggestions I have used or thinked of using:

1) Systematic concentration is very important. We run as we run because we were from the earliest childhood conditioned to run that way. Hypothesis is that saturation with new material brings some day a collapse of an old connections. Like when you fast, your system surrenders to new stimuli and starts to run on another energetic sources, when it does not get old food. With mind I guess it is similar but more complex and time consuming process.

2) One good way for me has been to translate given information into native languge. I have heard that mother tongue is processed by dominant left hemisphere and foreign one by another side. It could be wrong, but only reading in another language seems to reach us not deeply enough. As dominant hemisphere reigns over things done of this world, translation helps to reach that world where we actually live. If you try it you will meet great resistance and inertia; brain cracking in making new pathways.

3) In low doses I have practiced writing down quotes with my left hand.

4) Every teaching is a system. System consists of concepts. And concepts are related. Try to start defining concepts and analysing their relations.

5) In every teaching, there are colinear concepts with another systems. Dealing with them is a huge intellectual enterprise.

 

[JAKSUN]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

[Moderators: Please put this thread in the correct place if I haven't
done so properly. Thanks!]

Perhaps this thread ought be for those who have questions regarding Gnosis?

I am not clear about Figure 4, where there are three centers, arranged
from top to bottom, the Head-Brain (3rd floor), the Chest-Heart(second floor),
and the Loins-Abdomen(1st floor) are also arranged as if in two columns; the top
two circles (2nd/3rd floor) are placed to the left column and the bottom circle (1st floor)
is placed to the right column? Any significance to this arrangement?

I do continue reading on, and I get to "page 46", figure 15, showing the usual circles
into the same columns but split into positive/negative halves, and each circle subdivided
into 3 parts but then the top two centers have added to the right column, two empty
circles... This is where I am not getting it..., the columns "left" and "right" is not
clear as to it's significance.

The diagram is supposed to be a side cross-section of the human body with the front on the left, the back on the right. The centre of gravity of the intellectual and emotional centres you could say are more to the front of the head and body. For the former you have the cerebral cortex mediating not only speech and formulatory ability but many other functions such as memory, foresight, abstract conceptual processes, perceptions of relationship, recognition, and so on. Emotional responses, although affecting many portions of the organism, have their centre of gravity, as it were, in the nervous nodes of the upper trunk, i.e. in the sympathetic nervous system, felt in the solar plexus. Moving/instinctual responses are more centred along the spinal column.

As to whether these generalisations could apply to the two higher centres, I don't know. As to why they aren't divided into halves and sectors, that's apparently the quality of only the lower; there is no yes/no at this level. The empty space on the bottom story of the left column is where the sexual centre - for obvious reasons - is placed.

That's what C. Daly King has to say about it, and it seems pretty reasonable though I don't think the details of these diagrams are terribly important.

My thinking on this is to not get trapped within a two dimensional model. Visual diagrams are just that. It is the relationships that you can connect in your awareness with experienced processes that are important.

FWIW, it is my current view that the models of man within his universe, as describes by both Gurdjieff via Ouspenski, and also Mouravieff in his Gnosis Trilogy, cannot be visulised in any meaningful way, unless one adds ultradimensionality.

On multidimensionality, both Gurdjieff and Mouravieff indicate that the 'notes' on the octave, utilised to model the Ray of Creation and its two laterals(in our case), can also be notes on other intersecting octaves, ad infinitum. This is a multidimensional view. Now add the concept of the two 'shock' intervals of the octave to make the model move in a circular motion and it starts to really get interesting.

Now think of man as range of notes within one octave of frequencies. Think of the centres as these notes. Here he is a vehicle for the potential expression of Living Mind if he can "tune in" i.e, raise his frequency level by "shocking" with his self-remembering, his growth in knowledge and burning desire for his Beloved. He can then, and then only, be placed with all his centres, his chakras, his four bodies/sheaths - within the cosmological model. Apply movement and "Thunderbirds Are Go!"

So don't get hung up on the diagrams except as symbols of unseen reality, in a similar way that you cannot 'see' your personality. Using the diagrams of the 5 centres to bring an objective model within your mind, of the motor, emotional and intellectual centres functioning as they are now; will grow a real sense of their location in relation to yourself. As this happens, you will already be working on them and as your personality coheres your awareness will rise through the 3 floors of these three houses of experience. As your awareness grows, you will gain your answer as to the "locations" and "meanings" of these centres.
OSIT

The diagram is supposed to be a side cross-section of the human body with the front on the left, the back on the right.

