Why Gurdjieff?

[Buddy]

I don't see anywhere that Gurdjieff states that the third series is autobiographical in fact in one section of it Gurdjieff clearly states he is using the communicative style of Mulla Nassr Eddin.

Hey Stevie, just for clarity's sake are you talking about the part in the third series book where G describes how he reacted to Mr. Orage's formal apology? After Mr. Orage's 'presentation', G says:

Such a philosophizing of Mr. Orage made such a strong impression on me and produced such a strange reaction in my peculiar psyche that now, even with the strongest desire, I cannot refrain from relating this and describing in the style of my former teacher, now almost a Saint, Mullah Nassr Eddin, the surroundings and the conditions in which proceeded the process of assimilation in my Being of the so to say "tzimmes" of the above-mentioned philosophizing of my dear "Anglo American délicatesse Mr. Orage, who was during many years in America almost the chief representative and interpreter of my ideas.

From: Life is real only then, when "I am" p. 132-

That's the only reference I found to the Mulla in the third series. Otherwise, the Mulla features prominently in The First Series (Beelzebub's Tales) and in the 'Third Talk' that consists of parts of the First series, specifically described here:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Real_Only_Then,_When_%27I_Am%27

 

[Stevie Argyl]

That the part Bud. Thanks for finding it. I see no reason in an autobiography why something would be communicated using this style.

When I first read Meetings with Remarkable Men, I though it was an autobiograpy until I read they are trying to cross the desert on stilts and are preparing food from ancient sea beds, and that they meet monks who are over 200 years old, and suddenly I realise this is a bunch of teaching stories. Later when I read The De Hatmanns book, I find that the group are composing a narrative based on a number of friends : Seekers of Truth. Is this the origins of Gurdjieffs Seekers of Truth story - or did he tell them him history and they ficionalise it? Who knows!. Basically, when it comes to Gurdjieff appearing sincere in his own writings I get suspicious. He never made anything easy for his pupils to underrstand in his lifetime, I dont see him suddenly becoming all plain and open as it appears in Life is Read. Purely my opinion though - I have no facts to back this up, so maybe this post is just noise and should be deleted. I will leave that for mods to decide.

 

[Laura]

Basically, when it comes to Gurdjieff appearing sincere in his own writings I get suspicious. He never made anything easy for his pupils to underrstand in his lifetime, I dont see him suddenly becoming all plain and open as it appears in Life is Read. Purely my opinion though - I have no facts to back this up, so maybe this post is just noise and should be deleted. I will leave that for mods to decide.

I think you are right. And that IS what bothers me. It is a "moving center approach" to intellect kind of like physical "stop exercises for the mind."

 

[go2]

Stevie, nice to see you again. Mr. Gurdjieff said he intended to "ruffle feathers"....or was it "ruffle perceptions". He is still doing that, from the grave. It is my impression All and Everything is allegorical, speaking to the subconscious with extended metaphor and symbol. I recall a vivid image from Life is Only Real, Then When 'I Am', which I would like to recount from memory, as I am away from the book.

The Seekers are camped in the desert on a dark moonless night. They gather around a blazing fire, light and warmth in the cold night. Around the Seekers camp, in the darkness are the gleaming eyes of snapping jackels and other snarling beasts attracted by the light. The Seekers shiver and throw another log on the fire. The jackels retreat from the firelight.

This image will never leave me, a deep source of knowing how to respond to predators....internal and external.

Bud, thanks for including the full listing of All and Everything.

I dunno. It was just disturbing.

Laura, are you alright?

 

[Joe]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

 

[go2]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

Yes, Gurdjieffians call it "burying the dog deeper". Metaphor is a formidable obstacle to the mechanical thinking brain. It seems Gurdjieff realized one must struggle to turn knowledge into understanding. The forces of darkness are not likely to sweat to understand Gurdjieff's teaching. Perceval, a man once told me, "The Work protects itself." Thanks for pointing to an important motive for Gurdjieff using the allegorical method of teaching, buried in All and Everything.

 

[Laura]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

Thanks for this, and thanks Go2... after reading this book, I was feeling pretty awful. I just LOVE Gurdjieff even if I don't think that everything he did was right for us or right for now.

 

[acs]

Thanks for this, and thanks Go2... after reading this book, I was feeling pretty awful. I just LOVE Gurdjieff even if I don't think that everything he did was right for us or right for now.

I found a essay/commentary of sorts on "Separting the Wheat from the Chaff" that could very well apply to Gurdjieff's life and work. Here is part of it below and the rest can be found here:
http://doyle-scienceteach.blogspot.com/2009/03/separating-wheat-from-chaff.html

"Separating the wheat from the chaff is not about separating good folks from bad. That's too easy.

