but learning the alphabet, and the language ... isn't that all Classics 101? what about the 200 level courses? not even talking about advanced degrees!
what led me to such imaginings was hearing people discussing gurdjieff's talk to ouspensky & co.. beginning with "know thyself" gurdjieff stated that such knowledge must be obtained and it must be obtained starting with self observation with regard to a division of centers/functions, and further with regard to the divisions of those centers, and that one must first identify what is obvious and soon one will have lots of material, etc..
one inconspicuous word i just used to summarize this is "soon." gurdjeiff nowhere indicated that identifying centers and functions is a lifetime pursuit. rather, it is a prerequisite, but not the subject itself. 101. or perhaps if the outline itself is 101 maybe this subject might be 102 or 110, but 100 level nonetheless.
yet from the tone of the discussion one would think that people were pursuing a masters in the alphabet; despite years of attempts some seemed despairing, or discussed who it is that sees, or resigned to start again, or discussed sincerity, daring not state anything definitively - all manner of things. overall, the gravity of the discussion of an unattainable 101 seemed odd in that familiar way and echoes my various misgivings:
- does the fourth way work? perhaps it did but no longer does, perhaps it has changed, or perhaps it was dependent upon something else (i.e., gurdjieff's presence).
- are we going about it wrong? are we overlooking something? did i register and pay tuition?
- is ouspensky's account correct, was gurdjieff pulling our legs?
- has anyone ever "mastered" identifying centers?
there's something to be said for contemplating the intricacies of the process, consulting history and experts, admiringly nodding to legends. but perhaps certain work starts at a lower level.
Posts
How interesting you are pondering this. I just wrote the following to a young friend, A, today in response to his letter to my suggestion he contact NYC or Paris G foundation/society. I've only posted excerpts from the letter here. Due to constraints I had to post twice to say it what I wanted to say:
ReplyDeleteA. You wrote: Yes, it's through NYC and Paris that I was put in touch with the teacher from India.
A) I value lineage as well, for the same reasons, except not wholeheartedly.
L) This is wise. Not everyone is what he or she appears to be. One must be patient and extraordinarily discerning - especially in the work these days - but where does that ability come from? LOL This is a problem for most of us.
As we mature on the way we get better and better at it (discernment) if we are making sincere efforts. It is a wait and see process and during that process infinite patience is required. One has to always be in question about everything, like a clinical scientist - this is good for inner work. So, whether the 'teacher/guide' or "foundation" turns out to be a looney or a sham or not you are still ahead of the curve disappointment wreaks.
My very first guide in the work told me, "You must question everything, even yourself." and "This work is like trying to jump over your knees." and "You will try a million, million times." And my beloved movements teacher shouted at me - "Keep moving, ____, keep moving." (I had a tendency to give up when things became difficult). These cautions served me well while at the foundation and do to this day.
TBC....
2nd half of letter:
ReplyDeleteA) The Fourth Way, from what I understand, isn't supposed to be permanent.
L) I've discovered that the words "supposed to be" don't really serve us well, just as "should" has become a red flag word over the years. Nor do labels serve us well; what is the "Fourth Way" today anyway I wonder? http://laloblogs.blogspot.com/2010/10/let-dream-go.html
For those not on the way it is a label for a set of formatory ideas. For those truly on the way there is only the work and the Work is far more and far beyond Gurdjieff and his teachings. His method is truly what Ouspensky referred to as a 'map'. It is a wonderful map but not the place itself. The place is inside each of us who sincerely perseveres - no matter what. Together we are a combination of forces - the work or the way on earth and togteher we are connected with a higher combination of forces no longer in the earthly physical except that these forces are in us if we open to them.
A) It comes in and out of history for a purpose, taking on a certain form, and then dying to it and vanishing from sight.
L) I agree, the "Fourth Way" will disappear from *sight* - but only to those who are not searching, it will always remain accessible to those who wish for it. Those who study and practice the Work with those who have been on the true way - like it was for G and his friends and those who found G. Many call the Way - God. Again a word.
When I refer to the way, it is to something higher, beyond 4th Way theory.
A) For it to not degenerate into its opposite would mean that the Foundation has at least some Men #5 at the helm, which I have no clue about.
L) "It" is not at the "Foundation" (another label like the Sarmoung Brotherhood, etc.) but is in the Universe and beyond. Men and women #'s 5 - 7 do exist, a few may be here and there on earth. I often wonder if the Dalai Lama is one. G and Madam are not gone, nor are Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddhas, or the Ghandis or any of the great Lights who have left the physical body. We who seek, are grains of sand in their Ocean, maybe even less; they still exist as part of that which is Higher and we have access to them whenever we wish for something higher. In my sleep, I doubt this truth; I believe this is a fairy tale, imagination, when I am Awake, I AM joined with that higher energy. Have you had glimpses of this experience?
