Gurdjieff

Discuss Astrology, Confucianism, Healing Arts, Hinduism, Mysticism, Paganism, Reincarnation, Sikhism, others
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: Now johnscott, you never know if the original post was a mistake or not, it could have been fixed in "time" for that post to appear, and not at an earlier time. What would have T Rex done if that post had shown up, right when he was ready to get a mouth watering snack?

"It is never possible to deduce judgements of value from matters of fact"

David Hume



Gurdjieff does seem to make assumptions based on his perception of belief, but are they facts? Does he bring any statistical data into play, or scientific thought before the leap into religion?

How does Gurdjieff reconcile previous philosophical thoughts with his system? If "Gurdjieff did... bring esoteric knowledge from these various sources together, in order to create a practical system specifically designed for the modern, western mind ," why is it not evident today through a unified philosophical and religous system?


Ah, good questions, but really only best answered by reading the literature, though I will say that there are scores, if not more, of Gurdjieff and Gurdjieff/Ouspenski groups all around the world, only most of them (the authentic ones), do their Work quietly and anonymously. Also, could it not be said that the prophets (for example) along with many Teachers through the ages, might have been (and in many cases were), judged as making assumptions (Trial of Jesus by the Jews - for 'making assumptions'?)

Moving on, perhaps that mistake of mine was actually the result of guiding from the collective unconscious, eh?! Re. your final question, not only Gurdjieff, but Jesus and others have said that the Truth is there for those who have eyes to see; in other words, the evidence is there, we just either don't know it's there because we haven't 'looked', or because we don't want to!

Yes, Hume, a good Edinburgh man like myself! I myself lean towards the existentialists.
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

Like Kierkegaard, where to know oneself you must completely withdraw, then begin the cycle of acceptance, terror, detachment and acceptance of the Creator? He is an interesting existentialist, but seems to multiply the problems the human spirit and mind must undergo to reach the acceptance point.

Or Nietzsche, where you can transcend into eternity? He accepts the concept of time, and the ability to manipulate it for understanding. I know I would not like time to stand still, I do not enjoy growing older, but current situations make me want to give it a swift kick in the pants for some better times ahead.

Because I do believe there is a concept of time, compartmentalized into our minds, and this is seen in nature as well-animals and plants and living things exist and go through their life cycles around an inborn sense of time. Babyhood, maturity, procreation, and old age. Do they sense the concept of time, as well as humans? It does exist, and is visibile around us.

And is the string theory just a passing phase in the interpetation of the universe?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Gurdjieff

Post by Accountable »

Don't mind me. I'm just sitting on a stone at the edge of your circle taking this in for now.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Gurdjieff

Post by Accountable »

ArnoldLayne wrote:

Dont give me that . You've been to the library and you've been reading it all frantically, just waiting to jump in when they reach the chapter you just read, just so we think your up with it . You dont fool me



Im happy to admit my ignorance :D
I've got better things to do than to ... :-2 go to the library and read. :o



Yeh, that's it Arnold. I've been studying.







*slinking away to the library* :o
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: Like Kierkegaard, where to know oneself you must completely withdraw, then begin the cycle of acceptance, terror, detachment and acceptance of the Creator? He is an interesting existentialist, but seems to multiply the problems the human spirit and mind must undergo to reach the acceptance point.

Or Nietzsche, where you can transcend into eternity? He accepts the concept of time, and the ability to manipulate it for understanding. I know I would not like time to stand still, I do not enjoy growing older, but current situations make me want to give it a swift kick in the pants for some better times ahead.

Because I do believe there is a concept of time, compartmentalized into our minds, and this is seen in nature as well-animals and plants and living things exist and go through their life cycles around an inborn sense of time. Babyhood, maturity, procreation, and old age. Do they sense the concept of time, as well as humans? It does exist, and is visibile around us.

And is the string theory just a passing phase in the interpetation of the universe?




