Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    Having read a number of books on Gurdjieff's ideas, most notably
    "In Search of the Miraculous" by P.D. Ouspensky, "All & Everything"
    by G.I. Gurdjieff, and "Views from the Real World" a collection of
    talks given by Gurdjieff, I continue to be awed by the wealth of 
    information he brought about the human condition and the nature of
    the world (which, to him, included 7 levels of interpenetrating
    cosmoses making up the universe). But I believe he brought more than 
    a lot of interesting ideas. He also brought an awareness of the
    possibility of contact with something higher than ourselves, our
    personalities or egos, in such a way as could be grasped and appreciated 
    by modern people who have lost touch with the spiritual side of life
    and who live in a "world" that is becoming increasingly noisy with its 
    emphasis on speed and materialism. Too noisy to hear the "small voice 
    within" spoken about by religions. 
    
    
      

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that I think its very timely.  I started to
read Ouspensky's 'Search for the miraculous' last Thursday.  As
Ouspensky's questions and wonders correlate very closely to my own,
I expect the book to be fascinating.  I am using this as an introduction 
to Gurdjieff before attempting 'Bezalbug's (spell?) tales'.

Thanks for entering your note.

Regards,
Dave

    Hi Chris,
    
    I found his "Meetings with remarkable men" very interesting! Some of
    those guru's he met where amazing. 
    
    I had problems reading Ouspensky's "In search of the miraculous" a bit
    heavy going at times. Ouspensky lost me when they investigated why
    music affects us the way it does. I was a little dissapointed that he
    did not write much more in the "first" person as in "Meetings with
    remarkable men". Also, Gurdjieff appears to contradict himself at
    times, but Ouspensky believes there is method in this technique ??
    
    Chris, why do you think he wrote most of his stuff in the form of
    Beezlebub's (sp?) tales to his grandson, as if to make it fairy-tale
    like ?
    
    	-Brian

re: .1

> "I AM" is the ultimate delusion because it is only when we offer to subjugate
> our free will  to God and relinquish the "I AM" part of ourselves  to the
> greater power of "HE IS", will  we be able to be at peace with one another.  

You raise questions that are more than just interesting!

Gurdjieff's teaching is based on the principle (and practice) of:
"Life is real only then when I am". The central issue is `being'.
The exemplary aim is conscious individuality which alone enables
the highest service.

Yet I am convinced that all of this does not contradict what you say about
offering up our delusion of freedom and individuality based on the
constantly mistaken and egoistic assertion of "I this ..." and "I that ..."
So where is the reconciling factor?

For me, there is an experience of `I am-ness' that seems utterly in accord with
submission to, and union with, a loving heavenly Father. I believe that the 
great gift of the Creator to human beings was the offer of a possibility of a
momentary and tiny, but full, sharing in the experience of I am-ness of the
almighty, universal I AM (with all that this implies of bliss and suffering). 
While it lasts, such a moment suspends `He is' because this would leave a
residue of separation. Perhaps one could say:
 
"HE IS, therefore I AM, at one with him and my neighbour". 

Yours

Chris.  

P.S. If you don't already know it, I am sure you would appreciate the
     epitaph at the end of the chapter `My Father' in `Meetings with
     Remarkable Men' by Gurdjieff.

re: 4

Brian. I first read `Beelzebub's Tales' when I was 19 (35 years ago now) and I
have been marked by it for life. My understanding of why Gurdjieff wrote it 
like he did is as follows:

Men of Knowledge have always had an insoluble problem: "how to reach through,
with truth, to the innocent, unspoilt depths of people (in which they were
born and where there is potential for real growth of being) without being
blocked by the self-appreciating, deceitful, `know-it-all' layers (that have
been formed by `growing up' and that are like dead bark with no possibilities
for growth)".

Long ago, it seems, 'they' discovered that the best method was to tell it in
a way that the outer layers can grasp (literally) and file, but which touches
and is understood non-verablly and intuitively by the inner parts.

Myths, legends, fairy tales and parables all work in the same way. Their
effectiveness comes from the fact that the great laws work similarly at all
cosmic levels, so you can describe anything that is real in terms of an 
analogous reality on another level. Those with `experience' and `insight'
get the message (more or less).

This is very frustrating and insulting for the rational mind ("why can't he 
tell it straight?"). The reason is that ordinary `rational' thinking can never 
relate to the other parts of a human being (body and feeling) in such a way as 
to permit a rounded understanding of the wholeness of what is really 
significant.

Gurdjieff specifically says, in the introductory `Arousing of Thought' chapter 
in `Beelzebub', that he is trying to reach the `subconsciousness', which ought
to be the real consciousness, and not the waking consciousness, in which we 
ordinarily live, and which is such a source of difficulties for us.

If it helps, I was greatly touched and influenced by the spirit of `Beelzebub'
when I first read it, but I see now that a great deal was still invisible
over the horizon. Subsequently my understanding of the content has grown
along with the understanding of why `Truth' can only be placed
in `slow-release capsules' that lodge under the skin for gradual absorbtion
over a long period.

For me, `Meetings with Remarkable Men' is the same but it is so cunningly
written, with lots of little attractive parables, that its depths are very
concealed. But, for example, after years of getting to understand that there is
only one serious issue (the capacity to relate rightly with other human beings),
it is extraordinary to realise how in `Meetings' everything is portrayed as
having become possible through the quality of the relationships of those 
involved in searching for, and transmitting, knowledge of being.

Sorry to be so long in stating what is probably already obvious to you. 
Happy to reply further on any specific points.

Yours Chris.

    Chris, -.1 No, it was not long-winded at all!  The interesting thing
    about viewing objects from another person's perspective, when they take
    the time to explain is that, quite often you end up saying; "Gee, that
    was so simple, why did I not see it that way!" ;-)  Thanks.
    
    "For these things are revealed unto the babes and hidden from the
    wise..."  
    
    Time to visit the bookshop again...
    
    -Brian

    Peter -1
    
    >generally this sort of discussion is discouraged by Gurdjieff people
    >since it clouds understanding.
    
    I guess the most important word here is "generally" ? On the contrary,
    I believe what Chris said opened some things for me. I would think that
    it is impractical to fully commit oneself to a work until you know what
    the "work" is about ?  
    
    Regards,
    
    Brian

    It's probably also useful to keep in mind that the teachings
    are necessarily diluted now...  I think there is no
    longer anyone alive who was directly taught by G.
    and relatively few second generation students, either...
    It's probably time for sectarianism to occur, if it hasn't
    already.
    
    /bruce

    There are still a few direct students of Gurdjieff alive today.
    Some of them are associated with the Gurdjieff Foundation in
    New York. There are others in France and in various other countries.
    There is a group in Boston that is affiliated with the Gurdjieff
    Foundation. They recently gave a series of talks in Harvard Square.
    In general, it's a good idea to become associated with groups
    with connections to "older" students of the Work - namely those
    who have worked with Gurdjieff or with teachers he authorized.
    There are a lot of self-styled "teachers" and "Gurdjieff Centers"
    that are a little off-the-wall if you ask me. My grandmother always
    said: "Empty barrels make a lot of noise".
    
    

 While it is certainly important to attempt to ascertain whether teachers of a
 Gurdjieff school are carrying on the true esoteric teachings, I am reminded of
 a schism which reportedly developed between Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, one of
 Gurdjieff's prime students.  Reportedly (by E.J.Gold) in Gurdjieff's later
 years Ouspensky disagreed with Gurdjieff over the large number of people which
 Gurdjieff allowed into the schools, and the depth of teaching he provided to
 individuals who had been involved with the Work for only a short time.  These
 folks did not meet Ouspensky's criteria for 'advanced' students, and Ouspensky
 apparently considered it to be a lowering of standards.  Gurdjieff responded
 that the teaching methods were not static, and that they must necessarily
 adapt to reflect the times and environment in which they are taught.  Thus,
 while the prime student adhered strictly to the teacher's original methods,
 the teacher continued to adapt and develop those methods.

 This makes me wonder whether admonitions against discussing the Gurdjieff
 Work outside of a School may not apply in the same way now as they did in
 the past.  While it is clear that the mesoteric and exoteric interpretations
 of the Work will by their very nature be incomplete and somewhat confused
 in relation to their esoteric meanings, it may be more important now to allow
 wider access to influences of this Type in order to stimulate those who can
 Hear to listen.  The world is definitely changing more rapidly now than in
 Gurdjieff's time, so it seems likely to me that if he was still alive his
 teaching methods would be evolving more rapidly now too.