Are you keeping up with http://whatisthework.ning.com/group/fridaynightgroup. I am finding it very interesting and receive notices when anyone posts there. It is more practical than theoretical - even though the usual suspects respond to posts there as well - not everyone on _____ is playing with a 'full deck" as you may have surmised from all the bickering that goes on. However, a task, any task is an opportunity to work with others and compare notes.
Be well, A
L ......::::::;;;;;;; wanders away to wash the dishes, wondering if her own deck is full today. ;-)*
thanks for visiting.
ReplyDeletei've lots of questions about our discernment and about the fourth way. so i looked to see where i said what - most is still in draft form. i'll see what's what, what's salvageable. what comes to mind is gurdjieff's telling bennett that he must aim to the soleil absolu - i don't think i ever published that one. i recently came across the simple notion that we must always seek the next higher. like in the food diagram, you can't be satisfied with any particular level, it must evolve. does discernment thus entails an evolving dissatisfaction?
i think people who set out on some mainstream religion as well as yoga or cleansing diets or zen or hatha yoga are less emcumbered about making a mistake; but gurdjieff brings out the uncertaintly, and, indeed, unlikelihood, of any such endeavor. the question of what the %$@#$@# happened to the fourth way seems extremely relevant. the schematic seems "scientific" enough that it shouldn't just cease to work, but perhaps such evolution to the highest room would no longer connect one with the what we seek, maybe just an empty room.
also you mention that mr. g. and mme de s. are not gone - but ... i don't know if this is in one of those drafts ... remember gurdjieff telling ouspensky about what was called "buddha's necklace," the crystallizations by which the ascended masters would be in touch? just as in B's Ts, with the hurried rush to perform certain rituals to establish some etheric connection? well, was mme. de s. in contact with g.? for a certain reason i don't think she was. though bennett provides accounts of being in some semblance of contact with his own mother through the intercession of gurdjieff and gurdjieff's departed mother (i think, perhaps his wife). maybe i'm unhinged here, but all these revolve around an esoteric fostering creation of a body that is not limited by organic life on earth, and if proof is not in the pudding, where is it?
like, what if g. was a trickster?
Hello 2hree. Was wandering through the internet today and found this post of your from some time ago in response to a comment I made on your blog.
ReplyDeleteYou say: "... maybe i'm unhinged here, but all these revolve around an esoteric fostering creation of a body that is not limited by organic life on earth, and if proof is not in the pudding, where is it?
like, what if g. was a trickster?"
For myself, the proof has always been in the pudding. This I have verified for myself time and time again over the years as I am sure you have. At some point I can stop asking: " Is it real or imagination?" because I have verified whatever "it" is often enough to know the answer. I can trust that. It's an *Experiential* thing.
Hope all is well with you and your 2012 is going well. Happy Hearts day :-)*
PS: As long as we work honestly and sincerely and make efforts, and share what we know with folks on the rungs below us, the work will live on by whatever means it finds to do so. ;-)
ReplyDeletethanks for the reply. certainly higher experiences and a higher body offer certain "proof". gurdjieff does invite one to doubt - what if one gets to the fourth room and finds it empty? gurdjieff told ouspensky & co. they made a sheep conscious - then they ate it. our higher centers exist and are operational thus we have a capacity for higher experiences - one should not mistake higher experiences for proof. but i'll take it further, that just because one's capacity to embody higher experiences increases, evidencing perhaps the crystalizing of a higher body, does not mean that gurdjieff wasn't following in some blavatskian deceptive teaching. remember the ouspensky story of the ouspenskian story of a devil preying on people who grew souls - how do you know gurdjieff isn't a scoundrel fattening his esoteric sheep, like, allegedly, blavatsky? there is some mention that ouspensky was dismayed when he learned where gurdjieff got certain words (i.e., hydrogens, carbons, etc., from blavatsky) but gurdjieff countered to the effect that finding where it was presented wrongly was essentially entailed finding where "The dead camel of the merchant Vermassan-Zeroonitn-Alaram is buried." in any case, i too, accept certain experiences as validation, but even so, there is doubt. one episode one story of his meeting once with georgette leblanc (which i'll post separately), coupled with one experience that i shared here - "a retreat experience" - however, speak to this.
ReplyDelete