Focussing on the area of spirituality re. existentialism, Kierkegaard, following on from Kant and Schopenhauer, saw the external world as simply a creation of the mind, meaning reality can only be what we make it represent to ourselves. Kierkegaard saw spirituality as real and yet, generally speaking, rejected organised religion as a true, valid means to fulfilment. In fact, in the same way, he also criticised orthodox politics and the so-called, 'morality of society' re. standards and codes and so on. This infers that nothing’s certain. Morality, justice, ethics etc. only exist relative to the perceptions and conditions of any given time and place. Just because some political state, or religion, or institution, or anyone in positions of power says something is certain or permanent, it doesn’t make it true, not in any ‘permanent’ or ‘eternal’ way. It means that every person must find their own truth, their own reality, if they’re to achieve real insight into themselves and the relative nature of things. This make sense to me, especially when I look around at all the contradictions; the double standards, hypocrisy, injustice etc., which happen all the time in our so-called, 'civilised' societies . . . and often in the name of 'progress', 'peace', 'understanding' and 'freedom' - what a laugh! :wah:

And the string theory, yes, very interesting, along with the chaos theory and the scientifically confirmed existence of fractels. All relative food for relative thought, eh? :guitarist

On another note, can the title of a thread be changed? I don't think 'Gurdjieff' on its own means too much to many people, I was thinking more along the lines of: Modern Teachings, thread formerly called Gurdjieff
I am real, only then, when I am!
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

ArnoldLayne wrote: If Kierkegaard saw the outside world as a creation of someones mind and that every body has to find their own reality, how do we all co-exist and intertwine so perfectly in our own worlds. Are other peoples reality linked to mine or is it really all one thing. Surely for people to exist together and react to one another we have to have the same perceptions of common things


Ah, but is that true? Is your reality the same as mine? Do we like the same things? Is a Christian's reality the same as a moslem's? Is a heterosexual person's reality the same as a homosexual's? Is a bigot's the same as a humanist's? Is a republican's reality the same as a democrat's (conservative/labour in UK). I could go on . . . and on . . . and on . . Do we really 'co-exist and intertwine so perfectly in our own worlds'?
I am real, only then, when I am!
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

ArnoldLayne wrote: Of course our thoughts and ideas and perceptions are different but when we react in the physical sense our realities must knit together or we wouldnt wouldnt be able to percieve each other. Im not saying we intertwine perfectly but there must be a common *glue* holding us all together.



Forgive me if I sound naive in this subject, it is completely new to me having never read or studied any philosophy whatsoever. Never really spoke about it other than the usual teenage question of "If God's so omnipitent can he make a rock so large that even HE cant lift it" The question was as far as we ever got . No real search for the answer


I'd say it's the asking that's important - which you're doing. On 'physical' reality, is the reality of a blind or deaf person, or someone who's colour blind (and so on ), the same as an able bodied person? Comparing humanity to other species, our range of physical perception with our senses e.g. sight and seeing, is miniscule compared to some other creatures: bats; whales; dolphins; elephants just to name a few. Which reality is 'real', ours or theirs? And if these creatures have such extended sensory ability compared to ours, does it stop there? Where does sensory perception reach its limit? Perhaps it's at that point where reality ceases to be relative, and can be considered universally 'real' (though I somehow think that sensory perception alone is very far from total Reality! :-2



the seeds of truth will never fade

love came from there long ago

and when the dawn approaches

we'll smile and embrace in the glow
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

No, sensory perception differs among individuals, otherwise we would all end up the same. Experiences would be the same, life would be very boring with copy cats all over.

*well, maybe I do copy the latest fashion-but not!*

Johnscott, you can change to a new thread, but just leave it alone for now. AC and Arnold are here, and they are interested, in betwen their thrilling posts all over the place.

:)

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed."

Pascal

The ability to think and reason brings us to a different state of beings then the animals. (no reflection on my inner bunny self) Every human perceives things in a different manner, because our senses work that way. Therefore, our observation of nature is different. There can be no universal explanation for philosophy and religion that can be united under one thought-though if this topic continues long enough I will attempt a read of Mr. G.

*rats, one more class to go*

How come my sensory apparatus will not ignore the ringing of the bell? Am I simply a Pavlovian slave?
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: No, sensory perception differs among individuals, otherwise we would all end up the same. Experiences would be the same, life would be very boring with copy cats all over.

*well, maybe I do copy the latest fashion-but not!*

Johnscott, you can change to a new thread, but just leave it alone for now. AC and Arnold are here, and they are interested, in betwen their thrilling posts all over the place.