 			Gurdjieff's Fourth way ...
	 the way of Understanding through Knowledge _and_ Being.

 Remember yourself,
 Todd

re .8 to .13.  Thanks for quality!

peter emphasises that theory is not practice. He also warns about discussion 
at an inappropriate level. I strongly agree!  And yet ....  I would wish to be 
more hesitant in offering a unique route to `serious interest' and in clamping 
down on attempts to share questions.

To illustrate what I mean, take the point that there are at least four 
categories of groups that speak in the name of Gurdjieff:

1. Groups led by men and women, still living, who were with Gurdjieff in his 
later years. These groups exist and obviously offer the best chance of coming
into contact with what he brought, in its fullest and purest form. However, by
now, Gurdjieff's direct pupils tend to be working mainly with those of already
long experience. Note .12 is accurate in regard to the Gurdjieff Foundation in
the USA.

2. Groups led by direct `pupils' of those who were with Gurdjieff for a 
substantial time in his later years. One hopes that what he brought is being
kept full, pure and alive, but the risk of distortion and fossilization is
never far away. I know that in Europe, it is still possible for newcomers to 
join such groups.

3. Groups led by people who have received at least some authentic oral teaching,
by example, 3rd, 4th or Nth hand. The degree to which the original impetus 
remains alive (i.e. unfossilized), undistorted and unmixed with contradictory
teachings, is bound to be very variable. Note .13 is very much to the point 
here. If the leader is a primarily a `student', it is hopeful; if the leader is
primarily a `teacher', beware! Some signs of loss of contact and aliveness are:

a) Insistent recruiting ("join, join, join ....")

b) Secrecy (as distinct from care not to talk inappropriately)

c) Demand for unquestioning adherance ("sign here"; "we can't tell anything to 
outsiders"; "understanding is impossible without prior commitment"; "you can
prove your serious interest by your financial contribution"; etc.)

c) Elevation of `The Work' (capital letters) to something exaggeratedly special
and mysterious. Of course there is nothing more special and mysterious, but 
would a farmer who cultivates his field, sows seed and tends the crop, speak 
in reverential tones of: "The Agriculture"?  Growth is a miracle sufficient
unto itself.

d) Repetition of the outer form of Gurdjieff's ideas without the corresponding 
inner feelings that come from another category of experience. This is a matter
of degree. As a small example, Gurdjieff indicated that ordinary man lacks 
unity. Consequently our sense of `I' becomes attached to functional fragments
of ourselves and is thereby enslaved. Some groups translate this into a 
reluctance to say `I', which surely misses the point. In my view, it would be
much healthier to say `I', without reservation, while trying really to
experience the associated inner state (whatever its degree of wholeness).

4. Groups led by people who have had no contact with anybody. I know of groups,
purporting to `teach the Gurdjieff work' led by people who have only read books
and devised their own exercises. Some such groups are touchingly sincere and 
worthy of admiration for their efforts in the absence of more informed help.
But other groups are absolutely terrifying. A friend of mine went to one such
self-styled `Gurdjieff group' where the `pupils' were subjected to the harshest
indignities and mind-bending mistreatment in the name of `reminders and shocks
for awakening'. Alas, some people are sadly gullible, lacking in discrimination,
and easily dominated. In this context, it is important to remember the
widespread human urge to dominate, instruct and influence others. A good
protection here might be to recall the sensitivity, flexibility, humanity and 
warmth portrayed throughout `Meetings with Remarkable Men' and to remind oneself
that, in the sphere of `inner evolution', violence has no place.


So, how can a `serious', well-connected group be recognised? Most important is
surely the quality and self-discipline of its leaders and members. Next is the 
extent to which the teaching remains wholly faithfull to its origins, and yet 
is ever new in the search for an appropriate expression. I would say that
the seeker needs `nose' or `flair' to recognise this, based on sincere listening
to that which,in the depths of oneself, knows (and has always known) where 
self-importance and deception begin. This sensitivity is likely to be safest in
the company of a good head which can recognise ignorance, philosophizing,
speculation, fantasy, exaggeration and, above all codification into fixed idea
patterns that must be swallow to permit `understanding'.

A primary Gurdjieff injunction takes the form: `listen to everyone, but don't 
believe anything that you haven't yourself verified, many times'.

So, with peter's warnings in mind, I suggest that it is permissable to continue
(if we wish, and with care) to use the medium of this notes conference to share
a FRESH LOOK at a genuinely serious subject.

Yours   Chris.

    I don't remember whether it was mentioned before, but there's a very 
    interesting analysis of the Gurdjieff Work in Charles Tart's
    'Waking Up,' 1987, Shambhala Publications, ISBN 0-87773-426-7 (paper).
    
    Tart edited the classic "Altered States of Consciousness,' and uses 
    his very extensive knowledge of hypnosis and a wide variety of human 
    behavioral and perceptual states to construct a helpful and detailed 
    picture of the psychological implications of Gurdjieff's ideas.  He avoids 
    the cosmology issues, for two reasons that are stated; because he doesn't 
    feel they are neccessarily required by self-work, and because he doesn't 
    feel qualified to evaluate those aspects.   
    
    I think that books of this nature could potentially make the notion of 
    individual human awakening more accessible to more people, by distilling 
    the essence of the work from the trappings that naturally tend to
    build up around it to adapt it to different times and places.
    
    								todd

    In Amoung the Dervishes, O.M.Burke says the Sufis told him that
    Gurdjieff left before completing his training. He had learned how to
    produce the waking state but not how to function in the "work".
    	Rumor has it that Burke was a pseudonym for Idries Shah. At any
    rate he was influenced by Shah.
    
    john

    re Gurdjieff work today : Idries Shah cautions against what he calls 
    'remnant cults'.
    
    There is a book called "The Teachers Of Gurdjieff" by Rafael Lefort.  
    Lefort, a longtime Gurdjieff group member in France, followed
    up many hints about G's background, left his job and travelled the 
    Near East in order to trace where and how Gurdjieff was trained.  He
    found elderly teachers of Gurdjieff's among the Sarmoun and Naqshbandi
    Sufi orders.  Further, one of the Sufi murshids stated specifically
    that Gurdjieff's 'baraka' (spiritual power) ended with him - that it
    was not handed on to any successor(s).  Gurdjieff group members of
    course say that Lefort fabricated everything.
    
    I am personally convinced (having read nearly all his stuff AND that of
    his main followers - Orage, Nicoll, Ouspensky, etc) that much of
    Gurdjieff's material is deliberately opaque, designed to engage and
    overload the rational mind.  Do you really believe our souls are 'food
    for the moon' ?  And while the mind is overloaded and busy, then the
    real work can happen.  Unfortunately, this real work needs to be begun
    and tended by someone qualified.  And Gurdjieff died in October 1949. 
    I believe his last words were "I leave you all in a fine mess".
    
    karl

> re: .15

I met Professor Tart - a knowledgeable man, but hardly a `man of knowledge'. 
Regretfully, his book (`Waking Up') seems to me to touch on only some parts of 
the periphery of Gurdjieff's teaching - leaving out the essentials. Sorry, but
I cannot support your recommendation of that book as part of a `fresh look'.


> re .16 and .17

About M. Lefort - no comment. But if that book is indeed spurious, then a
substantial edifice of misinformation about Gurdjieff falls to the ground. 
Time will tell.

But why do questions about Gurdjieff so soon turn to other peoples' stories and
commentaries - however wise?  What about one's own personal experiential
responses to what Gurdjieff himself wrote?  What struck each one of us most?

Yours, interested in first-hand experience,

Chris.

    re: .18, Chris,

    	Thanks very much for your comments on Waking_Up.  I'd be very interested
    	in the aspects that might be missing (other than the obvious problems
    	with trying to translate an experiential process into written
    	form, and the cosmology that is deliberately omitted).
    
> Yours, interested in first-hand experience,
    
    	My experience so far has been that the G. material gets me (and
    	apparently many others) caught up in its idealism and its
    	strong appeal to our 'specialness,' a sort of inwardly joyful 
    	optimistic elitism.  Even more than the objective benefits of the
    	process would seem to warrant in the early stages.

    	I think Gurdjieff somewhere talks about this being a standard pitfall 
    	of the path, but I think it is possible that it's significance is 
    	underestimated by many in the groups.

