don't give up "ouspensky"

From Bennett’s Gurdjieff: Making a New World:

So far as I am concerned this material, which Ouspensky used for his own teaching in the years from 1922 to 1940 when he had his groups in London, constitutes the most valuable corpus of ideas and methods that I have come across in fifty years of searching. Nevertheless, something essential was missing. Not only did Gurdjieff say nothing – or at least nothing was reported by Ouspensky – about his work in Central Asia and the aims that he had set himself in coming to Russia; but he gave the impression that the work depended exclusively on personal effort that each man had to make for himself. The idea, which is so important in Christian doctrine, of enabling Grace, without which work on oneself is impossible, was never mentioned. Nor was the Sufi notion of baraka, which refers to the same supernatural action that must be transmitted from person to person. I have no doubt that Gurdjieff was fully aware of the importance of this action because he spoke to me personally about it only five years later at Fountainbleau.

Bennett continues:

How did it come about that Gurdjieff gave out such an incredible wealth of ideas and teachings on almost every subject of interest on the transformation of man, and did not refer to the key to making it all work, the transmission of higher energy or baraka? I believe that the explanation is to be found in what Gurdjieff wrote about in his original plan to set up his Institute in Tashkent. His aim was not to initiate an action, but to study people of many types in order to find a way to help them to liberate themselves from the universal disease of suggestibility, which makes them ‘believe any old tale.’ If people came to him and were ready to work with him on his own terms, but without losing sight of their own aim, they could profit from the contact. ...

In Witness (p. 129) Bennett shares :

I said to Ouspensky: "I am sure that his work can lead to the attainment of Consciousness and Immortality, but I am not sure if I can reach it myself. The more I learn about myself, the les do I seem able to achieve anything. In fact, in the last year I have gone back rather than forward."

... He sighed deeply, and said: "You say that you are sure that this work can lead to consciousness and immortality. I am not sure. I am sure of nothing. But I do know that wee have nothing, and therefore we have nothing to lose. For me it is not a question of hope, but of being sure that there is no other way. I have tried too much and seen too much to believe in anything. But I will not give up the struggle. In principle, I believe that it is possible to attain what we seek - but I am not sure we have yet found the way. But it is useless to wait. We know that we have something that has come from a Higher Source. It may be that something more will come from the same Source."

(typing that i'm even more struck about what Ouspensky said he would not give up! - of course i know that a couple of paragraphs cannot do justice to the vicissitudes of Ouspensky's daily efforts and lack of efforts and even taking a break, but still, I associate reading somewhere that following Bennett's tremendous exertions Gurdjieff told Bennett to rest but Bennett not resting until eventually when he did he found that what he needed was to be passive) and (p. 196):

[Ouspensky] went on to say that nothing new can be found by intellectual processes alone, and that there is only one hope: that we should find the way to work with the higher emotional centre. To this he added the sad comment: 'And we do not know how this is to be done.'

(not that Ouspensky was seeking by intellectual processes alone - Ouspensky's response was to a theory of higher dimensions set forth by Bennett; nonetheless, the response is telling. especially as Bennett did try to relate to Ouspensky about miraculous experiences at the Prieuré, but Ouspensky was not particularly open or interested. Bennett's constant deference to Ouspensky was as if Ouspensky was on a decidedly higher level. Still, it is hard to imagine that Ouspensky was utterly baraka blind. I don't know about his pillow-talk with Mme. Ouspensky, but while it was Ouspensky's ideas, it was her presence that animated the Ouspenskys' venues; also, later, to Bennett she alluded to some other quality, indicating,

Since Mr. Gurdjieff went, I have been waiting for someone to come. I still wait, but he has not. Perhaps he will not come in my lifetime." She asked [Bennett] some questions and then said: "If a new teacher comes, how do you know you will recognize him?" [Bennett] replied that he would bring something entirely new and that we should recognize it because we had been prepared by Gurdjieff. She did not wholly approve of what I said, but wouldn't disclose her own thoughts.

