06-13-2016, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:44 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.
You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022)
x
06-13-2016, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:44 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
06-13-2016, 04:08 PM
Is he a GI like Military?
06-13-2016, 04:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:44 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
06-13-2016, 04:15 PM
I guess I am now.
06-13-2016, 04:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:44 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
06-13-2016, 04:42 PM
I'm away from my PC, so I can't make this too long as I'm posting from my phone, but Gurdjieff was one of my "first stops" when I started on my quest for truth. I felt extremely uneasy reading his books back then, and now that I'm much wiser, I cannot caution you strongly enough against him. He was definitely advanced left hand path, but a brilliant mind nonetheless. Off the top of my head you might want to check out 2 books: Lords of the Left Hand Path and The Three Dangerous Magi. I'll elaborate further when I'm back at my PC, but Gurdjieff is a complex subject. There is a good reason why Rene Guenon said "flee from Gurdjieff".
06-14-2016, 12:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:45 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
Hi GentleWanderer, aplogies, I'm still not at my PC While my initial post might have come across as a tad alarmist, it's only because one of my interests is cult psychology, and I have just read waaaay too many stories of people who have had their lives ruined by either Gurdjieff himself or one of the many 4th way schools that have sprung up after his death, which have all been destructive cults. Let's just say his "philosophy" isn't compatible with love and an open heart.
When I'm back at my PC I'll elaborate a little, sorry for the delay! Happy to hear that you are not following his teaching. I will admit though that he was an invaluable little bread crumb on the bread crumb trail that led me to the Law of One!
06-14-2016, 05:01 PM
When I joined a left hand path organization a few years back, Ouspensky was one of the first things I was required to read. Both Ouspensky and Gurdijeff were very left in their thinking, though that's not to say you shouldn't read it. Both had very interesting and intelligent philosophies worth studying with an open mind. I certainly found it informative.
06-14-2016, 05:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:45 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
06-14-2016, 05:56 PM
Michael Aquino, who took over Anton LaVey's satanic church in San Francisco and founded the Temple of Set, made Gurdjieff and Ouspensky required reading as well. GentleWanderer, which books have you read by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky? And which books have you read 'about' Gurdjieff?
It has been a long time ago that I read Gurdjieff, and I closed that chapter completely, because him and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so I really had to dig deep to remember what it was that upset me so much about things he said. Where to start.... for the most part, he dehuminises people, calling them machines and automatons. He spent his life "laughing at the idiots". This actually came out of his mouth "But what is a woman, just nothing but a man's handkerchief. I need a new one every day. Let others for the washing pay."
06-14-2016, 06:19 PM
He also denied the existence of a soul, if I remember correctly.
06-14-2016, 06:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2016, 06:29 PM by Reaper.
Edit Reason: typo
)
It is not an overt expression of negativity, no. In fact, I don't think Ouspensky or Gurdijeff would have considered themselves to be following such a path, and there is definitely a mixed quality to the material I've encountered. The "left" expression may be found in the encouragement to finely control one's emotions, destroying the "useless" parts of the self in order to "escape" what is seen as a lesser state of being. There are also undertones of elitism, in the posit that man cannot exceed himself without a special school or teacher, and the idea that you've got two types of people- the slaves, and those who through certain techniques have become ideal. There are plenty of positive points made as well, but in my opinion the overall package leans subtly but distinctly toward the left.
In my experience it is rare to find a text that is polarized 100% in one direction. The overtly negative stuff is often found in grimoiries or distinctly magical texts, as purely negative philosophy is somewhat hard to take seriously when it is presented out of the context of an overt seeking of power. It is far more common to find elements of that philosophy mixed in with more positive ideas.
06-14-2016, 06:31 PM
Oh yes, it's all coming back to me now, because I'm going off memory here. I actually burned his books, because I didn't want to run the risk of some innocent truth seeker happening upon them on the trash heap, so I'm not sure how I'm going to quote from them now... I will just share my other findings first, and then make a plan.
06-14-2016, 06:40 PM
To quote Carla: "wisdom without love is a wicked thing."