>But why do questions about Gurdjieff so soon turn to other peoples' stories and
>commentaries - however wise?  What about one's own personal experiential
    
    	You're asking for other people's stories because you're tired
    	of hearing other people's stories ?   ;-)   Once it gets filtered
    	through an electronic net, I suspect there's not that much 
    	difference in information content between second and third hand
    	accounts as far as being able to learn from them.  You know what
    	I mean ?  
    
    	I'd suspect that the references and commentaries are used for the 
    	same reason that people look to sources like Gurdjieff in the first 
    	place, because they provide triggers for our own growth, and sometimes 
    	procedures for doing things in order to cut down our learning time,
    	because there is generally someone else around that has experienced some
    	aspect of what we are trying to do.   The trick as far as I'm
    	concerned is to keep our own 'center' intact and not give our Will 
    	away to some attractive ideology or other, but to keep growing and keep
    	questioning.
    
    					kindest regards,
    								todd

Dear todd,

Many thanks for your note .19.

You raise too many issues for a single response of reasonable length, so I
would like to establish a basis for selection.

To begin, I refer to our brief exchange in the Religion notes conference where 
you said you had not read Gurdjieff's great masterwork: "All and Everything". 
This is greatly surprising and a pity in view of your evident interest in 
interpreting Gurdjieff topics (see our brief exchange in the Philosophy notes 
conference). However, you did indicate respect for what you called "the 
spiritual Mythologies and technologies of the past" which we seem to be seeing 
from a similar perspective.

Then, since you are a frequent contributor to Dejavu, I looked at all your 
entries, over a number of months.  Would I be right in seeing a very active 
and mobile mind in which you take pride ... wide scope in your reading ... 
a lively sense of humour ... quick to give an opinion ... spiritual focus - 
uncertain ... grounding in practise - not yet established?

Of course, a few notes do not really tell much about a person, but every one of
our actions tells something about our temperament, experience and attitudes. 
So, in relation to your interest in growth, questioning, and the avoidance of 
being cheaply hooked into any idealogy, what is the main point of mutual 
interest? I would say that it seems to be that of the relationship between 
`knowledge' and `experience'.

You use the words `experience' and `experiential' but in a kind of light way,
as if in acknowledgement rather than by conviction. I may be wrong, but I get
the impression that your thought is not accustomed to a close relationship with
your substance. This is very common. But our nature seems to be such that we 
cannot have the quality of thought we seek for growth, unless it is informed by
an inner move towards an intimate unification with all other aspects of 
ourselves. This is an experience that we cannot remain unconscious of, nor 
indifferent to. If you practise meditation, you will probably know very well
what I am talking about.

This is why I particularly question your formulation "keep our `centre' intact".
If you mean what I think you mean, it is a common mental trap. It would be 
better to give up all apparent `mind stabilities' and allow the full impact of
`experience' to help restore our `childhood innocence'.

You see, my dear `colleague in confusion', our real centre is beyond our 
keeping. It is kept for us, by the `superior level of intelligence' that brought
us into existence, and it always will be kept for us, waiting for us to join 
with it. This is crucial to the mystery of `my relationship with myself'. 
Gurdjieff said: "remember thyself". No ordinary memory in no ordinary level of 
the mind is relevant here. That is why we find we can't `do' self-remembering, 
as we might try to `do' all sorts of other things.

What find I need to keep trying, from wherever in myself I can begin, is to 
renew contact with that real but forgotten higher `centre', to orientate 
`myself' towards it, to allow it to predominate over the constant tendency to 
disconnection, to fragmentation, to separation of attention from feeling and 
body that characterise my `automatically reactive' states. Then, from time to 
time, I will, as it were, `suddenly' remember about `being' in a way that I 
could never have known from any external source. At that moment, I can 
experience what it might be like to be `free' to be what, in reality, I already
am, but that I forgot - long ago - and keep on forgetting. Call it a moment of 
`enlightenment' if you like - all descriptions are empoverishing. What counts
is the residual trace of `knowledge' that is more than `knowledge'. The inner
and outer conditions for that contact with one's latent reality seems always to
have been the main subject of study for serious people, of all epochs. 
The conditions are, of course, grounded in `active experiencing'.

This is both a search and a struggle. Of course it is exciting, but I would not
call it `optimistic elitism', I would call it a matter of life or death - life
within, or death by outer dispersion and emptiness. Remember also that our 
transformation, via nothingness into something, can never take place without 
real but positive suffering. Perhaps it is this, more than anything else, that 
distinguishes the `saint' from the `philosopher'.

The main source of support in such a search and struggle is the sense of being
invited to discover, and become worthy to take, one's place in a cosmic order 
far beyond the understanding of one's ordinary, small, pretentious processes of 
thinking and feeling.

For this reason, I would beg your consent to be spared the obligation to 
comment, in detail, on Professor Tart's attempt to `analyse' what he manifestly
does not relate to in a way that truly echoes the level of the original call.
I think if you weigh the book in more parts of yourself, you may come to a 
similar impression.

It is is not my business to proffer advice here, and Gurdjieff is definitely not
for everybody, but responding to the sense of common interest, I would say:
if you wish to go beyond the popular `mind games' existing in relation to 
Gurdjieff's teachings, try and read "All and Everything", quietly, innocently, 
and in a inner posture of questioning self-doubt. You never know until you try!

Yours, sincerely, trying to communicate on the grounds of my own personal 
experience,

Chris.

    re: .20, Chris,
    
    I really enjoyed that Chris. thanks a lot.  Helped me to see some
    things much differently.   I'm astonished and impressed that you took the 
    time and effort to re-read past Notes to help provide a larger context for 
    things.  I have tremendous respect for that, shows a very active mind,
    someone who 'walks their talk' in the local idiom.   Something I need
    to do more frequently, I think.
    
    Do you have a current publisher/distributor/ISBN for All_and_Everything ?
    I haven't seen it in local stores.
    
    					thanks very much,
    
    								todd

Dear todd,

Many thanks for the warmth of your comments - I find it only natural to try to 
put a little more into what I consider serious.

My copy of "All and Everything" by G.I.Gurdjieff is the hardcover edition, 
originally published in the USA by Harcourt Brace (1950). This was before ISBN,
I think, but there have been many subsequent reprintings and I am told that 
hardcover copies should still be obtainable.

Around 1985, a 3-volume paperback set was issued in Europe, and I think also in
USA, by `Arkana'. The ISBN  number for the whole set is: 1 85063 033 X.

For those intimidated by the book's approx 1200 pages and, in my opinion wholly
undeserved, reputation for obscurity, the publishers kindly offer the volumes
separately as: 

Vol 1: ISBN 1 85063 030 5
Vol 2: ISBN 1 85063 031 3
Vol 3: ISBN 1 85063 032 1

If this does not prove to be correct for USA, please communicate.

Yours, with heartfelt wishes for a rewarding read,

Chris.

    
    
    ...a good source on G. books is:
    
    		The Claymont Society for continous education
    		Rt. 1
    		Box 279, Charles Town
    		WV  25414
                (304) 725-4437
    
    They have all of G. writings and books by many other authors who wrote  on
    G. subjects. 
    
    G. work is as relevant today as it was 60 years ago. I have not found
    yet a single concept of his that is not being re-postulated by "modern
    psychology". G. teachings had (and continue to have) a great impact on
    my life. When I inmersed myself in his teachings, I discovered many 
    paralells with other systems of growth...
    
    G. work has/is being criticized by many...but as long as it is by
    people who take quite literally "that men are food for the moon..." or
    that "X" writing must be true because it has the "Enneagram" symbol in
    its cover etc. etc. I say his work is quite safe...
    
    
    								JSR:.
    
       

    
    This is all very interesting...and 'timely'.
    
    Back in .0, a reference was made to a lot of notes that were set
    hidden.  I suspect that the notes were deliberately set hidden by the
    person who wrote them, and who is a good friend of mine today, although
    he no longer works at DEC.
    
    He is out in the western US now, and just mailed me a manuscript of a 
    book written by a fellow who spent 5 years in a Gurdjieff-Ouspensky
    Centre, and has spent 4 years "facilitating The Work to a small group
    of intensely committed individuals".  The aim of his book is "to bring
    these eternal principals into this new awareness [of the 1990's - New
    Age, awareness seminars, channelling, metaphysics, meditation, etc.] in
    the hope that they will continue to be of benefit to greater numbers of
    people in their drive to awaken."  He is doing this because he feels
    that the original "writings were created for a reading public that no
    longer exists." 
    
