the good householder vs. the hasnamous

bianca etezete

Dagobah Resident
Well, I looked for a while and couldn't find a topic that deals with my question. Maybe there is, and I didn't see it, If there already is such a topic, please tell me, and I'm sorry I didn't find it.

My question and my thoughts revolve around the "good householder". Gurdjieff said that that is the group of ppl who can actually DO The Work - unlike tramps and the Hasnamous, which are those who live off the exploitation of others. So my question is: Is someone, who is working for a company which exploits ppl, workers and customers alike (and who earns big money with it), also a Hasnamous? Or is it OK, as long as you do your work accordinf to the rules of the company?

And second part of the question: Is Everyone who has experienced financial difficulties, but got along without going into debts, a tramp? Someone who can manage his affairs and take responsibilities, but he or she has no backing money? So if something would go wrong totally the person knows that there is money lacking to fix that whatever thing? In clear words: do you have to have a big money cushion to be a good householder?
 
etezete said:
Well, I looked for a while and couldn't find a topic that deals with my question. Maybe there is, and I didn't see it, If there already is such a topic, please tell me, and I'm sorry I didn't find it.

My question and my thoughts revolve around the "good householder". Gurdjieff said that that is the group of ppl who can actually DO The Work - unlike tramps and the Hasnamous, which are those who live off the exploitation of others. So my question is: Is someone, who is working for a company which exploits ppl, workers and customers alike (and who earns big money with it), also a Hasnamous? Or is it OK, as long as you do your work accordinf to the rules of the company?

And second part of the question: Is Everyone who has experienced financial difficulties, but got along without going into debts, a tramp? Someone who can manage his affairs and take responsibilities, but he or she has no backing money? So if something would go wrong totally the person knows that there is money lacking to fix that whatever thing? In clear words: do you have to have a big money cushion to be a good householder?

Gurdjieff admonished his students to never take his words literally. While anything that he said may have had a literal component, there was always something 'between the lines'. If you haven't read Beelzebub's tales, I would recommend doing so...I think the answer to your question is 'spelled out' in that book.

Kris
 
etezete said:
Well, I looked for a while and couldn't find a topic that deals with my question. Maybe there is, and I didn't see it, If there already is such a topic, please tell me, and I'm sorry I didn't find it.

My question and my thoughts revolve around the "good householder". Gurdjieff said that that is the group of ppl who can actually DO The Work - unlike tramps and the Hasnamous, which are those who live off the exploitation of others. So my question is: Is someone, who is working for a company which exploits ppl, workers and customers alike (and who earns big money with it), also a Hasnamous? Or is it OK, as long as you do your work accordinf to the rules of the company?

And second part of the question: Is Everyone who has experienced financial difficulties, but got along without going into debts, a tramp? Someone who can manage his affairs and take responsibilities, but he or she has no backing money? So if something would go wrong totally the person knows that there is money lacking to fix that whatever thing? In clear words: do you have to have a big money cushion to be a good householder?

If i'm understanding your question correctly, and from my perspective, we need to look at this in context: the financial system has literally been set up to disadvantage the common man. So being in debt, especially for my generation, was and is quite a normal part of life. A mortgage is a debt which you spend most of your life paying back to a bank which has participated in corrupting the economic system, whereas you could also be in debt to a friend, and i think the two are very different. In reality both will need to be paid back, but perhaps with the bank, you can get creative.

The idea is probably: are you doing the best within your abilities to care for others and yourself. Or are you watching someone go to work whilst enjoying the fruits of their labours. In this sense, if you are able to save for emergencies to prevent relying on others for say, medical bills, then you maybe you should. However in reality, for many, especially in the United States where health care is extortionate, this isn't always possible. The same probably goes for your question regarding working for a company that exploits people. Most companies exploit people and the environment in one way or another, so it's about doing the best you can based on your values and current predicament. Or at least those are some thoughts that occur to me because i'm no expert.

There may be something here of interest too: Becoming a good 'obyvatel' as a foundation for the work?



I did a quick search for the definitions you mention and came across the following:


http://kesdjan.com/exercises/np.html said:
from Ouspensky's "The Fourth Way," pp. 298-302

What is interesting in this connection, and what I would like to speak about, is the division of men from the point of view of the possibility of changing being. There is such a division.

