Gurdjieff & the Further Reaches of Self-Observation

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

[QUOTE=Mmothra][/i]
That may well be, I was pulling that tidbit from Kathleen Riordan Speeth's book The Gurdjieff Work.


[/color][/color]Gurdjieff studied medicine and for the Eastern Orthodox priesthood...I reckon it influenced his thought...and I am not the only one who thinks so. Here are some references: Link Link Link Link[/QUOTE]

Ah, it may well have influenced his thought ... my only contention was with 'allegiance.' I know his early life was spent with the EO church and in preparation for priesthood, but I'll be sure to check out those links ... thanks.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

[QUOTE=Chela]About being eaten by the moon:

This is quoted in many places, but always misunderstood.

Nature is a system of the movement of energies. It is a machine -- the cog and gears in this machine are the plants and animals, and the intellectual animal mistakenly referred to as man. They all transmute specific energies required for the Earth to live. Nature is a stomach for the Earth. Earth is a living being.

If you stay with nature, you are under the lunar influence. If you stay in the stomach, the stomach will eventually eat you too. Thus, the statement goes, "You will be eaten by the moon."

It is good to listen to the audio lecture entitled "Entropy and Sacrifice." Those who do not sacrifice their life will die. This is because all energy is naturally (Nature) diffusing through mechanics of entropy. It is basic thermodynamics however within the superior and inferior dimensions of the universe. It is only possible to sustain life through applying pressure to the energy into a superior octave. Death is nothing more than a change of the octave of energy. Buddhist Annihilation (removal of the ego) is a superior death because it the death into a higher octave.

Fourth Way students are not interested in being eaten by the moon. The moon is life and death, round and round, up and down, good and evil. Full moon, new moon, full moon, new moon....

Obviously the moon is not going anywhere but in circles. It is mechanical life.

Yes, the Fourth Way is to overcome the moon, because the moon is like a swinging pendulum, and the Fourth Way is the path of the equilibrated man. A true Solar Man is one who converts the moon ablaze with a living fire. The Solar Man is one who explored his psychological moon, our dark side of his psychological interior, to illuminate it with the Solar Intelligence.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the clarification.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: fr_dionysius

Gurdjieff was indeed a genius and there will ever be only one Gurdjieff.. as was demonstrated when he died and left no successor and his group split into so many splinter groups.

He picked up his training from eastern orthodox practices but also his extensive travel in Central Asia. He also had a most curious mix of Greek, Russian and Armenian backgrounds.. and spoke about 5 languages fluently.

His books are a great read, but without the actual Gurdjieff, they won't deliver much. Also books such as "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson" are long, highly encoded and designed to put you to sleep in order to weed out noodlers.

His idea of "the 4th Way", as apart from the other 3 traditional paths (monastic, fakir and yogi) is interesting.

He was adept at smashing down the ego and all self identifications.. however, often people were left with nowhere else to go, and hence drifted into paths such as Sufism as a way to fill the then empty void.

I have a few of his piano concerto cd's.. he wrote various music and dance forms as well.

d.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: judih

yes, he wrote music and Thomas de Hartmann played. Very arousing music written to awaken the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual 'bodies' of listeners and or dancers.

A character, a genius in blending western and eastern thought, Gurdjieff would have offered a face to face meeting of a lifetime.

i met with his students and they never attempted to emulate their teacher, Mr. G. The stories they told could only pique the imagination, as do all the testimonials written by other students (A.R. Orage, Katherine Mansfield to name 2 of my favourites).

The work was not 'cult-based' as it always put the onus on me, myself, to do the work, to wake up and live with my senses and with sense.

i was with a Gurdjieff group from the years 1972 - 78, leaving the group when i left the country. But what i liked about the Gurdjieff work is what i continue to like in tai chi, chi cong and meditation. The quality of working with multiple energies is what operates in all creative work - art, music, movement.

judih

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: d&g

There were a couple of occasions in my life when practicing Gurdjieff's self-observation produced very peculiar effects, the most notable one being a walk across a busy road and stopping at a traffic light, when all of a sudden I sort of got a 360 degree glimpse of everybody around me swimming in a soup of thoughts, emotions and ideas, and me being the only one to observe it. I got a very physical sensation of the thoughts that the people around me were occupied with - these thought were sort of sticking out of their heads like messy reels of film. And the contents of these various films were projected onto people's faces. Anyway, it's the only way I can describe what I experienced.