    Basically "The Work" is Self-Remembering, and is about living a
    conscious lifestyle.  Though the path is no doubt slightly different
    than other paths like the Self-Realization Fellowship founded by
    Yogananda in the 1940's, Kripalu Yoga Center, and so on, the end is 
    the same.  Know Thyself.
    
    For me, the manuscript was merely a confirmation of what I thought 
    "The Work" was about anyway, however I will add that he does an
    excellent job of arranging his material, complete with a number of good
    suggestions for exercises such as how to go about maintaining a witness
    or observer consciousness while in your everyday life.  The Work is
    really about *doing*.  Simply reading about it doesn't Work.  (;^)   
    
    If anyone here is interested in the book/manuscript, I can check with
    my friend to see about prices and availability.  Contact me offline
    please.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. I owe you a video, Todd.  (;^)

    
    
    "...The Work does not begin on the level of ordinary life."
    
    							G.I. Gurdjieff
    
    

    
    Re.25
    
    Depends upon your definition of 'ordinary'.
    
    Cindy

    
    re .25 -
    
    I believe that once one recognises and acknowledges the extraordinary 
    nature of life within and beyond what appears to be ordinary, much of 
    the Work is accomplished.
    
    gloria 

Gently folks!

Aphorisms are one thing, but snappy one-liners surely soon become something 
else.

Gurdjieff's thought was, by its nature, not `formatory'. That is, it was not 
categorical, but relative.

He is reported as having said: `The work does not begin on the level of 
ordinary life'. No it doesn't - yes it does. Both are true.

Work surely begins with `recognition of need for work', `approach to work', 
and the like. Where can this stage of self-orientation and self-preparation 
begin other than on the level of `ordinary life' (whatever that is taken to 
mean - see Cindy's note .26).

On the other hand, if we formulate successive stages of work in such terms as: 
1. `awakening', 2. `unification', 3. `transformation', 
it is evident that a moment of awakening can occur to anyone, anywhen, trying 
to `work' or simply allowing themselves naturally `to be' in the course of 
living (see gloria's note .25). For those with pretensions to `working', 
moments of relative unification are experienced as more and more related to 
`systematic effort', based on non-ordinary insights.

Going further, transformation occurs only when the inner tempo of unification 
is consistently and materially different from that lived in the passive state 
of `ordinary' reactive living. Unfortunately, only a minority of those who begin
`working' seem to reach the stage of transformation. So we return to the 
original aphorism.

I make no apolgy for trying to invite restraint in `cross fire' on the subject 
of Gurdjieff, because it is so easy to bring his thought to an ordinary 
`formatory' level. It so very difficult to go on remaining open to the 
subtlety inherent in his indications of relativity.

Yours   Chris.

    
    re.28
    
    ...yes indeed. That is what should be, as it is...  :-) 
    
    For what it might worth, I do agree 100% with your comment;G. work is 
    relative, and most of the times, that is why much of his work is
    mis-understood...
    
    						
    								JSR:.
    

Re: 'Waking Up' by Charles Tart...

I personally found this to be an excellent book.
Reading it is rather like talking to someone in
the same room with approximately the same kind of
inner life and problems as me. Reading Gurdjieff is
rather like listening to someone shout above a 
storm, from a long way off - someone who seems to
have a very different internal life. He seems to be saying
important things but I usually can't understand.

And occasionally, the message which gets through is
"don't believe in books, or people who claim to
speak for me".

Confusing. And I think the Tart book has great clarity
even though I'm sure (and Tart himself admits) it's only
a start - a way to begin work.

John D.

    
    Thanks, Chris, for your continuing thoughtful elucidations of
    Gurdjieff's words. 
    
    I realised after I wrote the title to .27 that like Zen masters,
    Gurdjieff whacks the student upside the head in a number of ways, saying 
    "Wake up!" and "Pay attention!"...not to his words and lesson of
    themselves, but to his ideas as pointers to our own awareness, 
    unification (and I use your word with the assumption that you mean
    assimilation - presumptuous of me, I realise) and transformation. 
    I'm sure this is obvious to many of you, but in the past I've often
    thought of Gurdjieff as suffering fools with limited patience, and
    playing the trickster with his acolytes. 
    
    But it's not enough for us to nod in recognition when the Buddha holds up
    the flower - as I see it, we have to be one with the knowing and
    continue to live impeccably within that knowledge. And, like God, the 
    master can use the most banal, ordinary, foolish, ridiculous,
    cruel...(supply your choice of descriptor here) text for the lesson,
    and if we're awake, alert and willing we'll get it.
    
    gloria
    

    Chris,
    
    I just found your clear, sensitive, notes.
    
    You must be well connected.
    
    Would you be willing to say something here
    about the `movements', mentioned in many books?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Sean
    

Hello Sean,

Yes.  I will try and say something specifically about my experience of
Mr Gurdjieff's movements while working under the guidance of his pupils.
However, I need a little time for reflection on this, so please bear with me.

Meanwhile, I think it would be good to open up (as a background) a more
general discussion of `sacred dance', `rite' and `ceremony' which have lain 
at the heart of spiritual training, religious observance and social cohesion
in many cultures.

For this, I would like to start a new Dejavu notes sequence called:

                    "Dance, Rite and Ceremony".

Yours,

Chris.

Re: .32.

It is not easy to share in an alive way, by writing, about `dance', `rite',
or `ceremony'. I think this is shown by note 1518.

On reflection, it may be best to exchange off-line about the specific topic
of the Gurdjieff `movements' or `Sacred Dances'. Discussion is a
particularly poor substitute for practice in this area.

The only thing perhaps to say here is that you can see some authentic short
sequences from the `movements', shown by `mainstream' pupils from France,
UK and USA, at the end of the film `Meetings with Remarkable Men' directed by 
Peter Brook. Several taking part were among those who received the movements 
from Gurdjieff himself in the later years.

I was present during the filming of those sequences and witnessed how the
studio technicians and camera crews were muched moved and awed by the
manifestation of an energy largely unknown in our ordinary lives. It was
quite clear that, in such unusual circumstances, even the most cynical and
hard-bitten professional can respond to the intensive evocation of a
genuine attunement to what is sacred.

As regards other topics concerning the `Gurdjieff work', I would be happy to
try and share, as well as I can, in this notes conference. However, since I am
a consultant to Digital and not a full-time employee, I will not be around
indefinitely........

Yours,     Chris.

 re. .34; Chris,

  I was also very impressed by the grace and unison of the movements shown at
 the end of "Meetings with Remarkable Men".  I was later told that there were
 a series of 'letters' or symbols describing these precise movements which
 were arranged across a wall in front of the group which helped to keep them
 so synchronized ... like reading a musical score of movements.  Since you
 were there, I wondered whether could confirm whether this method was actually
 used, and if so, whether you could describe the nature of these symbols.

  By the way, I often engage in one of Gurdjieff's simplest beginner body
 awareness exercises of simply focussing upon various parts of my body during
 meditation.  This supposedly helps to develop the focussing of 'attention'
 which reminds me of some exercises described by Don Juan to Carlos Casteneda.
 I have noticed a significant energy release during this simple exercise,
 especially from 'knotted' areas, and I have definitely improved in my ability
 to smoothly shift my focus around my body as I have continued to practice.
 It sounds simple, and it is, and I am sure that we all do it to some extent,
 yet Gurdjieff appeared to give somewhat more importance to this very simple
 exercise than would normally be given to a beginner exercise.  In any case,
 it works for me ;-}.

 Todd

Re .35

Greetings Todd,


You raise many interesting points.

As regards `symbols' or `letters' on the wall, you have been misinformed. There 
were/are no tricks of any kind. The tempo is indicated by the accompanying 
music. The sequence of movements is well known to the participants who have 
thoroughly learned and practised them. You could liken this to the way a pianist 
would know a piece of music - that is by head knowledge of the overall 
structure, by body knowledge of specific passages and by feeling knowledge of 
the nuances of let us call it `emotional content'.

The magic (for want of a better term) lies in the inner state of the 
participants at the very instant of taking each posture and moving between 
postures. The moving originates from a different inner place (or level of 
energy) than the movements of everyday life. In other words, the external form 
of the movement is predetermined from a profound knowledge, but its inner 
content is supplied through the precise moment-by-moment quality 
(or density) and flow of the energies within the mover.

