A return (and abandoning) of the Gurdjieff Work and the Fourth Way - after a few years
Warning- My writing below contains my own set of assumptions, biases, and info that may not be correct. I am hoping it is not harsh in content or criticism, however, I am hoping that with some things that need to be said here may assist others who happen to be searching, or are 'lost' within the confines of systems that are unlikely to succeed in the long run.
--
Recently (over the course of a month or two), I was led to rediscover, so to speak, the Gurdjieff material, "the work", and Ouspensky's Fourth Way. I recall this was prompted by some remarks on one spiritual forum in regards to Gurdjieff "knowing what he was doing", and the Fourth Way being a valid introduction to the "I am" state.
I had a soft spot for Gurdjieff and his work (and Ouspensky's take), since I did spend several years testing out this road fully, joining a Foundation group for a bit, and really digging in and road testing all of the material. I went through Beelzebub's Tales in print and audio fully, and must have had a stack of about 10+ Fourth Way related books.
One of the areas that interested me especially was the idea of Self-Remembering, and Self-Observation, and these eventually led me to equate much of what was being explained (or attempted to be explained in complex Gurdjieff/Ouspensky speak) with some of the practices both in Advaita Vedanta (self-inquiry, awareness contemplation), and classical Buddhism (with mindfulness, attention, and concentration). There was some cross over as well with the practices of virtue in traditional systems and the G. equivalent of "conscious labour and intentional suffering".
So recently, I dug into the material again, with In Search of the Miraculous, and related Gurdjieff writings, hoping to perhaps find something I had not seen before, or ponder the question- does this stuff really work? Does it lead to liberation, and can it? Is it based on a solid, honest, trustworthy foundation?
To cut a long story short, I personally can't buy into the whole Gurdjieff Work and Fourth Way system any longer. A number of issues did present themselves, and it looks like I will be tucking away the material yet again, or perhaps renouncing it for good.
The good (first up, I will acknowledge some good in this system):
+ Great presentation and re-iteration of the idea that man has no solid internal psychological foundation, but consists of a number of temporary "I"s, and operates as a machine on pretty much all occasions. Likewise, he/she is 'asleep' in terms of having any solid awareness of what is happening in terms of cause/effect, and how we all create our own suffering and delusion.
+ Self-observation and self-remember, by and large, are great practices to look into, and incorporate into one's spiritual approach (but these don't constitute a teaching or way in and of themselves).
+ The idea of developing one's conscience and struggling with ingrained habits, negative reactivitity and unethical conduct, is a step in the right direction and well worth the effort in doing so.
+ Observing our current sorry state of affairs in terms of our own self created suffering, mechanicalness, sensory addiction, and self-dishonesty is well worth taking the time to do. Self-observation is a good step after some virtue and restraint has been laid down and taken up.
Now some of the big issues:
- Going through the material in print, audio, etc. generally lead to my mind being cluttered, info-overloaded and not in the best space. The material is voluminous, complex, packed with non-essentials in regards to anything leading remotely to liberation for the individual, and is generally badly organised. There's no logical layout or approach, and ideas are presented in cycles, later in more depth, and almost at random according to whoever was presenting (G, or O), or who attended in person meetings. Attempting to form any logical approach based on all of this material is extremely difficult. A further issue is that a lot of the information in Work/Fourth Way sources was actually experimental at the time, and likely not even meant for long-term foundations or principles of the system. Gurdjieff was still running experiments as to how best develop people or approach the path (e.g. the Dances, extreme physical labour etc.), which were all abandoned later at some point. Trying to work out which principles and practices were temporary or experimental, and which ended up in the final version, is almost impossible.
A valid path should be logical, have a clearly laid out approach with easy to understand foundational principles, and be open in it's teaching.
- A lot of information is misleading, incorrect, and either intentionally layed out to baffle and confuse readers/followers, or unintentionally just plain BS. Stories such as how Buddhist relics in Sri Lanka were really magical objects for communicating with dead people's astral body is just plain garbage. Likewise, the idea that Buddhism failed because monks ended up in caves relying on a piece of bread per day, and never fully embraced conscious labour and intentional suffering, but misunderstood the Buddha's teachings, are again incorrect and probably the result of Gurdjieff coming into contact in the early 20th century with some particular Buddhism for a very short time. Some stories such as secret monasteries in Central Asia that are imparting wisdom to select beings, have been debunked as fantasy over the years, due to lack of any evidence. A valid path should have truthful, honest information available, to the best of its ability (or individuals' abilities), and remove any dubious, irrelevant, misleading information from its teaching as much as possible.