:)

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed."

Pascal

The ability to think and reason brings us to a different state of beings then the animals. (no reflection on my inner bunny self) Every human perceives things in a different manner, because our senses work that way. Therefore, our observation of nature is different. There can be no universal explanation for philosophy and religion that can be united under one thought-though if this topic continues long enough I will attempt a read of Mr. G.

*rats, one more class to go*

How come my sensory apparatus will not ignore the ringing of the bell? Am I simply a Pavlovian slave?




Hi there

Ah, the joys of intellectual wrangling! I guess a good analogy here might be this:

In our current state - what we call 'reality' - yes, we do all perceive our surrounds and circumstances differently, according to our 'type' and individual experience etc. If, however, a level is to be attained where the negation of familiar sentient, external differences is possible, the Journey (towards a higher level of consciousness) can only be an inner one, not an outer, physical one (though, of course, our body is necessary, just a crucible is necessary for certain chemical reactions, even though the final result dispenses of the need for that crucible. If that is the choice, that is. Initiates, like Jesus, might be said to have chosen to remain in the flesh for our sake, even though they have reached a point where the flesh can be dispensed with). Do you know the microcosm/macrocosm concept? I think it was Socrates who summed this up with the tenet, 'As above, so below' i.e. the universe exists internally, within our consciousness, just as much as it exists outside of ourselves.

Re. the permanence of perceptual differences, I would liken it (from the physical perspective) to leaving our planet. While we are on this planet, the differences stand to the fore. Travelling out of Earth's atmosphere, however, we can look back and see our planet in its entirety. Now, for this to have been possible, think of the thousands of years of progress, in all relevent fields, that has been required. Even then, it's only possible with crucial life-protecting suits and life-support systems, communication and transport. If it has taken such an effort for us to have reached this outer point (a measly quarter million miles or so), how does that compare to the inner journey? Nothing is free here, nor easy!

I would therefore liken the inner journey - aiming for the place where division ceases - to a marathon, and then compare it to the mere 10,000metres we have so far travelled physically/externally. This is an issue of dimensions. For example, an insect without wings, born on a large piece of plain paper, surrounded by a barrier, does not know there is anything else. That is it's reality. If it were able to fly, however, it would quickly see that it's perception had been restricted by its conditions. As for that inner journey? As I understand it, the psychic/metaphysical equivalent to that hi tec external equipment is required, if such a journey is to be undertaken without damaging or destroying the ego/psyche. A lifetime's work (if not more!). Yes, a perilous journey indeed but, I think, possible with the right kind (and amount), of effort. Phew! It's so difficult to talk of abstract things with our limited language! Another, simple way of putting all this is to say 'we are asleep and need to wake'!

I also want to say here that I am no seasoned 'traveller' on this inner path. I would place myself no further than a swimmer, changed and ready to plunge into the sea, but have not even gone beyond the 'toe dipping stage' yet! :(
I am real, only then, when I am!
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

ArnoldLayne wrote: If you think its hard to talk of abstract things in a limited language, you will understand that it is difficult to grasp such abstract things with a limited brain. I think I understood that .The insect on the paper was an analogy I could understand. Are you saying it is possible to see our selves as a whole by sort of leaving our body. Do we percieve this leaving of the body or is it a reality, assuming of course we can reach that level. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick ?



As for dipping my toe...my trunks havent been packed yet :wah:


Ha ha, make sure you have a snorkel! Re 'leaving our body'? In esoteric terms, that perceived by the senses is a very poor reflection of the nature of reality. Getting in the water again for a minute, it might be likened to how well we perceive the land around us while we are submerged. As, Bhuddism asserts: 'all is illusion', including the physical body.

By the way, all our brains are limited! :-3
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

"The soul is the mirror of the universe" Leibniz

So you agree with Leibniz, by only looking inward we can perceive the universe, by denial of sensory input?

I believe in the concept of the soul, within the physical form. There is that which exists within us, but it must also works within the confines of the physical body, whether in the water or not. At least for this period of time in which we dwell.