You know that, in life, we are in constant movement. But though we have a 
general intention to `do this' or `do that', we do not really originate 99.9% of 
the movements made by/through us. Some may find it hard to believe, but a very 
aware study of the way we move verifies the fact that our movements are too 
quick and too powerfully programmed for the particpation of our usual attention. 
For example, I try to bring a cup of coffee to my lips in full and continuous 
awareness. But the arm, hand, neck, back, mouth, eyes and all, simply take over 
and do everything, in their own time, as they please, in a manner typical of 
`me'. One can try slowing everything down, but this is simply one part (the 
mind) trying to plot some stupid graph of its own devising - it is quite 
useless. Or one can try to exert `control' of some kind, resulting in a stiff, 
grotesque, parody of the usual free-flowing motion - this is even worse than 
useless. 

The aim must be to come to an inner functioning (or quality of attention, or 
level of energy) so much faster and more intelligent than the moving power, that 
the moving power can only conform and obey, no matter what the detail, speed and 
weight of the movement required. It is here that the difference lies between 
automatic and conscious movement. Here also lies the difference between a 
seemingly accurate movement which is only the outer form (a gymnastic without 
meaning) and an element of a Sacred Dance in which the outer form is sanctified 
by the `rightness' of the inner movement. For this latter, no dream is possible, 
no unecessary tension, no misplacement of the slightest tendrils of emotion. 
Yet, despite all this inner activity, a normal responsiveness to the outside 
must be maintained (awareness of the music, one's companions, one's place, etc). 
Only then does the movement have the fullness of its intended meaning, power and 
influence on both mover and watcher. What a trick!

A possible reason why your misinformant spoke of letters or symbols describing 
the movements is that the movements may be likened to a script in which 
individual postures correspond to hieroglyphs, or something of that kind. This 
formulation true, in its way, but it is too abstract properly to do justice to 
the power of the movements to contain and transmit non-verbal understanding of 
many things that are most precious in the enrichment of one's spiritual and 
emotional life.



My reason for going into some detail about the inner conditions for the 
movements is that is bears upon the second part of your note. In order to come 
to aspects of a more normal state of being (such as awakening, self-awareness, 
and so on), it is necessary for certain inner conditions to prevail. These 
conditions include: alertness of attention, relaxation of tensions, alive 
sensation, unblockage of energy flows, harmonization of inner tempi with 
breathing, and much else. What you mention is absolutely essential and right as 
a step in the direction of creating these more normal inner conditions. The main 
issue then becomes the question of motive. Why would you try this kind of 
exercise?

If it is to feel `at peace', have `good states', `gain powers', be more 
effective in life, and so on, OK. No problem - maybe. But if it is to enable the
formation of finer energies required for `non-mental' self-observing, it is 
preferable, because the direction is nearer to `truth-seeking', `active 
non-ambition' and eventually `serving a greater whole', all of which have a 
richer potential in the direction of `being human', and do not deny the former 
motives. There is also more likelihood of aligning oneself, even unwittingly, 
with higher forms of help, sometimes called `grace' or `blessing'.

There are, of course, many degrees of exercises of the kind you hint at. The 
same kind of exercise, taken further, and brought into relationship with 
movements of the body, would lie in the direction of the nature of the inner 
work of the movements that so struck you by their grace and unison. Please be 
assured that what you are calling a `beginner exercise' can, if rightly 
practised, every day, with openness to silent inner questioning, become the 
basis of a `new life'.



By the way, I hope that no one seeks here for descriptions of the specifics of 
inner excercises because, in general, they require person-to-person 
transmission, by demonstration, related to the particular subjectivity of each 
individual, backed up by close support during their exploration and practice. 
If there should emerge an irresistible wish for notes on inner exercises, 
I would much prefer for someone else to start a different sequence on what 
they have tried and experienced.


Yours, with comradely good wishes.

Chris.

 re .36; Chris;

 Thanks so much for your effort to clearly respond to my questions.
 I have become engrossed in writings by and about Gurdjieff during
 several different periods of my life, and i-I-i find your first-hand
 descriptions extremely valuable.

 While 'Being' cannot be conveyed directly through words, a measure
 of 'Knowledge' can be, and along with 'Knowledge' can come glimpses
 of certain wonders which development of 'Being' could hold for us.
 While I understand your reluctance to provide incomplete teachings,
 i-I-i look forward to your further contributions in this or other
 topics within this forum.

 Todd

    On Kripalu Yoga
    
    I'm just back from spending a full week out at Kripalu Center in Lenox,
    Mass.  There are incredibly strong similarities in what is being talked
    about here, and the style of yoga practiced there called Kripalu Yoga -
    a mix of both willful and surrender postures.
    
    The program I attended (this time) was "Capturing The Spirit Of Yoga",
    and the morning lectures were given by Yogi Desai himself.  They are
    excellent, and I purchased the videotapes.
    
    Back in 1971, decades after he began doing willful yoga postures,
    suddenly his body energy took over, and while he was fully conscious he
    went into spontaneous yoga postures, as if it were a dance.  The
    morning of the fourth day at the session I just was at, he gave a
    demonstration of this posture flow in which he surrendered to the body
    wisdom.
    
    It was one of the most beautiful experiences of my life.  I felt the
    energy travel from my hands, up through my arms and into my heart while
    he was in the posture flow.  Later on someone said that it was like
    watching a human making love to the Divine.
    
    Later that morning, I had a posture flow experience too.  It came from
    a crystal clear mind and although I could sense some of my willful
    postures coming into the, what is called, Meditation-In-Motion, still I
    was just relaxing and enjoying the experience.
    
    A quote from Yogi Desai (also called Gurudev):
    
        "Kripalu yoga is both a way of identifying the obstructions
         that you create in your life and the method for removing
         them.  It is a way of becoming conscious.  And when you 
         become conscious, you can let go of everything that is
         undesirable in your life"
                                        - Gurudev
    
    Cindy

    re .38
    
    Sounds great Cindy!  I am going to try Kripalu this weekend for the
    first time for rest and renewal.  I'm looking forward to it.
    
    Karin

Re: .38     Hello Cindy,

Thanks for your note. It is very interesting to hear about your experiences 
with what sounds like a very alive form of yoga.

You are bearing out the fact that Gurdjieff's influence is of a `universal' 
nature and relates very intimately with all direct experiences of inner states
of a better quality. This why persons of all faiths, and many traditions of 
inner work, find a kinship between their approach and that of Gurdjieff, 
when both are more free from elements of misunderstanding.

The form of exploration, through which a change of state arises, is surely
much less important than the fact that such an enlivening inner realignment 
++really is possible++  - for a certain time. 

What is so important is the evidence of ever new possibilities genuinely being 
`on offer'. This, for me, is why it is so necessary to go on being a `searcher',
avoiding reliance on provisional experiences and what seems to have been
understood already.

No. Gurdjieff's influence did not die with him. Though some minor strands may,
inevitably, be getting mixed up with other things, or going in the direction of 
`cults', the sober `mainstream' remains well related to that `central source'
from which `meaning' comes to all spiritual endeavours in all epochs. Your
note bears witness to this. 

Yours  Chris.

My current consultancy work at Digital will be finished quite soon and I will
probably be moving on. If so, I shall certainly miss DEJAVU.

If anyone would like to keep in contact on matters related to this topic 
(or topics 1518 or 1556),  I can be reached via:

CTA Technical Limited, 
20 Malvern Close, 
Ickenham, Uxbridge, 
Middx, UB10 8JR, 
England.                                UK Phone: (0)895-638497

Wandering mendicants and spiritual activists, coming to London, are always 
welcome to visit, but please call first.

Thanks and love to all. 

Chris.

                                                                        
    Hi Chris,
    
    Thank you for especially opening this topic and the other related 
    one in inner development.  Hopefully this won't be a final farewell.
    
    Best wishes in your continuing Work,
    
    Cindy

    Chris,
    
    Have you ever heard of Boris Mouravieff? He was an associate of
    Ouspensky and Gurdjieff who wrote a book on the Work entitled "GNOSIS".
    The premise is that the Fourth Way, or esoteric Christianity, has 
    survived in the monasteries of the Eastern Orthodox church. He mentions
    Mt. Athos for one.
    
    Since you have a long acquaintance with the Work, I wonder if
    you've come across any information about the man or the notion
    that the Work, as a living tradition, flows in the inner recesses
    of the major religions.
    