GentleWanderer Wrote:What is left hand in their thinking ? It's true love isn't the main focus but for example in Ouspensky "In search of the miraculous" and others books by Gurdjieff i didn't grasped the intent to control, dominate or hate others. Okay, I'm back on my PC. I never imagined that I would revisit Gurdjieff, but here we are. I remember for the most part what put me at odds with Gurdjieff, I would just like mention firstly that this is my personal opinion, I am well aware that there are many Gurdjieff loyalists and sympathisers out there. With that said, let me try and cast some light on this subject. My meanderings into the mind of Gurdjieff was invaluable to me personally because it gave me some insight into the mind of a negative adept, and how extremely cunning they can be. The fourth way has also been described as the "way of the sly man". To quote Venger Satanis, High Priest of the Cult of Cthulhu: Quote:Gurdjieff has said that the Fourth Way teaches that when it rains the pavement gets wet. Ouspensky might describe The Work as a systematic process of reaching higher states of consciousness and conscience. Girard Haven would describe it as creating a soul. In my own words, I view the Fourth Way as the best chance for mankind to evolve into Godlike beings, which is his birthright. Their role requires me to observe myself. To be patient, disciplined, creative, active, and sly. A student (or Master) of the 4th Way must be cunning! The supremacy of the self is of course prototypical of the left hand path. Becoming gods...and that you yourself are the source and origin of that power, whereas the right hand path sees themselves as co-creators along with everyone else, but that their power is ultimately coming from the Creator, they are channels. The left hand path relies solely on their conscious faculties, they have "cut themselves off" from the Creator, so to speak. Not that its possible, but you know what I mean. Quote:Ra: Things come not to those positively oriented but through such beings. Jesus was of course a prime example of a positive adept always stating that it was not he himself which effected the healing, but that he was merely a channel or catalyst for the Creator's energy, and that the person was healed by their own faith. Joel Goldsmith is also a good example, he said sometimes when he gave lectures, he was as amazed by the contents of the lecture as everyone else when he listened to the tape afterwards, because the information just flowed through him and came out of his mouth. Gurdjieff had no qualms about expressing his disdain for humanity, very eloquently packaged and with such finesse, that it's not immediately apparent that you are exposing yourself to negative philosophy. These people don't walk around with horns and pitchforks (just a little joke), they pose as prophets, teachers, philosophers, mystics, saints, priests, saviours, politicians and healers. Gurdjieff even referred to his teaching as esoteric Christianity initially, even though he later said: Quote:My way is to develop the hidden potentialities of man; a way that is against Nature and against God. This idea of the hidden potentialities of Man is fundamental. It often leads to the rejection of science and a disdain for ordinary human beings. On this level very few men really exist. To be, means to be something different. The ordinary man, "natural" man is nothing but a worm, and the Christians' God nothing but a guardian for worms. Classic cult leader bait and switch... You have to realise how charismatic these people are, and how much power of personality they possess. If you for example tried to convince the Russian Tsar and his family (especially his wife) that Rasputin was bad juju, you would have met with great opposition.... yes, I consider Gurdjieff and Rasputin to be birds of a feather. They were master manipulators and deceivers. Evil always poses as good. In People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck, one of the prime characteristics of evil people is that they want to appear to be good, and Gurdjieff was no exception. So let's take a snippet from In Search of The Miraculous - Fragments of an Unknown Teaching - these books have such beautiful titles, which is part of the deception, because I would not have picked this book up in a bookstore had it not been for the title... Let's see how Gurdjieff ensured that none of his pupils would even dare to consider helping another person: Quote:"Of the desires expressed the one which is most right is the desire to be master of oneself, because without this nothing else is possible. And in comparison with this desire all other desires are simply childish dreams, desires of which a man could make no use even if they were granted to him. Of course this particular 'evolutionary level' you needed to reach to be able to help someone else, was never reached by anyone, so if we lived according to Gurdjieff's dictates, no-one would ever help another. I also remember another one of his analogies now, that we are all in prison, and the only way to escape from prison was to listen to someone who already escaped and can therefore show others how to escape. Of course only Gurdjieff figured out how to escape. Lol! It would be extremely funny if it wasn't so sad, because people coming out of fourth way schools have a really tough time recovering. If you internalise Gurdjieff's "philosophy", you're in a big mess. His parting words on his death bed were quite prophetic "I leave you all in a fine mess"... Here's some rare footage of Gurdjieff which surfaced not too long ago:
06-15-2016, 09:47 AM
(06-13-2016, 04:04 PM)GentleWanderer Wrote: Some years ago, i would say quite a long time ago (as time seems to be passing so fast now) i read books by and about what a weird coincidence, i was just reading this article talking about the same person Gurdjieff http://humansarefree.com/2016/06/kindlin...et-to.html
I found some more research by others online. As you will see, Gurdjieff is a hornet's nest best left alone...