Remember, before you were born, you dwelled within the water of the womb, reminiscent of the words of Jesus and the story to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again.............."
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: "The soul is the mirror of the universe" Leibniz

So you agree with Leibniz, by only looking inward we can perceive the universe, by denial of sensory input?

I believe in the concept of the soul, within the physical form. There is that which exists within us, but it must also works within the confines of the physical body, whether in the water or not. At least for this period of time in which we dwell.

Remember, before you were born, you dwelled within the water of the womb, reminiscent of the words of Jesus and the story to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again.............."


Absolutely Chonsi. Also, the esoteric interpretation of 'Ye must become like little children', is that this refers to stepping on to the inner Path, as does 'Ye must be born again'. In other words (pardon the pun!), we must view the world and where we are in relation to it from a completely new perspective - like a new born child perceives this world for the first time. The esoteric interpretation suggests that the 'building of the temple' really refers to that inner journey. Completing that Path is the completion of the temple Much of Jesus's words can be read this way. He even gave clues to this, by making crystal clear the true purpose of parables. My view is that much in the Bible can be read from this inner perspective, as well as from the outer.

Oh, re Leibniz, I wouldn't actually agree about 'denial of sensory perception'. Rather, it has seemed to me that an inner minds eye must be nurtured while, simultaneously, the outer function is maintained intact (I don't think this contradicts the validity of meditation; visualisation (active imagination) etc. Sensory denial/deprivation is not required for this, in fact I'd have thought it might very well be counterproductive). As I said a bit earlier, the body and our senses are necessary as tools, contradictory as that might seem (paradox, in this sense does not, it seems to me, denote invalidity)
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

The viewpoint of the world varies between individuals, so in one meaning you can see all views are correct. But is the real viewpoint only perceived through the “rose-colored” lenses each of us wear, or is there a universal truth?

Or is the truth still laying out there, outside the reach of mankind, with the limitations of our faculties to perceive it? People of faith would say no, some people would not care either way, and some would say “anything goes!”
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: The viewpoint of the world varies between individuals, so in one meaning you can see all views are correct. But is the real viewpoint only perceived through the “rose-colored” lenses each of us wear, or is there a universal truth?

Or is the truth still laying out there, outside the reach of mankind, with the limitations of our faculties to perceive it? People of faith would say no, some people would not care either way, and some would say “anything goes!”


And some would say we all carry God within us. Personally, I have a feeling that the human race as a whole might be seen as one entity, one 'type' of energy when viewed from a 'divine' perspective (for lack of a better term). In other words, while the individual soul is important, the totality of humanity is in itself an important generator, a transformer of energy - raising vibrations from the course/dense to the fine, a 'cosmic food' you might say.

Why? God knows! :confused:
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

What if an individual just doesn't mesh with the other food sources, a little botulism could occur.........................

It is the individual that counts to God, that includes all of mankind. I believe God takes an active role in an individual's life, it is not a totality experience. Every person is unique, and can not totally mesh with others into a universal buffet.

It is one of those things that will be answered, at the end of time...............
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: What if an individual just doesn't mesh with the other food sources, a little botulism could occur.........................

It is the individual that counts to God, that includes all of mankind. I believe God takes an active role in an individual's life, it is not a totality experience. Every person is unique, and can not totally mesh with others into a universal buffet.

It is one of those things that will be answered, at the end of time...............


Ah, yes, but 'vibration' = energy, and energy is energy - there is no side-dish!

I agree the individual is important to God, but my view is that the importance centres (UK spelling!), on the person only in relation to the Soul. I do not think that I, John, you, Chonsi, or any other personality will survive this life. 'Ashes to ashes, dust to dust', and all that! Our Souls, however, benefit from the experiences of their human forms. Saying that, perhaps some personalities survive death and are carried intact into the next, new life, the next new human 'vehicle', but only when the Soul using that vehicle has already evolved sufficiently, and then only when there is a 'higher' purpose being pursued, such as was the case with Jesus and certain others. I hope that doesn't seem too bleak, to me it's not, it's actually quite wondrous. Anyway, I'm not sure I'd particularly like to be saddled with this personality of mine for all eternity! :wah:
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

Ah, you hint at reincarnation, an endless cycle of rebirth. I would not want to be constantly reborn into this world, once is enough for me! Because the soul would already know that an endless struggle lay ahead, and what would be the fun in fighting it all over again?