Whatever Gurdjieff was - a crook or a saint, the methods seem to produce very interesting results.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

Whatever Gurdjieff was - a crook or a saint, the methods seem to produce very interesting results.

Well, then ... it hardly matters what he was, only what you do with his method.

And in my humble opinion, he was both.

Interesting experience, though, d&g. It's been my experience that in higher states, whatever it is I call 'imagery' is always very intense ... thank you for sharing. You might find what A.R. Orage writes in his 'Psychological Exercises & Essays' very interesting, especially the essays 'How to Read Men' and 'How Not to Give Oneself Away.'

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: d&g

[QUOTE=Apsinthion;313998]Well, then ... it hardly matters what he was, only what you do with his method.


Exactly!

Interesting experience, though, d&g. It's been my experience that in higher states, whatever it is I call 'imagery' is always very intense ... thank you for sharing. You might find what A.R. Orage writes in his 'Psychological Exercises & Essays' very interesting, especially the essays 'How to Read Men' and 'How Not to Give Oneself Away.'[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reference! Now that you mention 'reading men' I also recall having a very interesting thought that if I wanted I could easily manipulate people in this state and that it would come to me very naturally. I remember thinking that it is exactly what the vagabond Gypsies are capable of doing and what they actually do, due to the fact that they are exempt from society's brutal brainwashing and thus they develop these 'abilities' which an average Joe Schmo considers magical.

I also recall looking at the faces of my family members and seeing absolute robot-likeness or a state of deep sleep. Everything in their eye movements, words, expressions on their faces showed lack of awareness and machine-like predetermination of actions. I must say that it scared the hell out of me because you get a true glimpse of what ordinary human life is like. And it felt sort of lonely.

Also, I recall very great clarity of thought and ease of reasoning. It is usually very hard for me to express my thoughts and quite often I get lost in discussions. Well, on the following day after the initial experience, my sweetheart wanted to pick a fight with me. I usually come out of these as the guilty party. But not this time - my reasoning was very clear, to the point and really cut through the chaff. Our conversation that day amazed both me and my sweetheart. Too bad I cannot reproduce that state anymore.

The only thing that comes close to that experience nowadays is what I do when I am having a meal. It is somewhat funny, but it creates that same sensation of waking up. What I do is I look closely at the food that I am eating - not at any particular thing in my food but, you know, at the overall picture. At that point everything becomes vibrant and I snap out of the usual daydreaming and the stream of thoughts in my head and SEE. I begin to really SEE what I am eating.
I guess this practice of stopping and looking around, or looking at what one is doing can be appropriated to any activity, but for me it is usually the food.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Hairetikos

there is an account of a meeting between those two wizards.apparently crowley went to visit gurdjieff, and gurdjieff shortly after inviting him in replied "you filthy inside,get out!"

It didn't take much to set Crowley on a vendetta against those who "crossed" him, however trivial their dispute was. His fall-out with Regardie is a good example. As are many other of his relationships.

With that said, Crowley had only positive things to say about Gurdjieff in his diary entry. If Gurdjieff really did say those things to Crowley, I sincerely doubt that Crowley would have said anything positive about the man. This leads me to believe that the story you relate (which I have heard before) is either exaggerated or false.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=Mmothra;94150]Actually his enneagram is used with some frequency...at least in therapy.[/QUOTE]

This is more than misleading - it is flat out wrong.

Enneagram is not used by professional psychologists. It is not an approved technique in any accredited form of therapy (behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, etc.)

I personally think Gurdjieff is a ridiculous egomaniac. He stole from Buddhism, Sufism, and Theosophy and thought himself to be profound.

He is full of contradictions (self-remembering is everything! there is no such thing as self!) and full of idiotic remarks (the moon is all important! it gives us all life and energy!) and disparaging naivety (psychology doesnt understand this and that!).

Many of his 'methods' are available from every other new age and spiritual school known to man.

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Leviathan

What I DID like about Gurdjieff was "his" saying that we achieve/find ourselves through Work.

I guess the Thelemic synchronicity would be: his Practice
---------------------------------------

there was a band named Deadsy that said, "Of all the dying in Twos and the drifting in Nines."