Do you think that Barbara Brennan's knowledge of Chakras is corresponding to this diagram ?
There is this drawing :

Image http://i11.tinypic.com/4vq7tk0.gif

There are three centers for her :

Mental centers
Feeling centers
Will centers


There is an "explanation" over there http:(slash)(slash)www(dot)kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras-BAB(dot)htm

Mouravieff describes three planes in Gnosis bk1, pg69. He has not written such to my knowledge, but it is my current interpretation that these are planes of experience. He titles them the Physical Plane, The Mental Plane and the Moral Plane. It is interesting to me that he uses the word Moral instead of spiritual here. I found no such correspondence in Ouspensky's "In Search Of The Miraculous", and as I cannot tolerate Gurdjieff's writing style, I have not explored his work direct. Perhaps someone else has a Gurdjieff reference to add?

The Kybalion also mentions three planes, which I also interpret as planes of experience. They are The Great Physical Plane, The Great Mental Plane and The Great Spiritual Plane.

These "planes" as modelled in the three mentioned sources on esoteric literature, in my thinking, are meant to be experienced simultaneously by man 7 as a permanent state of awareness. Also I think they are analogous of the three floors of the diagram in Los's post.

[quote="Green_Manalishi"]
  Instead of creating a new post, I decided to utilize this one, which I think suits my intent.

  I was wondering if the following proposition would be welcomed by the forum.

  I’m about to start the second pass through Gnosis Vol. 1, so my idea was, if anyone is reading at this moment or has reed it, we  could for example in a week read a determined number of pages and then discuss what we find more relevant. When everyone is satisfied with the conclusions we would then move on.

  I really don’t know if something like this has been tried here in the forum, or if it could work, but it could be a very good way of networking.  
  
[/quote]

I have read Gnosis vol. 1 once and I am ready for a more deep study. To be honest I want just talk about this matrial. How it relates with other systems and etc. It is like deep internal urge for verbal expression which when done feeds back into emotions and ratio. With this I don't want to claim absolute knowledge but have a steady and fulfilling romance. I am not interested in consensus or conclusions. But I want to be ready to listen and receive.

To concentrate for a one chapter for a week has been on my mind.

But first of all I want to verbalize here some thoughts I have had concerning reading and studying important texts.

A text can be thougt of as a pattern or formula. And another pattern or formula are we by ourselves. By relating this static formula or text with our dynamic processes which run according some quite inert pattern - we can change. One possible question is how to manage this relation between man and text to facilitate more real change? And we generally have only one quanitative expression for this forspoken ralation - I read that book. Also we use - to study a material. But how to study important verbal knowledge, which are static monuments of higher mind? How to reach the experiential dimensions or how to be that which the sources of this knowledge were? 

Next some methods and suggestions I have used or thinked of using:

1) Systematic concentration is very important. We run as we run because we were from the earliest childhood conditioned to run that way. Hypothesis is that saturation with new material brings some day a collapse of an old connections. Like when you fast, your system surrenders to new stimuli and starts to run on another energetic sources, when it does not get old food. With mind I guess it is similar but more complex and time consuming process.
[/quote]

Yes, deep contemplation is required for gnosis. The acts of self-remembering, and of visualisation will help immensely. The process of Eiriu Eolas breath and meditation also seems to accelerate this understanding in my experience.

[quote]
2) One good way for me has been to translate given information into native languge. I have heard that mother tongue is processed by dominant left hemisphere and foreign one by another side. It could be wrong, but only reading in another language seems to reach us not deeply enough. As dominant hemisphere reigns over things done of this world, translation helps to reach that world where we actually live. If you try it you will meet great resistance and inertia; brain cracking in making new pathways.

3) In low doses I have practiced writing down quotes with my left hand.
[/quote]

I recently came quite aware of the gender aspect of mind in the creation. The concept of father-mother mind startled me, although Moravieff touches on it in Gnosis bk 2, pages 94-95, where he talks of the feminine quality of Re (I do not like this patriarchal word "feminine". Someone would make me very happy if an alternate word could be used). To extrapolate the idea, we can also think of the left and right brains, and  we may consider both STS and STO orientation as poles of gender within the ultra-dimensional universe, and the scale of densities described by the C's.

[quote]

4) Every teaching is a system. System consists of concepts. And concepts are related. Try to start defining concepts and analysing their relations.

5) In every teaching, there are colinear concepts with another systems. Dealing with them is a huge intellectual enterprise.