What if the soul does not enter into another human form, or animal form, or living being form-but enters the presence of the Creator? Wouldn't that be much more amendable to the soul's happiness then endless curves of the life into the same old thing? To some another turn around the block might be fun, but it would not be enlightenment, but a boring existence like an endless TV rerun. With a canned laugh track.
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: Ah, you hint at reincarnation, an endless cycle of rebirth. I would not want to be constantly reborn into this world, once is enough for me! Because the soul would already know that an endless struggle lay ahead, and what would be the fun in fighting it all over again?

What if the soul does not enter into another human form, or animal form, or living being form-but enters the presence of the Creator? Wouldn't that be much more amendable to the soul's happiness then endless curves of the life into the same old thing? To some another turn around the block might be fun, but it would not be enlightenment, but a boring existence like an endless TV rerun. With a canned laugh track.


What you're saying would be nice, but do you really think that we learn all that the Soul needs to know in '3 score years and ten'? What about the examples of regression? Of course, in many cases where hypnosis and suggestion are utilised, the responses are undoubtedly nothing more than current unconscious elements. However, what about the independently observed and verified cases where research has found that the previous life tapped into existed historically, in fact? What about the independently observed (and on at least one occasion, filmed), and verified cases where the subject has began to speak in a clear and fluent foreign language? What's that all about? (these are just two examples)
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

You would have to cite the examples with the proof, dear johnscott. There is more then one definition for examples such as these, along religious lines. And speaking in an unknown foreign language is quite common in pentecostal churches, it is one of the Gifts of the Spirit that they believe in. It has to do with communion with God, not a regression experience.

*this is a tangent, I know, from the original discussion*
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: You would have to cite the examples with the proof, dear johnscott. There is more then one definition for examples such as these, along religious lines. And speaking in an unknown foreign language is quite common in pentecostal churches, it is one of the Gifts of the Spirit that they believe in. It has to do with communion with God, not a regression experience.

*this is a tangent, I know, from the original discussion*


You know, it's funny because it occurred to me that 'speaking in tongues' might come up. No, I'm talking about a bona fide language. When I said 'unknown', I meant unknown to the subject. In the case I saw on film, for example, the subject had no prior knowledge of how to speak in any language other than english, and came from a working class background where learning spanish was simply not an option, but then proceeded to speak in clear intelligible spanish. Observers included respected personalities in their field. Proof, of course, is always an issue with many things! With God it requires a leap of faith. With strange psychic/psychological phenomena, in some cases at least, scientific measures - using tried and tested control methods - have left more questions than answers because of the seemingly illogical, impossible and startling (from our perspective), results. I guess the thing is, as someone once said, 'there is more in heaven and earth than . . . (can't remember the rest verbatim, but you get the idea). In truth, who knows, perhaps we are with God in heaven now, and all this is merely a dream!
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

*speaking in tongues means speaking in an unknown language to the speaker*

Usually along Biblical lines if it is vocal in a religious setting, an "interpreter" should translate the message-all of these languages unknown to them.



If life is a dream, then one day we will wake up-and it will all be over! We will know the ultimate result.

If life is a dream, then I don't like my nightmare right now I'm living in. I want to roll over and get a good nights sleep! (literally! You will tell which posts are on days of little sleep, but such is the life I lead)

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9117

But I don't believe that I'm in heaven now, or I would not have to suffer the things I do now. (take no offense any Catholics out there, but if I was one, I would believe I live in purgatory now, because of the problems-but I am a Protestant, and do not believe this) So I continue along the journey of life. I think because I have taken the leap of faith, it makes the journey easier to know the outcome. These are trials of life I endure, for whatever reason, so I will end my complaining and be glad it is the weekend ahead!
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

chonsigirl wrote: *speaking in tongues means speaking in an unknown language to the speaker*

Usually along Biblical lines if it is vocal in a religious setting, an "interpreter" should translate the message-all of these languages unknown to them.



If life is a dream, then one day we will wake up-and it will all be over! We will know the ultimate result.