Thelemites die in Twos.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Leviathan

thing I do respect about him too: was how he tried to do what Carl Jung did and associate these forces with Conscious, Subconscious and Unconscious characteristics, classify them in a sense, and relate them to psychology, or a more scientific community.

Few have done it so well.

And when you start getting into the idea of: How best to give Voice to The Silence (WITHOUT) profaning it in any, way, shape, or form...

Imagine you'd find people pulling their hair out about it for years on end even trying.


So I think that's what I liked best abou Gurdjieff and his Fourth Way, his attempt to communicate to those people living in a middle-class society always busy with work how to Stay Conscious while performing otherwise lifeless, draining, seemingly mundane activities.

I tip my hat off to that.
-------------

but uh:

He aint no Crowley. is how I feel about that.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

thing I do respect about him too: was how he tried to do what Carl Jung did and associate these forces with Conscious, Subconscious and Unconscious characteristics, classify them in a sense, and relate them to psychology, or a more scientific community.

He did EXACTLY the opposite. He MADE UP categories while simultaneously disparaging both psychologists and science. This is a very un-researched view.

And when you start getting into the idea of: How best to give Voice to The Silence (WITHOUT) profaning it in any, way, shape, or form...

This is what we call a 'straw man.' No one ever suggested the idea of giving the voice of silence shape without profaning it.

So I think that's what I liked best abou Gurdjieff and his Fourth Way, his attempt to communicate to those people living in a middle-class society always busy with work how to Stay Conscious while performing otherwise lifeless, draining, seemingly mundane activities.

I tip my hat off to that.

Im sorry but didnt they used to call that Buddhism?

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Hairetikos

I guess the Thelemic synchronicity would be: his Practice

[...]

He aint no Crowley.

It's interesting though that Crowley thought so highly of the man. An entry in one of his magical journals reads: "Gurdjieff, their prophet, seems a tip-top man. Heard more sense and insight than I've done for years. [...] Gurdjieff clearly a very advanced adept."

This obviously is not to imply that Crowley didn't have his differences with the man. He did criticize some of Gurdjieff's teachings. But I wanted to throw this into the mix.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=Hairetikos;343811]It's interesting though that Crowley thought so highly of the man. An entry in one of his magical journals reads: "Gurdjieff, their prophet, seems a tip-top man. Heard more sense and insight than I've done for years. [...] Gurdjieff clearly a very advanced adept."

This obviously is not to imply that Crowley didn't have his differences with the man. He did criticize some of Gurdjieff's teachings. But I wanted to throw this into the mix.[/QUOTE]

I find it especially interesting in juxtaposition with the Gurdjieffian's supposed recounting of a story where Gurdjieff always seems to best Crowley and send him with his tail between his legs or something like that... My point is that there is a huge element of 'I/We are superior'. Read Gurdjieff's writings and be amazed at the biggest egomaniac you have read in a while. At least Crowley has a sense of humor and calls himself "an unclean dog" "Blind Creature of Slime" etc. (i.e. he has balance between ego-strength and ego-lessness).

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Hairetikos

I find it especially interesting in juxtaposition with the Gurdjieffian's supposed recounting of a story where Gurdjieff always seems to best Crowley and send him with his tail between his legs or something like that...

I've never understood why this story surfaced. I sincerely doubt anything of the sort happened. Perhaps some of Gurdjieff's students fabricated it out of a personal dislike of Crowley. Seems the most likely explanation. There is entirely too much one-upmanship among humans.

Read Gurdjieff's writings and be amazed at the biggest egomaniac you have read in a while.

I've tried, his stuff is entirely too cryptic. Maybe just nonsense altogether. I've only fully read secondhand accounts, like Ouspensky and other biographers.

At least Crowley has a sense of humor and calls himself "an unclean dog" "Blind Creature of Slime" etc. (i.e. he has balance between ego-strength and ego-lessness).

Agreed.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Leviathan

"This is what we call a 'straw man.' No one ever suggested the idea of giving the voice of silence shape without profaning it."

No one has ever expressed it without causing it to be profaned...

What if it can be done?


and: what do you mean by "straw man"? (in this sense)

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

There's an account of this story (between Crowley and Gurdjieff) in Colin Wilson's 'The Occult', which I think it safe to assume is on many of your bookshelves. I believe the story came from Fritz Peters' book 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff.' Maybe it was 'Gurdjieff Remembered', I'm not sure.