- A lot of information is just not relevant at all to liberation and again serves to fill people's heads with unhelpful speculation, such as the laws of the 7 cosmoses and the laws of cosmic functioning, wacky chemistry that has not been proved by science, the law of octaves which goes on for pages and has the sole intent of showing the necessity to practice virtu and self-remembering (which could have been explained in 1 paragraph instead of half a book), etc. etc. There's just too much irrelevance, science fiction, and unrelated information in general within Guedjieff's work. Others later, such as Nicoll tried to narrow it down to a more psychological approach which is good, however, this still suffers from the fate of talking forever about the problems such as negative emotions, and never offering much in the way of solutions, apart from high level practices in not identifying etc.
One could get lost in the non-essentials for decades, and indeed some people do, if you visit some online Gurdjieff groups where everything on any random topic is posted from planetary influences, to lineage debates, and who's history was more valid. Again, the removal of anything unrelated to liberation proper needs to be removed or condensed.
- Some of the chief aims seem to go against other valid traditional systems, even ones that G / O supposedly drew their information from. There seems to be some belief (and people literally believe it), that it's necessary to form some sort of immortal body within, that will survive death, and keep one's individuality evolving forever or until Man Number 7 etc. This pretty much goes against the basics of both Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta which are positing that there can be no immortal individual self, or an inner self that needs to be created and developed, since that view is actually the result of ignorance, and that an individual can't exist independently. Eastern traditions are looking at the idea that the issue is ignorance of the current situation and additions that we have ADDED are the problem.. we're not trying to add more things to the heap of rubbish that we think is our 'reality'. We're looking at an effort to REMOVE existing ignorance, passion for sense objects, craving, and the idea that there's someone here to gain something personally. In short, the whole duality of subject/object is an issue. How can building a new subject (individual) via practices and 'work' solve this issue? Further, why would some limitless, all powerful heavenly 'Father' need the assistance of the human race to complete this? That flies against the idea of a limitless, all powerful Creator (which was embraced as one of the ideas in the Work). I know this is talked about in Gnosticism, however, that's a slightly different kettle of fish, and murky in actual approach and practice. Anyhow, I digress.
- The founders have issues themselves.. lets face it, G. died of overuse of alcohol, in which his liver was shot to pieces, and leaving behind incomplete publications, a fractured legacy with groups debated who was the 'rightful heir', and O. died full of doubts, bouts of depression, and giving up towards the end after all the years of 'insights' that he supposedly had. Not terribly inspiring. There has to be some credibility present for any path's founders, even if it is just ethically, if followers are to have some faith and comfort in the teachings and the possibility that they will lead to liberation if undertaken.
- The lineage debates and whethere there's even a lineage needed can go on forever. I visited a couple of Gurdjieff Facebook groups recently. The same people are there dishing out the same debates and posts after 10 years since I was there last. Boomers that have vested interests such as 'well I met Nyland..' 'Well I studied with Lord Pentland..', are tired old vested interests, and show me that there doesn't seem to be much progress with these sorts of mainstream groups and lineages anyhow, after years of being in the work. Any teaching that isn't refreshing itself and finding new ways to express itself in a modern world (even if using old traditional foundations and principles) is pretty much on the death queue and another red flag.
Yes, lineage debates happen in every tradition, however, there should be some base foundation that people can go back to such as texts, sources, etc. that can provide some guidance on what the whole system is aiming to achieve, and 'lineages' can then be assessed as to how closely they are actually following the aims and approach of the system. Without a base, there's no way to assess how closely a lineage is following the original teachings.
- One of the minor issues I had with the approach, is that O. system and presumably G.'s work, take virtue (conscious labour and intentional suffering) to be the 2nd conscious shock and to come after the 1st conscious shock of self-remembering. They seem to jump into meditative practices and reflection right off the bat, while reserving struggling with negative emotions, virtue, conduct, intention and psychological work for later. The reverse of most traditional systems. By contrast most traditional systems would place conduct and virtue FIRST, and thereby prepare the mind for some stability for meditative and reflective practices that come later. It's almost impossible to tackle all at once, and to jump into self-observation, for example, without a stable right view of things, or some power over reactivity, isn't going to be successful in the long run.
Anyhow, I've said enough, and likely have enough material to deter me from spending more time on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky for another long while :)
Cheers, D.