Lords of the Left-Hand Path: Forbidden Practices and Spiritual Heresies Amazon review Wrote:This is an extensive study of Left-Hand Path individuals and groups from ancient times to modern movements such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set - both of which have individual chapters in the book. Ancient paths include the Egyptian cult of Set, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, the Yezidis, Neoplatonists and the Greeks, the Germanics, the Slavs, the Assassins, Dualist sects, the Faustian path, the Hellfire Club, de Sade, Marx and the sinister aspects of Bolshevism. Amazon review Wrote:From black magic and Satanism to Gnostic sects and Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way, the left-hand path has been linked to many practices, cults, and individuals across the ages. Stephen Flowers, Ph.D., examines the methods, teachings, and historical role of the left-hand path, from its origins in Indian tantric philosophy to its underlying influence in current world affairs, and reveals which philosophers, magicians, and occult figures throughout history can truly be called “Lords of the Left-Hand Path.” Amazon review Wrote:This is the most comprehensive study of the Left-Hand Path and Satanism considered from its own perspectives. Dr. Flowers has traced divergent cultural streams of antinomian tradition of antiquity and the present. Flowers defines the Lordship of the Left-Hand Path from two key concepts: antinomianism, or going against the grain of society, and self-deification. Georgi Ivanovich Gurdjieff - Knight of the Supremacy of the Will Quote:Gurdjieff was a Left-Hand Path (LHP) Initiate. All who claim otherwise have never finished reading Beelzebub's Tales. Three Dangerous Magi, The: Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley Chapter 2 Wrote:"Till Gurdjieff raised up his head, one could think he is only a great scientist, or something like that. But when he looks at you, you can no more see his face, neither know if he has great or little eyes; you see only two immense wells of black light." - Rene Daumal Wikipedia Wrote:George Gurdjieff The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers Book review Wrote:This book avoids the devoutly worshipful attitude of Moore, Patterson, Bennett and their moon-mad ilk, and likewise doesn't fall into the pit occupied by the kinds of outright misrepresentations of fact found in so many other books, like those fairly recent things written by some well-known Brits (a psychologist, a lit professor and a famous occult writer). This is a complete presentation of the lives of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, drawing the only conclusion possible: Gurdjieff's ideas are a brilliant but derivative hash made out of a random assortment of old occult documents and a little bit of hearsay. But the book says all this with a remarkable grace, depth and style; this man knows what he is talking about and knows how to say it. Rare in this genre. Page 384 Wrote:Orage’s explanation of the split is therefore of great interest. He always maintained that it was Gurdjieff’s near rape of Mrs. Y in 1923-24 that finally decided Ouspensky. The date tallies and the scandal was of such proportions that the explanation is very plausible. If Orage were right this would explain Ouspensky’s obsession with Gurdjieff’s ‘integrity’ in his conversation with Boris Mouravieff after Gurdjieff’s crash, and why - out of loyalty to his teacher as a ‘member of the same family’ he refused to tell Mouravieff why he had decided to work alone. The Dark Halls of Fourth Way Encounters... Gurdjieff, Hess, Hitler, Haushofer, Crowley, Rasputin Quote:G. I. Gurdjieff, (architect of the Fourth Way), was fast becoming famous at a time when there was a focus on leaders around the world. He escaped the revolution in Russia when Rasputin was the Machiavellian dark figure on the scene of Russian mysticism and political intrigue. Gurdjieff later was accused of being a tsarist agent named Lamas Dordjieff as well as other rumors which had his personage as a close confidante of Karl Haushofer, the mentor of Rudolf Hess, and linking him to the creation of the Nazi party. Gurdjieff & Stalin Quote:“There are rumours that Hitler was acquainted with this doctrine of Gurdjieff. Essentially this idea of a man as a machine is the foundation of any totalitarian regime. Gurdjieff is the inspiration of totalitarianism. He is a guru of totalitarianism, despite the fact that he himself was not interested in politics.” Aliens of the Golden Dawn Quote:Hitler used to say: "We are often abused for being the enemies of the mind and spirit. Well, that is what we are, but in a far deeper sense than bourgeois science, in its idiotic pride, could ever imagine."