Here's another interesting perspective as given by CS Nott, in his book 'Teachings of Gurdjieff - A Pupil's Journal':

[INDENT]"One day in Paris I met an acquaintance from New York who spoke about the possibilities of publishing modern literature. As I showed some interest, he offered to introduce me to a friend of his who was thinking of going into publishing, and we arranged to meet the following day at the Select in Montparnasse. His friend arrived;it was Aleister Crowley. Drinks were ordered, for which of course I paid, and we began to talk. Crowley had magnetism, and the kind of charm which many charlatans have; he also had a dead weight that was somewhat impressive. His attitude was fatherly and benign, and a few years earlier I might have fallen for it. Now I saw and sensed that I could have nothing to do with him. He talked in general terms about publishing, and then drifted into his black-magic jargon.

"To make a success of anything," he said, "including publishing, you must have a certain combination. Here you have a Master, here a Bear, there the Dragon- a triangle which will bring results..." and so on and so on. When he fell silent I said, "Yes, but one must have money. Am I right in supposing that you have the necessary capital?". "I?" he asked, "No not a franc." "Neither have I." I said.

Knowing that I was at the Prieure he asked me if I would get him an invitation there. But I did not wish to be responsible for introducing such a man. However, to my surprise, he appeared there a few days later and was given tea in the salon. The children were there, and he said to one of the boys something about his son who he was teaching to be a devil. Gurdjieff got up and spoke to the boy, who thereupon took no further notice of Crowley. There was some talk between Crowley and Gurdjieff, who kept a sharp watch on him all the time. I got the strong impression of two magicians, the white and the black- the one strong, powerful, full of light; the other also powerful but heavy, dull and ignorant. Though "black"" was too strong a word for Crowley; he never understood the meaning of real black magic, yet hundreds of people came under his "spell". He was clever. But as Gurdjieff says: "He is stupid who is clever."

Orage said about this:"Alas poor Crowley, I knew him well. We used to meet at the Society for Psychical Research when I was acting secretary. Once when we were talking he asked: "By the way, what number are you?" Not knowing in the least what he meant, I said on the spur of the moment, "Twelve". "Good God, are you really?" he replied, "I'm only seven". "[/INDENT]

I personally think Gurdjieff is a ridiculous egomaniac. He stole from Buddhism, Sufism, and Theosophy and thought himself to be profound.

He is full of contradictions (self-remembering is everything! there is no such thing as self!) and full of idiotic remarks (the moon is all important! it gives us all life and energy!) and disparaging naivety (psychology doesnt understand this and that!).

Many of his 'methods' are available from every other new age and spiritual school known to man.

Well, Gurdjieff himself, and rather directly, admits to having stole the knowledge he came to possess. What strikes me as significant about Gurdjieff and his works, is how he adapted these (mostly) eastern methods to the western mind, and not just for how we think, but for the times we are living in. This is a characteristic of the Fourth Way -- adaptability to the needs of the time. There are many aspects of the Gurdjieff Work, however, which are NOT available (practically speaking) from any other source, such as the Movements. Speaking from experience, there is an oral tradition which accompanies these exercises which is far, far superior then anything I've found concerning the understanding of energy and how it moves through the body.

Also, Gurdjieff's presentation of the Octave as a model for everything existing is quite unique. Note, I say presentation. He made his life's work that of translation, of bringing into a form digestable for the western intellect ideas which are far removed from our 'ordinary waking consciousness.' It's been my experience that people who find Gurdjieff disagreeable are often those who are unable to discern the gist of his teaching, and so, rather then confront their own mentation, sublimate their frustrations on the perceived source.

It's true what you say, that what he presents are 'methods.' And Gurdjieff was a man, in my opinion, who actually used these methods and understood what they were for. The Trogoautoegocratic process (find that in another teaching!).

And, being true to his Sufi lineages, Gurdjieff followed the path of the Malamatiyya. Although he often appeared as a scoundrel, we have only to see how he died to know the truth. He died loved by many -- as a king, as a saint and as a real man.

Aleister Crowley, however, died very, very much alone.