    Is Gurdjieff's system a reflection or incomplete part of an older 
    tradition that exists is such places? Is it contiguous with them 
    i.e. would a person following this way evetually be directed to
    such places?
    
    Ray
     

    Chris (.41),
    
    I have enjoyed your contributions here very much.  You will be greatly
    missed.
    
    Wishing you well,
    
    Ro
    

>...I wonder if
>    you've come across any information about the man or the notion
>    that the Work, as a living tradition, flows in the inner recesses
>    of the major religions.
    
    There are a BUNCH of clues, mostly in Meetings With Remarkable Men.
    He talks about his 'dervish friend Bogga-Eddin'.  Now 'dervish' has a
    specific meaning, and 'h' translates to 'g' from Russian - giving us
    the dervish Bahauddin (Naqshband).  The Builders/Painters, the
    Naqshbandi, have been around for.. a while.
    
>    Is Gurdjieff's system a reflection or incomplete part of an older 
>    tradition that exists is such places? 
    
    You said it, not me.. but it is a tiny tiny fragment of Sufism.
    
    karl

Re .43 

I am still at Digital for a few more days, so I can tell you some of my 
personal opinions about the question of the sources of Gurdjieff's teaching. 

This I would like to follow up with a few notes I originally concocted for the 
Religion notes file and which someone asked me to reproduce in DEJAVU. For 
readability, I have spread these comments over several notes.

Yours

Chris.

THE SOURCES OF GURDJIEFF'S TEACHING

In my opinion there was no single master-source for Gurdjieff's teaching. By 
all the evidence there is (and there is not a lot other than his own 
writings), the young Gurdjieff set out, while still a teenager, in search of 
an ancient, but largely lost, `science of being'. He found elements of this 
science in fragments, all over the place, during many years. Expert analysts 
confirm his own indications of contacts with: Orthodox and other strands of 
Christianity, Islam (especially but not exclusively the Sufi orders), 
Hinduism, Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism and pre-Buddhist sources. I have no 
doubt that he was familiar with Central Asian Shamanism and in touch with 
various brotherhoods, unknown to us, in Asia and Africa. I also accept the 
view that he was no stranger to Jewish mysticism. 

Each of these sources, like embers in a dying fire, contained some heat 
(Gurdjieff actually uses this analogy in `Beelzebub's Tales'), but not enough 
heat to rekindle a blaze that could slow or halt the accelerating slide of 
human spirituality and culture towards a darkness of unforseeable 
consequences. Gurdjieff's genius and merit is that, he gathered these 
fragments and, through herculean being efforts, brought them together (like 
fissionable materials in a nuclear reactor) so that they began to act as a 
powerful new source of heat and light. I am convinced that he did this 
himself, with some support from friends, and that no other way was possible 
because the `embers' were already so scattered and not fully understood by 
their custodians who no longer possessed enough of the whole picture to make 
real use of them. Events in Asia in this century point unavoidably to the 
conclusion that Gurdjieff was only just in time. Whether he acted on his own 
initiative or under instruction, I do not pretend to know. However, I am sure 
that stories about contacts with Gurdjieff's Sufi `teachers' should be taken 
with more than a pinch of salt.

People of various different religious affiliations claim that Gurdjieff's 
teaching is derived from their own tradition. I do not object, because at 
least there is a recognition of basic validity and kinship. But if you wish 
to know my true feeling, I find it rather funny. The joke is that people, 
feeling the heat from the Gurdjieff furnace, imagine (because heat is simply 
heat and felt alike everywhere) that they are experiencing heat from the old 
embers, rather than heat which is actually coming from the new source 
(although, of course, it is not really new because nobody claims that there 
is anything fundamentally new in it, other than a certain adaptation to the 
current features of Western culture. I think that any follower of Gurdjieff 
would agree that `work' can only be the ever-relevant work of chanelling a 
divine action through a human instrument, thereby permitting the dual action 
of enabling a spiritualizing power to descend and touch the human level, and 
simultanously enabling the human channel to ascend towards its divine source. 
So is the Gurdjieff `work' new or not new? Evidently there is a category of 
ordinary thinking simply unable to encompass the simultaneity of `new-not 
new', `known-unknown', `forgotten-unforgotten', that is characteristic of the 
knife-edge experience of life in a subtler reality.

For this reason, if for no other, a search for the source of Gurdjieff's 
teaching is, in my opinion, simply useless. It is of the same order of 
endeavour as the lifelong search of Prince Lubovedsky, portrayed in `Meetings 
with Remarkable Men'. It was only when the Prince finally abandoned it, in 
the twilight of his days, that he could enter a wholly new period of inner 
work, on another level, in a real `brotherhood'. Though fully justfiable 
intellectually, the search for the origins of Gurdjieff's teaching is 
probably not even our legitimate concern. I consider it to be, in most cases, 
a substitute for what should be uppermost in our inner world. Certainly all 
the groups in which I participate, conduct quite serious studies of other 
religions and cultures. But they do so from the standpoint of looking at 
alternative `world views' and conditions for `being existence' - not in order 
to try and `pin an esoteric tail onto some esoteric donkey'.

I am not informed about any centre of `spiritual excellence' to which 
suitable candidates might be referred. So far as I am concerned, I am far 
from ready. Therefore I would not expect to to be able to find or enter such 
a circle. If I did consider myself ready, I would expect to be gathered in. 
In my opinion Gurdjieff already did all the basic groundwork necessary to 
create a new source of spritual hope for the `age of Aquarius'. Gurdjieff's 
personal being labor was immense and continued right up until his death 
amidst a whole new generation of remarkable men and women, of West European 
origin, who have remained almost wholly unknown to the general public. To me, 
these people already represent the nearest I ever expect to get to a 
`communion of saints'.

GURDJIEFF AND HIS INFLUENCE

The name of G.I.Gurdjieff is associated with a `system' of ideas, a method of 
self-discovery, and a practical approach to inner development rooted in 
`self-knowledge'.

Gurdjieff's main proposition, echoing that of many before him, is that human 
beings fall short of what is intended for them `from Above', due to the way 
they live in their everyday state of consciousness. This state he called 
`sleep', or `waking sleep'. In it, the feeling of self is fragmented and 
interwoven with dreams, fears and lies. The results are many and include: 
inner conflict, isolation from others, and an egoism that is never far from 
violence. 

This state he attributes to many factors, but principally the forms of 
education and conditions of life we human beings have ourselves created over 
many centuries. The aim of every man or woman who comes to realise the human 
situation, must be to awaken from this state. Only through awakening can we 
become free from the factors that hold our being at a tragically low level. 
Only through growth of being, leading to conscious individuality, can we 
become worthy to understand, and appropriately serve, the creative plan.

Because awakening proves to be very difficult and unstable, it is impossible 
without a great deal of help, over a very long period, in support of the 
right kind of individual and collective efforts. The required combination of 
help and effort Gurdjieff called: `work'. There is a tendency, by some, to 
codify all of this into something called: `The Work', but those wishing to 
remain faithful to his original call hope that this will not be entirely 
successful.

Work of sufficient persistence and intensity, with the appropriate inner 
attitude and method, is bound to bring about changes in being and in 
capacities for intentional manifestation which are quite evident in those who 
genuinely have them.

All who met Gurdjieff agree that he had extraordinary practical knowledge in 
the field of human nature and its possibilities. How he came by this 
knowledge can be discussed, without any certainty of a correct conclusion. 
But one thing is clear, both from his own accounts and from the experience of 
those who knew him in his last years: Gurdjieff was an exemplary `objective 
scientist' in the sense that he really researched human nature in depth. 
Unlike others who stopped at significant discoveries, he went on and on, till 
his death, seeking ever new ways of dealing with human weakness. Only by this 
degree of `conscious labour and intentional suffering' did he reach the 
possibility of really helping others overcome the innumerable obstacles to 
awakening and development, two of which are a premature sense of satisfaction 
with small `achievements' and trust in `what one believes one knows'.

Gurdjieff's genius consisted in providing his followers, and succeeding 
generations, with three interlocking and mutually regulating strands of 
approach to work.

These are:

1. The oral transmission of methods.

2. The Sacred Dances or `movements', with their music.

3. His writings, and related ideas disseminated by followers.

Each of these is worthy of attention and is having an influence in the world. 
See the following three notes for further comments.