It is particularly connected with the idea of the Path or Way. You remember it was said that from the moment one becomes connected with influence C a staircase begins and only when a man gets to the top of it is the Path or Way reached? A question was asked about who is able to come up to this staircase, climb it and reach the Way. Mr Gurdjieff answered by using a Russian word which can be translated as 'Householder'. In Indian and Buddhist literature this is a very well-defined type of man and type of life which can bring one to change of being. 'Snataka' or 'Householder' simply means a man who leads an ordinary life. Such a man can have doubts about the value of ordinary things; he can have dreams about possibilities of development; he can come to a school, either after a long life or at the beginning of life, and he can work in a school. Only from among such men come people who are able to climb the staircase and reach the Path.

Other people he divided into two categories: first, 'tramps', and second, 'lunatics'. Tramps do not necessarily mean poor people; they may be rich and may still be 'tramps' in their attitude to life. And a 'lunatic' does not mean a man deprived of ordinary mind; he may be a statesman or a professor.

These two categories are no good for a school and will not be interested in it; tramps because they are not really interested in anything; lunatics because they have false values. So if they attempt to climb up the staircase they only fall down and break their necks.

First it is necessary to understand these three categories from the point of view of the possibility of changing being, possibility of school-work. This division means only one thing--that people are not in exactly the same position in relation to possibilities of work. There are people for whom the possibility of changing their being exists; there are many people for whom it is practically impossible, because they brought their being to such a state that there is no starting-point in them; and there are people belonging to yet a fourth category who, by different means, have already destroyed all possibility of changing their being. This division is not parallel to any other division. Belonging to one of the first three categories is not permanent and can be changed, but one can come to the work only from the first category, not from the second or the third; the fourth category excludes all possibilities. So, though people may be born with the same rights, so to speak, they lose their rights very easily.

...

Q. What is it that determines which category a man belongs to?

A. A certain attitude to life, to people, and certain possibilities that one has. It is the same for all the three categories. The fourth category is separate.

About this fourth category, I will give you just a few definitions. In the system this category has a special name, consisting of two Turkish words. It is 'Hasnamuss'. One of the first things about a 'Hasnamuss' is that he never hesitates to sacrifice people or to create an enormous amount of suffering, just for his own personal ambitions. How a 'Hasnamuss' is created is another question. It begins with formatory thinking, with being a tramp and a lunatic at the same time. Another definition of a 'Hasnamuss' is that he is crystalllized in the wrong hydrogens. This category cannot interest you practically, because you have nothing to do with such people; but you meet with the results of their existence.

...

As to the characteristics of a man in the first category, that is the householder--to begin with he is a practical man; he is not formatory; he must have a certain amount of discipline, otherwise he would not be what he is. So practical thinking and self-discipline are characteristics of the first category. Such a man has enough of these for ordinary life but not enough for work, so in the work these two characteristics must increase and grow. A householder is a normal man, and a normal man, given favorable conditions, has the possibility of development.
 
RflctnOfU said:
Gurdjieff admonished his students to never take his words literally. While anything that he said may have had a literal component, there was always something 'between the lines'. If you haven't read Beelzebub's tales, I would recommend doing so...I think the answer to your question is 'spelled out' in that book.

Kris

Given that BT is a 1000-page behemoth, how about you give a summary in your own words to help etezete out?
 
etezete said:
Thank you, RfctnOfU, for your answer. I will read the book anyways, so ... no quick answer possible?

I've got a quick answer for you.

Before I tell you, I would urge you to read the following SOTT article

https://www.sott.net/article/318298-Isnt-nature-awesome-Humans-flip-out-over-lion-eating-unborn-buffalo-no-wonder-they-re-clueless-about-Syria

Now you might think, what does that article have to do with what you are asking? Well, that article makes mention of how things just are in our reality i.e. what our reality is.

On a practical level, once you reach adulthood, you have to be able to support yourself. In our world, that will most probably mean you have to work in order to get compensated. Also, in our world, for the majority who are employed, that will mean you work for companies. Companies in our world are essentially psychopathic. The documentary, "The Corporation" basically illustrates their psychopathic nature and is highly recommended.

However, having said that, obviously, you have a certain level of choice for your work i.e. you can choose not to be a soldier, a part of the military industrial complex, working for a fracking company etc.