notably, according to James Moore it was Mme. Ouspensky who admonished students wont to sit still, "We don't meditate!"

still, while entertaining positivist notions of negation, according to B'sTs:

The Very Saintly Ashiata Shiemash taught nothing whatever to the ordinary three-brained beings of the Earth, nor did he preach anything to them, as was done before and after him by all the other Messengers sent from Above with the same aim. And in consequence of this, none of his teachings, in any form whatsoever, passed from his contemporaries even to the third generation there, let alone to contemporary beings.

kill the rabbit

i came across this in J.G. Bennett's "Journeys in Islamic Countries," Vol. 2, which seems to me likely to be the inspiration behind one of the many famous scenes in a classic movie:

The Inspector would not let me go inside the tombs, and he and the gendarme stood with their guns drawn. It was afterwards confirmed to me by the Railway Inspector that not only wolves, but tigers also, have been seen in these tombs, and that visitors were attacked not long ago.

All that we saw were a couple of hares hopping up the ancient streets, a vulture on the Ziggurat as we first came up and many lizards. I am really curious to know whether the story of tigers, told me so seriously, is to be taken seriously.

while we're at it:


and echoing fritz peters' account of "innerly free, outwardly playing a role":

[Mr. Gurdjieff] had a distinguished visitor that day — A. R. Orage — a man who was well-known to all of us, and accepted as an accredited teacher of Gurdjieffian theory. After luncheon that day, the two of them retired to Gurdjieff’s room, and I was summoned to deliver the usual coffee. Orage’s stature was such that we all treated him with great respect. There was no doubt of his intelligence, his dedication, his integrity. In addition, he was a warm, compassionate man for whom I had great personal affection.

When I reached the doorway of Gurdjieff’s room with my tray of coffee and brandy, I hesitated, appalled at the violent sounds of furious screaming — Gurdjieff’s voice — from within. I knocked and, receiving no reply, entered. Gurdjieff was standing by his bed in a state of what seemed to me to be completely uncontrolled fury. He was raging at Orage, who stood impassively, and very pale, framed in one of the windows. I had to walk between them to set the tray on the table. I did so, feeling flayed by the fury of Gurdjieff’s voice, and then retreated, attempting to make myself invisible. When I reached the door, I could not resist looking at both of them: Orage, a tall man, seemed withered and crumpled as he sagged in the window, and Gurdjieff, actually not very tall, looked immense — a complete embodiment of rage. Although the raging was in English I was unable to listen to the words — the flow of anger was too enormous. Suddenly, in the space of an instant, Gurdjieff’s voice stopped, his whole personality changed, he gave me a broad smile — looking incredibly peaceful and inwardly quiet — motioned me to leave, and then resumed his tirade with undiminished force. This happened so quickly that I do not believe Mr. Orage even noticed the break in the rhythm.

When I had first heard the sound of Mr. Gurdjieff’s voice from outside the room I had been horrified.… Now, leaving the room, my feelings were completely reversed. I was still appalled by the fury I had seen in Gurdjieff; terrified by it. In a sense, I was even more terrified when I left the room because I realized that it was not only not “uncontrollable” but actually under great control and completely conscious on his part. I still felt sorry for Mr. Orage.

and, besides gurdjieff - monty python correspondences, there's on one hand, VFTRW p. 173:

From the most ancient times through experience of life and wise statesmanship, life itself gradually evolved fifteen commandments and established them for the good of individuals, as well as for all peoples. If these fifteen commandments were actually in us all, we would be able to understand, to love, to hate. We would have levers for the basis of right judgement.

and, on the other hand,
that is, mel brooks.

confusion

for days i've been meaning to write about a topic or another. everything i'm about to write is tempered by a web search and finding something more comprehensive, sophisticated, and sometimes even scholarly already extant. but more than that ... my lone cry to make sense of the contradiction between what had been "the fourth way" and the legacy transmitted through mme de salzmann seems to be developing somewhat.

i've outlined some of the topics I'd like to cite and round up, and am haunted that that consistency might be a very formatory manifestation of the intellectual center.

it will change and maybe won't ever get written! but so far it includes ...