THE ORAL TRANSMISSION OF GURDJIEFF'S TEACHING

This is conducted through individual and group activities of all kinds. 
Speaking very broadly, the methods are concerned with questioning every 
aspect of one's life and bringing to bear new approaches to the energies, 
attitudes and patterns one discovers. Underpinning this approach are various 
inner and outer excercises to be practised and shared under the guidance of 
someone of significantly greater experience and impartiality. 

The oral teaching is distinguishable from other psychological or religious 
strands of belief or practice by its relationship to a cosmological framework 
of ideas about the laws governing the levels of human intelligence and 
functioning. On the principle of `as above, so below', the inner functioning 
of a human being is seen as analogous with the functioning of the universe at 
many other levels. The individual human being is invited to try and recognize 
his possible place, according to his being, within a scale than spans the 
unknown vastness beyond the galaxies, and runs through solar systems and 
planets, to the microbe, the atom, and the equally unknown infinity beyond. 
These ideas are offered not for belief but as a basis for research and 
practical verification through the progressive expansion of attention and 
consciousness.

The most important aspect of this strand of work lies in gradual development 
of the powers of attention, leading to a wholly different feeling of self and 
a greatly enhanced capacity for conscious awareness of one's true place and 
calling. 

All of this, in the direction of `being more human', has affinities with the 
work of spiritually orientated groups of all kinds. Indeed, there are 
followers of Christianity, Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism who claim that the 
Gurdjieff approach is particularly indebted to their particular tradition. 
Gurdjieff's followers would probably all agree in preferring to say that 
there can be many different ways, but that they are all bound to converge, at 
the centre, on the one common Father. From examples known to me personally, I 
can vouch for the fact that followers of all these faiths, as well as lapsed 
Jews, have found renewed life and inspiration in their own tradition as a 
result of the action, through them, of the Gurdjieff work. Since most 
religious influence is originally received in childhood, such experiences are 
particularly healing.

One could say that the aim of Gurdjieff's followers is to respect all other 
spiritual work, while trying to preserve the integrity and force of that 
which is specific to his particular blend of ideas and methods. The greatest 
difficulties encountered here are: a) fixing and codifying, b) dilution by 
mixing with imperfectly matching ideas and methods. 

THE GURDJIEFF SACRED DANCES OR `MOVEMENTS'

Gurdjieff travelled widely, particularly in the remoter parts of central Asia 
where, even into this century, the techniques of religion and accelerated 
self-development were preserved in small communities. We know about this from 
many sources other than Gurdjieff. That is, from people who have encountered 
and reported psycho-physical practices of Tibetan, Christian Orthodox, Zen, 
Hindu, Sufi, Shamanistic, and other origins.

The difference between Gurdjieff and other travellers is that he had more of 
the personal capacities necessary to enable him to enter very full into the 
practice and meaning of these techniques. He could therefore both understand 
and remember them in such a way as to be able to reproduce them, or recreate 
their essence, for us tense, anxious, empoverished beings in the Western 
world, who have now lost almost all remnants of such techniques.

It is not possible to write at length here about this strand of work which is 
essentially practical and experiential. Suffice it to say that movement, 
posture, dance, and ceremonial, accompanied by appropriate music, can contain 
and convey non-verbal knowledge of the most profound and spiritualizing kind.

The other value of Sacred Dances, or movements created by someone with the 
required inner knowledge, is that they cannot be done correctly by automatic 
attention or with insufficiently relaxed muscles and psychic centres. They 
serve, therefore, as a means of developing finer attention, testing the state 
of attention, and manifesting the wholeness of a presence attuned to an inner 
order which only a more conscious attention can bring about.

There are all sorts of ways of using posture, rhythm and movement in all 
kinds of spiritual work (Yoga and the martial arts are the best known 
traditional examples). However, experts in both these Eastern traditions 
affirm that the number, diversity, richness and power of the Gurdjieff 
movements is beyond compare. Since all these methods have a similar ultimate 
aim, it is probably simply a matter of luck to be so close, in time, to the 
emergence of a supreme specialist. Inevitably, there have been various 
imitations, led by unqualified intructors who may have been with Gurdjieff 
groups for a short time. But it is only among `mainstream' Gurdjieff groups, 
that you could find the `real thing', as illustrated at the end of the film 
`Meetings with Remarkable Men'.

The great benefit of the movements, for more advanced students of the 
Gurdjieff method, is that they provide the ultimate and most chastening 
verification of the degree to which the journey is barely begun.

GURDJIEFF'S IDEAS AND WRITINGS

Gurdjieff wrote a very long and extraordinary book called `All and 
Everything' or `Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson'. Its stated aim is to put 
all our beliefs and values into the melting pot. It also proposes some 
missing viewpoints, without which it is almost impossible to make sense of 
our contradictory world. The style and content make the book indigestible to 
some parts of the human being (especially the ordinary rational logic), but 
allow the essential gist of what is significant to reach through to the 
innocent inner human layers, hungry for a level of truth and sybolism so 
frequently denied by all but a few sacred scriptures.

This book is regarded with the greatest affection and respect by Gurdjieff's 
close followers. Some people consider it to be difficult, but many do not, 
once an initial effort has been made. The scope is vast. The perspective is 
extra-terrestrial. It is full of humour, compassion and supreme common-sense. 
I personally regard `Beelzebub's Tales' as a supremely alive and important 
book, ranking close to the Bible and the Koran, and far ahead of anything 
else written in recent centuries about the human condition and its 
possibilities. This view is spreading, but may not become common until well 
into the next century. Perhaps the best evidence is the degree to which much 
ecological and `New Age' thinking can be traced back (most often without 
acknowledgement) to the thought forms of Gurdjieff's great `masterwork'. 

Alongside `Beelzebub's Tales', Gurdjieff also wrote a short, easy-to-read 
book called `Meetings with Remarkable Men'. This is a quasi-autobiographical 
travelogue in which he gives a number of little stories about his spiritual 
quest and some significant encounters with people he portrays as remarkable. 
This is a very subtle book, full of parables of great depth, but so 
straightforward, on the surface, that you could easily not notice. The 
contrast between the two books illustrates the degree to which Gurdjieff 
could deliberately adopt very different styles of transmission for different 
purposes.

There are other small books by Gurdjieff (not recommended for the general 
reader) and an ever increasing number about him or his talks or ideas, as 
recorded by first or second or Nth generation followers, or even concocted by 
people who had no contact. Some of these books are helpful, others are 
absolute `rubbish'. It is all a test of discrimination. The most to be 
recommended are `Views from the Real World' (a record by his pupils of some 
early talks) and `In Search of the Miraculous' (an account of being a pupil) 
by P.D.Ouspensky, a Russian philosopher-journalist who was in contact with 
Gurdjieff for about 10 years in his early European period. Ouspensky has been 
the source of a number of lines of `Gurdjieff work' groups. But to the regret 
of many, he broke contact with Gurdjieff too early to have really been part 
of the development of the `oral transmission' and the `movements' (see the 
two previous notes).

The overall result of Gurdjieff's powerful `system' of ideas is that 
`ideas-based' groups are quite common and easy to find. This is because they 
are easily formed by anyone who has read the books, or been on some kind of 
training course, and is willing to advertize. Gurdjieff groups related to 
persons who were close to him in his later years, and which participate fully 
in the `oral transmission' and the `movements' are considerably harder to 
find and join, but it is possible in some parts of the world. People often 
move job and home to do so. 

    Thanks for your views on Gurdjieff.  A comment on .48, methods :
    
>1. The oral transmission of methods.
>2. The Sacred Dances or `movements', with their music.
>3. His writings, and related ideas disseminated by followers.
    
    These three methods of transmission certainly sound a lot like the
    methods used historically and TODAY in various schools; Qadiriyya,
    after Abdul Qadir Jilani (Ghaus-i-Azam), the Mevlevi, after Jellaludin
    Rumi, known widely for their dances, the Chishtis and Sabris of 
    IndoPakistan, the Rif'ai of North Africa, and on and on.  Yes, these 
    are Sufi brotherhoods.  The Arabic/Urdu word for they use regarding
    each organization is 'Silsila', which literally means 'chain', as in 
    'chain of transmission'.  The Science of Spirituality.
    
    The claim that these schools are 'fragments' whose 'embers' are
    almost out, and that the Gurdjieff work is the real thing, is extremely
    debatable, and pretty ethnocentric, in my opinion.  I'm not so naive as
    to say "show me the evolved beings that Gurdjieff's work has produced"
    because such persons require privacy in which to do it.  However, 
    comparing the work of one admittedly remarkable man to dozens of 
    long established organizations, to their detriment, shows a lack of 
    scope, if not a lack of research.
    