Before separating a part from itself, you need to break it. Threshing wheat requires violence. The wheat plant is broken. Separating the wheat from the chaff involves breaking one's lesser tendencies from the better.

Indeed, the actual separating part is easy. Once the grain is threshed, just wait for a breezy day and toss the threshed grain in the air. The wheat berries will bounce at your feet, the chaff blown away. People once knew this. Wheat and chaff were not distinct elements until after the threshing.

The parabolic statement about wheat and chaff reminds us not only that the community is mixed but also that each of us have our own good and bad elements. There is for each of us chaff that needs to be blown away and burned. There is a separation here of good and bad, useful and useless; but it is not like the difference between apples and oranges. Each of us individually is wheat and chaff."

 

[JGeropoulas]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

Years ago I used to get annoyed with "God" for making everything so cryptic vs. writing it all out clearly in the sky for all to see. Over time, I've come to see there are a number of good reasons for truth being hidden:
1) to preserve truth, as Perceval has explained above, by protecting it from the control system
2) to respect free will by not forcing a non-seeker to find truth he isn't ready or willing to find
3) to foster soul development via the work of the seeking truth
4) to filter out pseudo-seekers who are just window-shopping to kill some time

 

[JGeropoulas]

For anyone new who may be unfamiliar with references to Gurdjieff's various books:

ALL AND EVERYTHING
Ten Books in Three Series
by G. I. Gurdjieff


FIRST SERIES: Three books under the title of “An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life of Man,” or, “Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.”

SECOND SERIES: Three books under the common title of “Meetings with Remarkable Men.”

THIRD SERIES: Four books under the common title of “Life is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am.’”

All written according to entirely new principles of logical reasoning and strictly directed towards the solution of the following three cardinal problems:

FIRST SERIES: To destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises whatsoever, in the mentation and feelings of the reader, the beliefs and views, by centuries rooted in him, about everything existing in the world.

SECOND SERIES: To acquaint the reader with the material required for a new creation and to prove the soundness and good quality of it.

THIRD SERIES: To assist the arising, in the mentation and in the feelings of the reader, of a veritable, non-fantastic representation not of that illusory world which he now perceives, but of the world existing in reality.

Source: _http://www.gurdjieff.org/all.htm

Thanks Bud, that's very helpful "map" of the Gurdjieff material

 

[Buddy]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

Well, that would seem to be consistent with the teaching styles of past Sufi 'masters'. Sufis however, tailored their teachings and even made up some stories for the purpose of teaching particular individuals and small groups the Teachers were 'tuned' with.

These same stories (that were designed for others) and the stories written for general audiences may, or may not, be worth anything to a specific individual. For example, the Whirling Dervish dances that Rumi designed and that helped change the somber Turks into more pleasant and spiritually balanced people, would not necessarily be of use to anyone else, OSIT.

Oddly enough, in my own readings of G's writings, I can see there are some things which he says that are plainly obvious and understandable, but only when you already know what he's talking about.

To me, the allegorical teaching method serves another important purpose besides "the work protecting itself" and that is to make use of the power of 'realization' to cause the necessary changes that re-organize a persons inner knowledge to deepen their understanding.

Anybody for whom a 'penny has dropped' that totally let them see something in a brand new way has experienced this feeling and would recognize the difference between having 'earned' their knowledge and 'bolting it on' from an outside source. :)

 

[dantem]

If we consider the time in which he lived and everything that has happened since, what do we think would have happened to what he had to convey to humanity if he had spelled it out very clearly? Chances are that it would have been distorted beyond all recognition by now. Perhaps he was aware of this at some level and perhaps his personality and nature was well suited to delivering the information in a rather obscure convoluted way so that it would not be seen as a threat by the control system and would therefore survive and reach those in the future who would be tasked with decoding the information and making it more clear.

Thanks for this, and thanks Go2... after reading this book, I was feeling pretty awful. I just LOVE Gurdjieff even if I don't think that everything he did was right for us or right for now.

Amen! I think no one here wants to pretend that what was going on into G's groups are the right thing to do for us now. If G's effort where a preparation for others groups to come then I really don't see any sense in digging on the trifles of G's groups movements and economic issue or what else and being shocked of the rudeness of all of it. Surely there was a rude world at that time, there was no internet and there was no possible critical mass altogether, and the morality behind it all it's a sort of Heinz Dilemma for us now. Fulcanelli had a point while writing: "Keep silent!"; it WAS the best thing to do at the time.

From a certain point of view, I would consider Taylor's teenage experience with G's and Patterson's resumes merely "very helpful gossips" to read.