Being able to provide for yourself and if you are lucky, others as well, means that you set yourself up in a good position to be able to "Work" further i.e. you've met the requirements of being an obyvatel. You are doing this bounded within the confines of what is real, what our reality is. Yes, it may involve having accumulated debt (e.g. from student loans or debt from meeting living expenses when you don't have enough money) and working for a (psychopathic) company. But, you have choices and you can minimise certain things and maximise others depending on your capabilities.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.
 
etezete said:
My question and my thoughts revolve around the "good householder". Gurdjieff said that that is the group of ppl who can actually DO The Work - unlike tramps and the Hasnamous, which are those who live off the exploitation of others. So my question is: Is someone, who is working for a company which exploits ppl, workers and customers alike (and who earns big money with it), also a Hasnamous? Or is it OK, as long as you do your work accordinf to the rules of the company?

IMO it depends on
- why the person does such a work (intention)
- how he uses the fruits from such a work (utilization)
- what he feels internally about it

Many people have limited choices on what they can do for a living. It depends on their skills, resources and situation. People have families to feed. So they do what they can. Can it change into greed and exploitation? Sure, it can and does.

To check whether greed and exploitation are the main line of force, it is useful to see how the person concerned is using the money earned from the work. Money is similar to energy - it can be used for various purposes, good and bad. But first one needs to have it; then one can talk about using it in various ways.

[quote author=etezete]
And second part of the question: Is Everyone who has experienced financial difficulties, but got along without going into debts, a tramp? Someone who can manage his affairs and take responsibilities, but he or she has no backing money? So if something would go wrong totally the person knows that there is money lacking to fix that whatever thing? In clear words: do you have to have a big money cushion to be a good householder?
[/quote]

Being poor is not a prerequisite for 4th Way Work, nor is being rich a necessary detriment. If someone has money, has an aim, and knows how to use the money wisely towards his aim, he/she is better off than someone who has no money. Similarly someone who has a lot of money but does not have an aim and/or does not know how to use it wisely but gets identified with the money, he/she is worse off than someone who has less money but knows how to use it effectively.

I think the quotes in itellsya's post explains the gist of the 4th Way terms you have brought up very well. There is no need to go and read Beelzebub's Tales for this. The word "hasnamuss" is described in BT but there is no discussion of "lunatic" or "tramp" in it.
 
Just to put what others have said into different words: Gurdjieff lived in another era than we, so we need to be realistic: everyone has financial problems in one form or another, many are in debt, and it is basically impossible to earn a living without somehow supporting the evil system. It then becomes a matter of "hacking" said system, i.e. being smart, taking as much as we can out of the system (usually by working for some corporation or institution), and then take the money (=energy) to do something positive with it. That way, we "transform" negative energy into something positive, OSIT.

As a practical example for the distinction between "tramp" and "good obyvatel", consider two family fathers: one gets in debt to buy his new shiny car in order to impress his neighbors, and spends "his" money on gadgets because he likes them. He therefore puts his family at risk, to the point of possible financial collapse. Another father invests wisely and restrains himself, slowly starts getting out of debt, and sees to it that his family members' needs are met. He may be poor, or "rich", but what matters is that he cares for other people and tries his best to make the best of the difficult financial situation that most of us are facing. Fwiw.
 
Thank you all for your quick answers.

your replies contained a lot of thoughts I had myself, I wanted to make sure I get all this the right way. Backcloth of my question was a getting together (after a long time) with an old friend. When I went to the kitchen fetching something to drink he peeked into a book that was lying there on the table, it was Gil Friedmans "Gurdjieff: A Beginners Guide" and he opened it right there where Friedman writes about for whom the Work is.

When I came back from the kitchen my old friend said: "So why are YOU reading this? You don't have money in the back so you are no good householder, you are a tramp. I'm working for Vattenfall now (the energy giant), which I guess, makes me on the other hand a Hasnamous. I earn big money there, my work consists of designing ways to get more money from customers while we deliver less and less in return to them."

I tried to explain my point of view to him, that neither I am a tramp nor he is a Hasnamous, for the reasons you all named before in your replies to my question. The point where I got confused and he lost interest was very strange. He seemed to like the idea being a hasnamous for I had the feeling he translated "Hasnamous" to "being superior" or "having made it" - and that was the point when I asked myself whether he might have developped strains of "Hasnamousity" however...
 
Back
Top Bottom