Life is complex, and the growth in awareness it affords by our efforts in "Growth in Knowledge of All Creation" - prayer for the soul, is truly a blessing. But it is but a part of the total "enterprise". This Star Ship has many parts, which we are now exploring together. In my understanding, the upward path on our individual notes are limitless within Creation. And we have Eternity. But first, we gotta get out of here!.

 

[go2]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

I cannot tolerate Gurdjieff's writing style, I have not explored his work direct.

Hi jacksun,

Gurdjieff's writing is designed to confound the intellectual function and intellectual men and women. It requires engaging the three brains. You have an intellectual mastery of the concepts of the Fourth Way as presented by Ouspensky and Mouravieff. This is natural as both men had an intellectual knowledge of Fourth Way concepts. I have walked the same path as you. I studied Ouspensky and Mouravieff for several years before returning to All And Everything* last fall. I read the work over a two month period with methodical labor. I sat with my feet on the ground, centered by the EE breathing method as I read for an hour each day whether the I's wanted to or not. The experience of reading All And Everything* brought understanding to the Fourth Way beyond the intellectual resource of Gnosis and ISOTM. A most excellent post, jacksun!

Edit: *Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson for clarity

 

[Bar Kochba]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

Jacksun, Gurdjieff tells his pupils to "Like what it doesnt like." When one is reading material one doesnt care for, wrong use of centers occurs and little or no of the material read is recalled. But, if one tries reading utilizing all of the centers, the material suddenly becomes alive. This happened to me while attempting to read "Trapped in the Mirror." First time through i couldnt focus, or remain interested. So i put it down. Months later, after reading Gurdjieff, i applied the knowledge i gained and am rereading "Mirror." Its a totally different experience. I cant really explain it with words other than what i have said. What "it" wants is what i dont want and vice versa.

 

[JAKSUN]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

I cannot tolerate Gurdjieff's writing style, I have not explored his work direct.

Hi jacksun,

Gurdjieff's writing is designed to confound the intellectual function and intellectual men and women. It requires engaging the three brains. You have an intellectual mastery of the concepts of the Fourth Way as presented by Ouspensky and Mouravieff. This is natural as both men had an intellectual knowledge of Fourth Way concepts. I have walked the same path as you. I studied Ouspensky and Mouravieff for several years before returning to All And Everything* last fall. I read the work over a two month period with methodical labor. I sat with my feet on the ground, centered by the EE breathing method as I read for an hour each day whether the I's wanted to or not. The experience of reading All And Everything* brought understanding to the Fourth Way beyond the intellectual resource of Gnosis and ISOTM. A most excellent post, jacksun!

Edit: *Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson for clarity

Hey thanks go2. On your suggestion I did get a copy and have read through to the chapter "Art" so far. I am beginning to love the book, though I must say the language has been difficult. You are right, it is a fantastic read. Also, thank you Kochba, "Like what it doesn't like" rings true. I had a brief thought along those lines whilst reading it the other day, which makes your words kinda synchonistic. Perhaps I am beginning to find "touch" with the essence behind our network. I certainly wish that to be so - the meaning behind form as the Sufi's talk about.
I'd actually over extended my budget on this one, buying a lovely hard covered edition with a marvelous fabric book mark. In addition to the book's content, just to hold the book and open it is a real pleasure. I just loved that chapter on Art and look forward to some winter days in the sun with Beelzebub and his amazing cloven feet. :D

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Re: BORIS MOURAVIEFF: Gnosis

Hi Jacksun

This chapter Art is worth going back over and pondering when you come to read the book the 3rd time, especially the idea of 'lawful inexactitudes' utilised by this GREEK Club.
File this away for a long time: In Life is Only Real - Gurdjieff is talking about how various 'groups' have latched on to 'aspects of ideas' he mentions the GREEK group who were fascinated by
'THE LAW OF SEVENFOLDNESS' . People superficially take the later books as 'fact' and 'biography' , even though G says to to take thing literally, and in Life is Only Real in sections he tells us he is using the 'language of Mulla Nassr Eddin' ie - allegory.
So you have quite a match - The story of Pythagoras' captivity in Babylon by Cambyses II,- becomes the Hellenic [Greek) Club Adherents of Legonomism in Beelzebubs tales who transmit ideas of sevenfoldness and convey knowledge by inexatitude - maching his 'Greek Group' in Life Is Only Real . Gurdjieffs series is a legonomism - objective art - looks for ideas , dropped and picked up laterin the book or even in later books and keep in mind this idea of 'inexactitudes'. I will leave there and lets this thread return to Mouravieff - we don't want the mechanical shocks (law of seven) to deflect us too far off course.