06-15-2016, 01:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:46 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
You know, Gurdjieff is surrounded by controversy to this day, so many people saying so many things. All that we can do is try and piece things together as best we can. If I go only on his own words, he's incompatible with the positive polarity, along with that he was not isolated, he was surrounded by people, many of whom wrote autobiographies of their own, and the picture that emerges is not good.
My first comment to your initial post would have been "run a mile", but then I erased that after realising it won't be of any benefit to you. We are veiled, so we only have a tiny little candle in the dark to work with, and we will never truly know Gurdjieff's polarity or his intentions. Quote:The decisions then are made to set up the possibility/probabilities of correcting these imbalances in what you call future space/time experiences. The advantage of time/space is that of the fluidity of the grand overview. The advantage of space/time is that, working in darkness with a tiny candle, one may correct imbalances. I have settled the Gurdjieff matter for myself, but I don't want to influence you in any way, you should make up your own mind. You are the authority of your spiritual life, no-one else. It would just be remiss of me if I didn't share what I have learned. Quote:Ra: Thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus.
06-15-2016, 02:52 PM
(06-15-2016, 01:12 PM)GentleWanderer Wrote: About Anton LaVey and Crowley, Scott Mandelker said in a video they were STO at their core while thinking to be of the negative side. There is a story about Anton saying that an angel visited him before his death and showed him how he was deluded. Anton was shocked and frightened by this revelation. Ra also said outright that Crowley was Positive (18.10-11), but had such a difficult incarnation that it led him to act in very bizarre ways. (Including thinking himself fundamentally wicked.) This is one of the big reasons I try to avoid making judgments about someone's polarity unless there is a massive pile of evidence on one side and few mitigating factors on the other, especially when it comes to thinking someone to be negative. I haven't read much of/about Gurjieff, but I think it's important to keep in mind that despite what was clearly some very poor behavior, IF at his core he was still honestly focused on trying to spread a message he believed would be beneficial to people at large, he would probably still be STO at heart. And that's the big problem with trying to judge these things from our heavily-distorted 3D perspectives. It's nearly impossible to tell, in retrospect, what his true focus was. And so it tends to be with most people.
06-15-2016, 03:15 PM
Some final links:
Sufism and the Way of Blame Quote:J. G. Bennett was convinced that Gurdjieff's greatest influence came from a group of proto-Naqshbandis in Central Asia, a brotherhood later verified by HasanŞuşud as the Khwajagan, or Masters. Quote:HasanŞuşud, a rather enigmatic Sufi in Istanbul, had disguised his former affiliation with the Naqshbandiyya and with another group that referred to itself as the Nuriyya-Malamatiyya (in Turkish, Nuriyye-Melamiyye). He had revealed that he had a rather low opinion of Gurdjieff as a "thief of the tradition." It is hard to tell which tradition Şuşud was referring to, although he probably meant the Khwajagan or the malamatiyya, or both of them comingled together. Quote:The late Annemarie Schimmel spoke for a lot of people in the academy, amongst the Orders and the solitaries of the Sufi universe when she asserted in her MYSTICAL DIMENSIONS OF ISLAM that students of Sufism would do well to take Idries Shah (and by extension Gurdjieff and Bennett) with modest grains of salt - as neither one of these names are authentic representatives of the Tradition. JG Bennett is especially problematic since he was an agent of British intelligence (a spy for MI6) whose involvement with Idries Shah and Sufism really had more to do with Anglo-European colonialist/imperialist adventurism and geostrategic designs on Eurasia than the Tradition itself. Sufism and the Way of Blame: Hidden Sources of a Sacred Psychology Quote:The first section discusses the impact of several men who introduced Sufi (or quasi-Sufi) ideas into the West: Hazrat Inayat Khan, Idries Shah, Gurdjieff, and John G. Bennett. On a Spaceship with Beelzebub: By a Grandson of Gurdjieff Editorial review Wrote:Spiritual "schools" of most any kind are nonsense; all development is self-development, and the kinds of methods used in what is left of the Gurdjieff organizations are merely self-deception and self-projection, often nearly on the scale of psychoanalysis and organized religion. If one reads between the lines in this very well-written and honest book, this becomes more than apparent in the behavior of pseudo-gurus like Stavely and Pentland - and contrary to some reports the descriptions in this book ring true, not just of