 

[John G]

I found a essay/commentary of sorts on "Separting the Wheat from the Chaff" that could very well apply to Gurdjieff's life and work.

Gurdjieff almost seems to act like a channeling source. There's one place where the Cs directly lied to Laura as a test and channeling in general can be distorted depending on the audience (and the extended audience, a channeling source will never be seen as proof for the general public). Then there's the idea of being inspiration for us to do the work, not be lead by the hand.

I do think Gurdjieff like Jung had a bit of a dominant male ego problem. Jesus had pre-Christed affairs he was sorry about; Moses required some reteaching cause of being tyrannical. I do think the universe had hugely good reasons for having Laura and Ark as a couple as our guides here. The "dominant male" works as both a symbol and very real cause for our post-fall problems. Interestingly in spite of their possible "male" flaws, Gurdjieff and Jung were both hugely inspirational for women in particular.

Gurdjieff and Jung are hugely inspirational for me (a male) too. I just loved this:

Q: (A) Okay, if it is sincere, then it means I should answer
him. Last question: I was thinking about what is the most
important for me at the present, and I think that I want to
understand and implement this concept of densities; to
implement it into physics and mathematics. But, it seems to me
that I am completely alone with that. I would like to know
where I should look, because certainly other people have
already tried to do it. I don't want to start from scratch if there
is something that I can look at or study before I really jump
into this difficult project. Were there people, scientists... where
to look?
A: Study the works of Gurdjieff and Jung, for starters. Also,
Vallee is on a similar path, and a little ahead of you. He would
be most approachable, if you can convince him of your
sincerity.

I think Ouspensky for Gurdjieff was much like Pauli for Jung. Ouspensky and Pauli showed how inspirational Gurdjieff and Jung could be in the as good as it gets intellectual sense. Course Laura has Ark. I think some of what Gurdjieff and Jung did is even very mathematically related to what Ark does. It's the niche that lead to me finding Ark and thus Laura.

 

[acs]

Then there's the idea of being inspiration for us to do the work, not be lead by the hand.

From my point of view this inspiration directly correlates to a person's character. Therefore it seems to me Gurdjieff's character was questionable at least in the moral realm. Yet from my limited knowledge of his writings (I'm very new to them) he believed morality was subjective. This may explain why he behaved the way he did.

I think often times seekers, myself included, are too eager to label someone a "mystic" or "great teacher" when they have the ability to speak so "other worldly." This eagerness says more about me though, the seeker, than the "mythical mystic." I think the hype and accolades laid at the feet of these teachers/mystics, etc., brought on by seekers, can be dangerous for both parties. For the "mystic" it is a potential temptation for them to buy into their own hype. For the seeker it is a possible dissapointment and loss of faith when they discover that their teacher/mystic was merely human after all...both wheat and chaff. Either way, caution is necessary I think.

In any case, Gurdjieff certainly had a way of viewing humanity and human behavior that I find useful and I am grateful for being introduced to his teachings by way of my friend who in turn introduced me to all of you (this forum) and Laura's writings.

 

[Keit]

I do think Gurdjieff like Jung had a bit of a dominant male ego problem. Jesus had pre-Christed affairs he was sorry about; Moses required some reteaching cause of being tyrannical. I do think the universe had hugely good reasons for having Laura and Ark as a couple as our guides here. The "dominant male" works as both a symbol and very real cause for our post-fall problems. Interestingly in spite of their possible "male" flaws, Gurdjieff and Jung were both hugely inspirational for women in particular.

Yesterday started reading "The Reality of Being" and the following is from the Forward:

"In the introduction that follows, Mme. de Salzmann reveals how she saw Gurdjieff as a spiritual "master" in the traditional sense - not as a teacher of doctrine but as one who by his very presence awakens and helps others in their search for consciousness. What she does not speak about is how she herself also taught by her presence. She had quality of intelligence and, in her own words, an attitude of vigilance that she brought at all times and in all circumstances. For Madame, to live the teaching was the way of being.

The respective roles of Gurdgieff and Mme. de Salzmann were very different. As she notes, Gurdjieff created conditions for his pupils and was the dominant influence for each person. There was, however, no sense of an organized work together, and the seeds of knowledge that he planted in different people could not sustain a common endeavor. She called others to see, with the master gone, that their real guide was the teaching he left behind and their only possibility to live it together.

So while one of the fundamentals of the work on self is to have an aim, it appears that Gurdjieff groups as a whole had none, or weren't able to sustain it. Perhaps that could be the core difference between his methods and the way he chose to deliver his teaching, and work of Laura and Ark, and FOTCM?