If life is a dream, then I don't like my nightmare right now I'm living in. I want to roll over and get a good nights sleep! (literally! You will tell which posts are on days of little sleep, but such is the life I lead)

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9117

But I don't believe that I'm in heaven now, or I would not have to suffer the things I do now. (take no offense any Catholics out there, but if I was one, I would believe I live in purgatory now, because of the problems-but I am a Protestant, and do not believe this) So I continue along the journey of life. I think because I have taken the leap of faith, it makes the journey easier to know the outcome. These are trials of life I endure, for whatever reason, so I will end my complaining and be glad it is the weekend ahead!


But is there any more proof that the interpreter really can understand the tongues, than with the case of scientific observers?

Personally, I don't consider myself to be of any denomination (both branches were created solely by imperfect man!). I simply consider myself Christian, having been born into this religion, but I also acknowledge the divine Truths to be found in all the major religions (having explored them). And yes, I have often thought that this is perhaps purgatory, perhaps even Hell! The state of the planet and humanity's place and role in that certainly leaves me wondering about how deserving our species is.

Anyway Chonsi, it has been, as always, an enjoyable and interesting chat, but it's that time again here and I must say goodnight. I'm going to set up Paypal on Monday so I can subscribe to this site's 'inner sanctum' and see what goes on there. I hope you have a good day and that joy pays you a visit at least once before your day ends. Hope to speak again soon. Take care.

Night night. :-6
I am real, only then, when I am!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Gurdjieff

Post by chonsigirl »

Good night johnscott, may the dreams you have be sweet, and never disappear with the waking of the morning light.

:-6
alobar51
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:49 am

Gurdjieff

Post by alobar51 »

ArnoldLayne;144297 wrote: Er! ...care to elucidate ? We'd like to join in if possible. The idea of a discussion is for 2 or more people to converse. We can hardly be expected to make a contribution if we dont know what you're talking about :-6


The Gurdjieff Teaching

George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (1866?-1949) was born in Russian Armenia. He spent years searching in Central Asia, North Africa, and other places for a hidden tradition whose traces he had encountered in youth. During this search he came into contact with certain esoteric schools. In the early 1900's he brought to Europe a teaching that he had developed from the results of this contact.

Gurdjieff's basic teaching is that human life is lived in waking sleep; transcendence of the sleeping state requires a specific inner work, which is practiced in private quiet conditions, and in the midst of life with others. This leads to otherwise inaccessible levels of vitality and awareness.

Though Gurdjieff's name has become familiar in recent years, the real nature of his work is still little known. The Way of Gurdjieff is an oral tradition. The understanding of his work can only be received by direct contact between teacher and pupil, and by the work of pupils together in organised groups. Under conditions of a special atmosphere of trust that can exist in such a group, people working together learn to face their own inner poverty and confusion. Working in this way, conscience is awakened along with consciousness. Consciousness, Conscience, and Sensation form the tripod upon which an integrated development of human potential must be based.

Gurdjieff prepared a nucleus of people to be able to transmit his teaching after his death. This nucleus with the assistance of others who have subsequently been prepared maintains a series of centers throughout the world where Gurdjieff's methods are practiced.



For an introduction to the teaching of Gurdjieff, see G. I. Gurdjieff and His School, by Jacob Needleman.

For further study, there are several valuable Books by Gurdjieff and his key pupils.

Another article: Gurdjieff In America, by G. Baker and W. Driscoll.





His most ambitious book is Beelzebub's Stories to his Grandson. It's about 900 pages. I once read the first fifty, or so at Borders, and felt like he had said nothing in that time. He seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice.

Having said that, the basic premise does have some validity, and the exercises could work.

He apparently cut a fairly charismatic and dashing figure, and had no trouble seducing a fair number of women out of their husband's money. Frank Lloyd Wright's third wife was an ardent disciple of Gurdjieff's.

There are still many groups devoted to the study of his work.
johnscot
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:40 am

Gurdjieff

Post by johnscot »

johnscot here. a lot has happened over the last couple of years. Perhaps now, before choice becomes a forgotten word, it's time to really reflect on the ignorance of what we thought we are, and consider what we should be! We are all one!
I am real, only then, when I am!

Return to “Ancient Wisdom”