Reading books out of order

[Friday Nite]

Why is Beelzebub's Tales listed as an optional book on the recommended books list if it is the first book as part of the All and Everything? Doesn't the author also clearly state the importance of reading first things first? Is there something that I am missing about the authors wishes that another person can enlighten me too?

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Why is Beelzebub's Tales listed as an optional book on the recommended books list if it is the first book as part of the All and Everything? Doesn't the author also clearly state the importance of reading first things first? Is there something that I am missing about the authors wishes that another person can enlighten me too?

Beelzebub's Tales is a complicated book and perhaps not the best introduction to Gurdjieff's material. It requires to know more than just the basics to be truly understood. If you search the title on the forum, you will find discussions about it.
If you worry about not understanding the All and Everything series because you did not read Beelzebub's Tales first, don't worry, it won't be the case. Every book 'stands on its own', so to speak.

 

[Alana]

Why is Beelzebub's Tales listed as an optional book on the recommended books list if it is the first book as part of the All and Everything? Doesn't the author also clearly state the importance of reading first things first? Is there something that I am missing about the authors wishes that another person can enlighten me too?

Beelzebub's Tales is a complicated book and perhaps not the best introduction to Gurdjieff's material. It requires to know more than just the basics to be truly understood. If you search the title on the forum, you will find discussions about it.
If you worry about not understanding the All and Everything series because you did not read Beelzebub's Tales first, don't worry, it won't be the case. Every book 'stands on its own', so to speak.

And if you want to read the series in the order specified by Gurdjieff, you can do that also. Personally, I read first In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky, and then started reading Gurdjieff's works, starting with Meetings with Remarkable Men. I am still making my way through Tales (it's been on-off for a couple of years now ) and I am glad that I read the others first. Having an idea on who G was and what were his teachings, helps me understand Tales better and not take it too literally

 

[Friday Nite]

Well it seems that a recommendation like that is an example of making yourself more important than the author. While Beelzebub's Tales is a complicated book it is definitely the prescribed introduction that G. intended to his series according to the book itself.

Do you think that the format for of G.'s writing is something that matters?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Well it seems that a recommendation like that is an example of making yourself more important than the author. While Beelzebub's Tales is a complicated book it is definitely the prescribed introduction that G. intended to his series according to the book itself.

Do you think that the format for of G.'s writing is something that matters?

While this forum is based in part on Gurdjieff's work, it is primarily based on Laura's work. As Alana said, if you want to follow G's reading advice, go ahead and do so -- free will and all that. But since this forum isn't primarily a "Gurdjieff literature study group", we tend to recommend books that are both immediately accessible and practical. MWRM, for example, fits that description more that BT. G's reading/writing format may indeed matter -- I don't know -- but frankly, we've got OTHER fish to fry.

 

[Laura]

Well it seems that a recommendation like that is an example of making yourself more important than the author. While Beelzebub's Tales is a complicated book it is definitely the prescribed introduction that G. intended to his series according to the book itself.

Do you think that the format for of G.'s writing is something that matters?

Gurdjieff was moving center oriented and he acquired a huge amount of insight by direct observation and experimentation. However, he obviously failed in accomplishing the mission he set as his life's work. More than once, he closed his schools and started over again with a different plan and format. He was in an accident that nearly killed him and that suggests that he was not as aware as he could/should have been. He died having apparently failed in his experiments.

So, based on gathering all the details about his life that can be dug out, it appears that Gurdjieff laid a basic foundation of ideas and it is up to others to take that information and examine it, work with what works, leave aside what doesn't. Much that he said has been confirmed by modern cognitive science. Much that he said can now be identified with ancient Stoic teachings thanks to developments in ancient text studies. We have confirmed personally many of his ideas in our own experimental work here. At the same time, there are clearly areas where Gurdjieff "missed the boat", so to say. But I would give him a strong 70/30.

It was his idea to write Beelzebub's Tales as he wrote it; I think that was a bad idea.

 

[Friday Nite]

Laura,

Where do you think G. "missed the boat" so to say?

 

[Laura]

Laura,

Where do you think G. "missed the boat" so to say?

The biggest one was obviously in his sampling of the population that became students. But I chose that term deliberately because sometimes you can miss the boat simply because it doesn't arrive, not through any fault of your own. In another sense, Gurdjieff's work was perfect for its time, it just wasn't time for more.

 

[Aiming]

Laura,

Where do you think G. "missed the boat" so to say?

The biggest one was obviously in his sampling of the population that became students. But I chose that term deliberately because sometimes you can miss the boat simply because it doesn't arrive, not through any fault of your own. In another sense, Gurdjieff's work was perfect for its time, it just wasn't time for more.

I also think that the time Gurdjieff lived in played a big role, and it indeed seems like he 'came here for' doing preparatory work. What also strikes me as an important factor is that G was alone, did not have a circle/network of people equally advanced in the Work with whom to consult, which made it so much harder to figure out and/or stay on the track he had intended in his mind.

 

[seek10]

Well it seems that a recommendation like that is an example of making yourself more important than the author.

I wondered about word 'objective'. It came from college days where we were told, smallest is molecule, then atom, then electron and then million other smaller one. So I wondered why don't we know the absolute truth instead of intermediate steps.

Once C's said "If one learns 3D lessons, he/she instantly goes to 4D" and world exist for EXPERIENCE. i.e. we are here for a reason and there is nothing called ABSOLUTE truth as we were traditionally told. Yes, people who learned ( of working life/machine) has better truth. Just like in any experiment ( i.e. experience) there are input, output, known/unknown boundary conditions. There is difference between OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE. We can strive for OBJECTIVE, i.e consider all the possibilities . Also, During the days of G, communications are very limited and now it is highly advanced or almost instantaneous, though it is plagued by corruption(so needs LOT of cross checking).

It's like creating a software, which contains operating system (OS) and libraries and application. Thinking about creator of which one is greatest may be misleading as every thing has its purpose for the time and one doesn't need to limit to one thing. One can be creative in any one or all. That's beauty of life. One doesn't need to reinvent what other learned, one takes one's activity that is "truthful and working" and take it next to next level.