those individuals but all those who set themselves up as "mystical authorities", including Gurdjieff himself. The only flaw the book has is that Kheridan never seems to realize that it isn't just his teachers that are limited, but the whole enterprise of spiritual search through dedication to such imaginary "masters". The Gurdjieff Work Review Wrote:Writers of spiritual philosophy could learn a lot about communicating their ideas by reading this slender, marvellously clear document. The author distils an enormous amount of complex material in a brief, accurate, and wholly understandable format. Don't let anyone tell you that complex ideas necessitate complex language. When someone really understands a subject, he is generally able to speak about it simply. And this author provides a beautiful case in point. Review Wrote:This book is unrivalled as the clearest presentation of Gurdjieffian mythos, ethos & logos. For anyone seeking transparent elucidation of the "work", this is the best starting point. Instead of meandering through the ponderous & subjective musings of Nicoll, Bennet, Orage and Ouspensky, here you got in a nutshell: The Gurdjieff Con - Debriefing the Gurdjieff work
06-15-2016, 03:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:47 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
(06-15-2016, 03:48 PM)GentleWanderer Wrote: Yinyang thank you for your input it's appreciated and it is helping me to better discern what is negative in this philosophy. This makes me realises that we can often be naive about the true polarity of some way of thinking. I still tend to think that G was a positive despite the bad things he did but you know, i can't read his mind and heart so who knows, i could be wrong. Too me an advanced STS is like a demon in human form with no humanity as i've seen in a psychopath. G had clearly very bad sides but i think he has some humanity, am i right or is it projection on my part ? Swami Prajnanpad said G was on the path of siddhi as opposed to the path of peace Buddha was on. Ultimately these paths lead to the same place but the path of the siddhi is more dangerous as it first focused on power to the detriment of love and can lead to delusion. You are very welcome, if it has been of any benefit to you, then I'm happy. Accept it or discard it, and I wouldn't know if it's just projection on your part, I'll leave that knot your you to untangle! GentleWanderer Wrote:A few years ago when wanting to understand his teachings i started to search on internet groups and contemporary teachers. I find looking at internet that many people who were in these groups looked like zombies and that the teachers seemed to lack integrity, love and i sensed something perverse in some of them. I agree that some things in this teachings are easy to interpret in a sts way. So i abandoned trying to understand this philosophy and since i have found a very good one with Ra and others. For me, finding Ra was like hitting the jackpot, and heaven knows my search was long and arduous enough. Gurdjieff was not the only "rascal" I stumbled over, I have a great talent for sniffing them out! I also totally get what you're saying about the zombie factor, and fourth way students are also not a very merry bunch. They seem to exhibit the same contempt for their fellow humans as Gurdjieff has done. Of course lack of humour alone should be an indication to you to proceed with great caution, because if a practice is humourless, something is very, very off. It's quite ironic that Gurdjieff's war on automatons has produced the biggest automatons! What is it with these Russians? Because Ayn Rand was also Russian now that I think of it, and if there was ever a stern bunch it was her objectivist students!
Perhaps one of the most significant differences between the two paths is faith:
Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding. vs. Gurdjieff (In Search of the Miraculous) Wrote:No 'faith' is required on the fourth way; on the contrary, faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. On the fourth way a man must satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told. Gurdjieff (In Search of the Miraculous) Wrote:In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.
06-16-2016, 04:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 08:47 AM by GentleWanderer.)
_____
06-16-2016, 07:55 PM
In Search of the Miraculous is one of the great classics for those pursuing a conscious awakening, and one of my favorite books. Those of you who have not yet read it, should pounce on it.
06-17-2016, 12:22 PM
Quote:Ra: The negative polarity is clever.
I'm not necessarily painting Ouspensky and Gurdjieff with the same brush, in fact I lean strongly towards Ouspensky being positive, and just very unfortunate to have crossed paths with Gurdjieff. They met because Gurdjieff read an article in the newspaper by Ouspensky, and the article referred to Ouspensky as an esotericist, and Gurdjieff lured him in after that...
From A Dark Muse: A History of the Occult Quote:P. D. Ouspensky |
|