As for the Moon question, could it be possible Gurdjieff was speaking allegorically of our ego? That part of ourselves which orbits around the body and reflects the light from the Sun, the true Self? It is, after all, the Moon which gives man lunacy, and like the pull of the Moon on the oceans, causes us to move. It is the ego which moves us. All Gurdjieff asked was we come into a new relation with our ego, for it's from this shit that something new can grow

His books, his teachings, as taken off the shelf at your local Barnes&Nobels, are almost worse then useless. The real keys to understanding what he presented to the world he handed down in an oral tradition, one which still exists today.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=Apsinthion;344218]There's an account of this story (between Crowley and Gurdjieff) in Colin Wilson's 'The Occult', which I think it safe to assume is on many of your bookshelves. I believe the story came from Fritz Peters' book 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff.' Maybe it was 'Gurdjieff Remembered', I'm not sure.

Here's another interesting perspective as given by CS Nott, in his book 'Teachings of Gurdjieff - A Pupil's Journal':

[INDENT]"One day in Paris I met an acquaintance from New York who spoke about the possibilities of publishing modern literature. As I showed some interest, he offered to introduce me to a friend of his who was thinking of going into publishing, and we arranged to meet the following day at the Select in Montparnasse. His friend arrived;it was Aleister Crowley. Drinks were ordered, for which of course I paid, and we began to talk. Crowley had magnetism, and the kind of charm which many charlatans have; he also had a dead weight that was somewhat impressive. His attitude was fatherly and benign, and a few years earlier I might have fallen for it. Now I saw and sensed that I could have nothing to do with him. He talked in general terms about publishing, and then drifted into his black-magic jargon.

"To make a success of anything," he said, "including publishing, you must have a certain combination. Here you have a Master, here a Bear, there the Dragon- a triangle which will bring results..." and so on and so on. When he fell silent I said, "Yes, but one must have money. Am I right in supposing that you have the necessary capital?". "I?" he asked, "No not a franc." "Neither have I." I said.

Knowing that I was at the Prieure he asked me if I would get him an invitation there. But I did not wish to be responsible for introducing such a man. However, to my surprise, he appeared there a few days later and was given tea in the salon. The children were there, and he said to one of the boys something about his son who he was teaching to be a devil. Gurdjieff got up and spoke to the boy, who thereupon took no further notice of Crowley. There was some talk between Crowley and Gurdjieff, who kept a sharp watch on him all the time. I got the strong impression of two magicians, the white and the black- the one strong, powerful, full of light; the other also powerful but heavy, dull and ignorant. Though "black"" was too strong a word for Crowley; he never understood the meaning of real black magic, yet hundreds of people came under his "spell". He was clever. But as Gurdjieff says: "He is stupid who is clever."

Orage said about this:"Alas poor Crowley, I knew him well. We used to meet at the Society for Psychical Research when I was acting secretary. Once when we were talking he asked: "By the way, what number are you?" Not knowing in the least what he meant, I said on the spur of the moment, "Twelve". "Good God, are you really?" he replied, "I'm only seven". "[/INDENT]

[/quote]

Very funny

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

What do you find funny about it?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Leviathan

I thought the idea of "getting to know your ego" was the funny part: 'cause the aim of the Thelemites is the NOT self.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Apsinthion

Ah, this reminds me of the zen saying:

"If they believe there is a self, tell them there is no self. If they believe there is no self, tell them there is one."

I suppose it's a matter of looking at the finger and not the moon it's pointing at, or, as Gurdjieff says, a matter of eating the map.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=Apsinthion;344428]Ah, this reminds me of the zen saying:

"If they believe there is a self, tell them there is no self. If they believe there is no self, tell them there is one."[/QUOTE]

Never put salt in your eyes.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: setiamon

from what I read of him in a book long ago was that he was essentially a a sufi, he attempted to translate sufism into western pop culture,he took the dancing of dervishes and created his own mystical dancing etc etc

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Darkwater

*Gasps*

*Pulls out an Occam's Razor in each hand from shoulder holsters & commences dissection*

Where has this been all my life?lolz

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=Leviathan;344391]I thought the idea of "getting to know your ego" was the funny part: 'cause the aim of the Thelemites is the NOT self.[/QUOTE]

Who told you that? (agreed with Apsinthion, although your signature should be complemented with "I AM NOT" or "NOT-I AM")

I thought the 'No, not a franc' was a hilarious and expected reply.

IAO131