--desalzmann creating a nucleus

--bennett et al looking for the next teacher and baraka

--bennett on baraka

--sophia wellbeloved's toothsome morsel

--"there will be facts" a la ouspensky, this force from higher is real

--on one hand it acts on a "chemical factory"

--the work starts on a higher level; staircase, distrust in teacher, brute force missing the mark, only conscious labors count

--on another hand there's paranoia and conspiracy, to the tune of telling having the sheep guard themselves telling them they are "men" and finding nothing crystallized

--sophia wellbeloved's article in the journal of contemporary religion equating gurdjieff's teachings with love a la subud

--frank sinclair's helpful and interesting context, which, however, ignores the elephant in the room

--the energy is real

--the fourth way being transient as recounted by ouspensky

--what "the ways" "bring," and "aim"

--so with regard to the seemingly mathematical precision of the "fourth way" - physiology, psychology, alchemy, laws - what is subject to change? has the fourth room been vacated?

--nicoll and gospels, rumi

we now return to the regularly scheduled monologue, already in progress

of course when i speak i can't help but get existential, yet i don't wear everything on my sleeve. i don't talk about the Work, per se and rarely use the g-word - mister g., that is. but speaking with a friend i related certain frustration and he responded something about the goal not being about reaching some enlightenment, but about the experience. he also commented that he'd be content to have a moment of ... contentment! he's right but there's something he does not know. and he hasn't been bitten by this gurdjieff bug. he doesn't know that something urgent is underway. it has to do with why we are here, fulfilling some cosmic function, and creating a soul!

this comes to mind, from bennett's "spiritual psychology":

... this search is not compulsory; we can fulfill our obligations without the peculiar scrupulosity that looks for something more than doing what we are commanded or required to do. this does not quite express what i mean. suppose you speak to a friend about spirituality and he says: "i have no time for all that nonsense. i try to do my duty as a father and as a good citizen. i go to church because i think it is right, an as far as is reasonable in our present age, i keep the commandments. if i tried to do anything else, i should be neglecting my plain and obvious duties which take up all my time and energy." now, you could not tell your friend that he is all wrong; that there is something behind all these duties that he should be looking for. it would not be fair; and, in his case, it might not even be true. at the same time, it might be quite different for you, and you would be most acutely aware that you have problems that he knows nothing about. those problems - if they are genuine - are spiritual problems...

in buddhism a great importance is placed on sangha - the spiritual community. back in buddhist school we recited "sentient beings are numberless, i vow to save them all; the teachings are infinite, i vow to learn them all; passions are endless, i vow to extinguish them all; the buddha-way is inconceivable, i vow to attain it." but how would that sound to anyone outside the sangha? crazy, huh? so what could i tell this friend? in the course of that conversation i didn't want to talk about gurdjieff ideas. i never want to denigrate ideas and subject them to ordinary frivolous debate by people like myself who have a formatory opinion about everything. obviously i would prefer to try these ideas on for size, plumb and probe their depths. but privately. between me and my internet.

that does not mean i don't want to interest him, to hook him, to become a "fisher of men" perhaps. what could i say? in the course of conversing i tried to explain that my frustration was "why strive for something if you already have it?" i asked in reference to experiences of energy i have constantly which people supposedly work for. i was surprised at the pith of what i had said, such a fundamental work proposition.

the phrase informs my question more than might be apparent. i do not think i have to work for energetic experiences - they have been given to me, i believe they are within reach and that yes, i can do to the extent that i can elicit an energetic experience by attending to bodily sensation for a moment. so what would i work for? to make it more lasting? maybe. deeper? maybe. more meaningful? maybe. to see myself? maybe.

once in my zen days i sat empty and still and straight and could have continued sitting for another hour. "oh no, don't be attached, this great experience is a distraction" i counseled myself, and shook off the samadhi and continued sitting. now i know that sitting through samadhi must be important too! but i find that not much has changed - from my own exile i resent and distrust what purports even sacred experiences, still holding out for an accounting, still demanding it dumb down to the coarseness and cumbersome nature of my intellect.