    For me, Gurdjieff was a very userful door.  Twenty years ago I got 
    curious about the source of his information and training methods... 
    which obviously pointed me in other directions.  But again, thanks 
    for the thoughts.  karl

Re .43, .48, and .52

Dear Karl,

I have been wondering whether or not to take your comments on Gurdjieff and 
Sufism any further. If it were just a few mildly derogatory comments on my 
scholarship, I would not mind, because I am certainly no Islamic scholar. 
However, the phrase "it is a tiny tiny fragment of Sufism" could mislead 
people.

Perhaps we could try to set an example in the reconciliation of 
misunderstandings.

I will begin by assuring you that I meant nothing derogatory about Sufism. 
The general threat towards knowledge and practice of the `science of being' 
is planet-wide and has been increasing for centuries. This century has seen 
some particularly sharp situations like the secularization of Turkey, the 
`sovietization' of central Asia, the rape of Tibet, the Chinese `cultural 
revolution', the devastation of Afghanistan, and the spread of 
`fundamentalism' at the expense of `esotericism', in several religions. Look, 
for example, at both Iran and Iraq. Every one of these situations must be a 
source of worry and grief to anyone concerned with the inner spiritual health 
of mankind. Sufism has surely not been immune to the basic threats present in 
all these cases.

Now, please allow me to indulge in a couple autobiographical paragraphs which 
will, I hope, indicate to you that you need not doubt my awareness of the 
spiritual importance of Sufism.

In my personal book collection, Islam is not one of the largest sections. 
However, it does contain more than 30 books. Among these there are several 
translations of the Koran, one of which is always by my bedside. Among the 
others are `The Mathnawi' (the 3-volume set translated by R.A.Nicholson) and 
Arberry's version of the `Discourses of Rumi', both of which I adore and like 
to quote from, when I can. Farid Ud-Din Attar and Al Ghazzali have long been 
favorites. Scanning quickly through my shelves, you would see, among others: 
`The Sufi Orders of Islam' by Trimingham, `The Mystics of Islam' by 
Nicholson, and, of course, `The Masters of Wisdom' by Bennett. There are a 
number of books by Idries Shah, and a dozen books on Islamic art.

My closest friend, and former business partner (a jew incidentally), was 
personally responsible for organizing the first visit of the Mehlevi 
dervishes to London in November 1971. He and others remain in touch with 
them. I know their current unhappy situation very well. I myself travel to 
Turkey quite often and am acquainted with members of two other different and 
currently clandestine `dervish' orders. I and others give them such support 
as we can, mainly through opening up business contacts in the West for work 
produced in their communities. These same friends of mine have friends among 
the Rifa'i in various countries. My brother, who is a world expert on textiles, 
travels widely in the mainly Islamic parts of the Soviet Central Asian 
republics helping various organizations re-establish traditional carpet 
weaving and other rural crafts crushed out of existence by the Soviet 
`kultur' of collectivization and urbanization which has ruined the religious, 
cultural and economic life of so many communities. He knows a great deal 
about the local situation between sheikhs and commissars. In London, I have 
met several prominent European Sufi teachers and a number of their followers. 
I have also had private discussions with the well known Iranian expert on 
Islam, Seyid Hossein Nassr, who has written a number of very lovely books, 
particularly on the relationship between Islamic art and Sufi spirituality.

Of course the Gurdjieff teaching, as a small but real and growing spritual 
path, shares methods with Sufism which is a major and very long-established 
spritual path. Equally naturally, followers of the two paths find close 
affinities and relish appropriate `communion'. This does not serve as proof 
of specific derivation of either from the other. In my case, links with other 
faiths, especially Christianity and Buddhism, are equally strong and highly 
valued on both sides.

You can be assured that nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to 
become aware of the real Sufi spirituality gaining in vitality and influence 
both in its countries of origin and in the West. The reason for that is that 
the real menace is not rivalry between faiths or systems (which can never 
occur at the inner spiritual level, nor between people of a certain level of 
understanding) but the overall decline in spiritual content of the planetary 
population lured by dreams whose fulfillment already appears to threaten 
planetary health on a cosmic scale.

Maybe you and I could agree that it is no more accurate to describe the 
Gurdjieff teaching as "a tiny tiny fragment of Sufism", than it would be to 
imply that Sufism is a "dying ember". Maybe we could also agree that the 
daily challenge of spiritual work is much more important to us both than any 
reciprocal challenge in the field of `views about teachings'.

By the way, why don't you start a new topic on Sufi spirituality and methods?

Yours,

Chris.

    Yes, thank you, Chris, for a thoughtful extension of your earlier
    postings, and for the autobiographical info.
     
    You seem worried that the essential work of the brotherhoods has been 
    damaged or impinged upon by decades of Soviet anti-religious decrees.  
    I look at it this way; Sufism survived Genghis Khan.  The orders in 
    Turkey survived the mass hangings earlier in this century, as
    Ataturk tried to Westernize Turkey.  So I have no worries about its
    continuance or potency.  Regarding activity in the West, all you have
    to do is look at immigration patterns - the largest Arabic speaking
    population outside the MidEast is in and around Dearborn, Michigan,
    where I used to live - and Turkish workers in Germany, Pakistanis 
    and Indians in Britain, etc.  It is by its nature well-suited to being 
    underground and clandestine, as you have witnessed yourself in Turkey.
    
    In my opinion, how well this esoteric work could be grafted onto a 
    Western vine was open to question, and Gurdjieff's work in the West 
    was nothing more or less an experiment to resolve this.  An assignment 
    from his teachers that he carried out quite well and completed in 1949.  
    The results aren't available to you or me - only to those that asked the
    question in the first place.  In my opinion.  And everyone's entitled
    to my opinion. ;-)
    
    Regarding an argument I've heard, that if the orders DO survive, 
    why are affairs in their countries (Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.) so
    chaotic, and why do they have such repressive governments ?  Damascus 
    for example is rumored to have more Sufis than anywhere on Earth.  
    Meher Baba was asked this exact thing; his response was
    
               "It's always darkest right under the light."
    
    karl

    If any one is still reading this:
    
    This is a great topic!!!!
    
    I've read the Ouspensky books. I've also read Meetings with remarkable
    men. Shortly after I read P.T. Barnum's book. They both have the same
    ring to them. I wonder what that is telling me? 
    
    I have trouble with Gurdjieff's "cosmic" stuff, but his awakening and
    other things I find very interesting. And its practical stuff that
    has helped me even though maybe I don't do it right or understand like I 
    should.
    
    Jay Kuhn

        
    Jay,
    
    Chris Thompson, who started the base note, has since left DEC,
    unfortunately.
    
    On an indirect work related to Gurdjieff, I recently enjoyed
    reading parts of "Waking Up", by Charles Tart (thanks Todd!).  
    It should be readily available in bookstores.  I haven't read
    any of Gurdjieff's works directly though...yet...too many books, 
    too little time...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    "Waking up" looked interesting. I believe its published by Shambala.
    I'll probably have to order it though. I'd never seen it in a store.
    
    j

    re: .57,
    BSS:: is in Colorado Springs, isn't it ?
    
    By coincidence, I got my copy of _Waking_Up_ while I was there
    on training, at a book store down the street from the
    training center I was at.  It had excellent sections on 
    psychology and spirituality topics.  Sorry I don't recall 
    the name of the store, though.  Don't know whether anyone
    can figure out the place I mean by that vague description :-).
    
    I'm sure we can dig up a phone for Shambhala Press if you're
    stuck.
    
    						todd

    re: last,
    Yup BSS is in Colorado Springs. The store you are talking about is
(Probably) Mckenzie White and is next to the mall . Its not far from
    where I live. I'd never think to look there. I'll give it a shot. 
    
    There used to be a school in the Berkshire mountains. I'm trying to
    remember the name of the little (very little) town it was in. 

    
    for shambala press and the 'other' major buddhist bookstore,
    take a trip to boulder, colorado.
    
    

    Ahhh, the name of the town where the Gurdjeiff school is in Massachussetts
     is Conway, in the Berkshire mountains.
    
    Also, went to the bookstore, several previous out of print hard to find
    books are back in print. titles like 'life is only real when I am' ect.
    they also had a $50 limited edition of bezelbub or whatever that title
    is in there too.