i could end with that. it's got a nice closing note. but i'm reminded of another story, some hasidic tale i barely remember even the gist of, and maybe i've got it all backwards - some cantor prayed and made quite an impression on the rebbe - maybe it was on yom kippur for salvation for his community. the cantor told the rebbe that he was beseeching god on the basis of what happened in the holocaust. the rebbe replied, "on that basis you could beseech much more." hm - we bargain with the devil, but people don't usually discuss bargaining with god. except for hasidim. is holding god or life or the world accountable really misplaced? and what am i asking accountability for - that i'm disappointed for how things are working out? and what am i - a dirty messenger making his way past knights and gentlefolk and galleries and dining rooms, gaffe'ing and bumbling, with a message for the king? perhaps the king would even recognize and address me ... "get out!"

nicoll - self remembering IS the goal

here's something which addresses another purpose and function of self remembering. nicoll affirms the existence of a higher state, and coming into contact with it as our goal.

Nicoll, Commentaries, page 898:

Enough has been said to shew that Self-Remembering does not mean always to remember your negative self. In this connection I will give you one definition of external considering and its meaning. It was said on one occasion at the early Groups that external considering means to forget oneself and to think what the other wants, and it was added that in this way two results will follow. The first is that one can help, and the second is that one gets help. But if you really come to think about the whole question you will see that all real Self-Remembering is simply forgetting yourself, your ordinary self, your ordinary negative 'I's, your ordinary forms of internal considering, and all the rest of it, and feeling certain that some further state of yourself exists above all this personal uproar that takes place all day long in each one of you, with which you keep on identifying, and when the Work says that we have Real 'I' above us you must understand that this act, so to speak, of separating from False Personality, deliberately at some moment every day, is designed to make it possible for us to come in contact with the first traces of Real 'I' which is already there and which is our real goal.

tom waits got soul

to perish like a sheep - why remember?

why remember myself?

1) chemical transformations ...

remembering myself is the first conscious shock. the first conscious shock facilitates further digestion of food, air, and impressions, resulting in the production of higher substances. although lower centers work with coarser substances and energies, higher centers need to work with higher energies. so it would seem that allowing these energies to be further digested would facilitate the workings of these higher centers. on the other hand, higher centers are already functioning. i don't recall any mention that they are running on empty. there are also arguments about wrong use of centers, functions, and energies, and related economizing. certainly i want better health, vitality, sharpness.

i recall something about substances that make up bodies ... is that a long way off? i don't remember what that's about. perhaps i need to read more. in any case, people act as though just by accumulating higher energy that they are on the road to immortality. but no doubt i'll have more to say about that one day.

2) know thyself ...

a barrier to the work is that i think i am one and have the capacity to do what i want. the only way to see that this is not so is by trying to put that to a test. struggle. perhaps see that parts of what i took for unity might be set in opposition.

so? that only becomes meaningful if/when i realize there is something that i do not have that i really want. what do i want? why? how much? what if i don't particularly care, can the Work be my hobby? obviously that brings me back to what i including in a prior entry, "perish like a dog":

on a fourth way forum one participant indicated that gurdjieff said "Without aim, man no better than dog." (i haven't verified that gurdjieff said but don't particularly question it).

i've been hoping that as a result of some preliminaries that some innate question would emerge or mature. i even figured i'd awaken to the "terror of the situation." indeed, i might have caught a glimpse of that just over a year ago - worth reflecting on. also worth reflecting on whether i have verified anything at all.

* * *
i recognize that those are in an odd order. normally the existential query would precede the technical "how to." wasn't it recounted in ISOTM that gurdjieff told ouspensky et al. that G. and the seekers once made a sheep conscious? the astonished group asked gurdjieff what they did with that creature, and gurdjieff responded, of course, that they ate it.

the reason i'm asking is that the proposition "remember myself" doesn't seem all that important to me right now. i'm thinking aloud why it is important.