A return (and abandoning) of the Gurdjieff Work and the Fourth Way - after a few years.

 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.

The ego has no being. (ACIM)

I had been listening to and reading A Course in Miracles (Text), when I came across this quote:


"The ego is incapable of knowing how you feel. When I said that the ego does not know anything, I said the one thing about the ego that is wholly true. But there is a corollary; if only knowledge has being and the ego has no knowledge, then the ego as no being." (Text 8-VIII.7)


This reminded me of the use (in some circles) whereby the word 'knowledge' is interpreted as 'knowing' or the act of knowing (i.e. being aware) only, rather than in the usual sense of amassing intellectual data/facts/thoughts etc.


In this sense, 'knowledge' or 'knowing only' equates exactly with being, since both as also synonyms for just awareness or consciousness.


Hence, a thought construct, including the primal thought-construct-tendency which is the 'ego' ('I-thought'), cannot actually know anything, in the sense that it is not self-aware or endowed with any form of awareness itself-- but rather lives only as a construct existing in our awareness. The ego doesn't assert itself in deep sleep (or death) for instance, and at times when our waking consciousness seems to be in abeyance.


Being without awareness (knowledge) and being just a thought-construct, the ego thus has no being itself, and is rather just like a computer program- playing out its programming as it was created to do, relying on power beyond itself, and mostly for the sake of the body and its own survival.


This leads to the inquiry of what one really is, if the ego ("I-construct) and the body have no inherent being in themselves.. and taking into account that we normally regard ourselves as a body-mind entity.


Without jumping into further concepts, such as 'we are soul, spirit, Otherness' etc.. it is possible to stop and enquire directly into the nature of what we are in this moment, with the understanding that we are prior to the awareness of ourselves as a body, and prior to the awareness of ourselves as an ego. One means for doing this is via the practiced habit of self-attentiveness and patient observation directed squarely at one's "self" (or the feeling of one's "self").

FURTHER NOTE ON 'I'S -- 'I'S AND LEVELS OF BEING. - Nicoll

From some Fourth Way material.. 

"FURTHER NOTE ON 'I'S -- 'I'S AND LEVELS OF BEING      --  Last time we spoke of different I's in us and how we are not one person but many different persons and how unless we realize this by direct self-observation we can never begin to understand ourselves or other people.  In this connection we spoke of Real 'I' which it is the aim of this Work to reach, in place of having our centre of gravity in Imaginary 'I' that is the source of so much misery and misunderstanding.  Just figure to yourself two Imaginary ‘I’s marrying each other.  The dream-man marries the dream-woman and so on.  All this, of course, can lead nowhere save in romantic novels which usually and wisely end just when the imaginary hero marries the imaginary heroine – obviously a difficult starting-point suggesting difficult situations in the future.  It was also said last time that occasionally, even in ordinary mechanical life, we may experience a momentary trace of Real ‘I’.  As was said, this may happen in cases of extreme fatigue, as in war, when suddenly an access of force comes, or in great danger, also in many strange ways that cannot be classified, but produce the same result.  By contrast, the usual life of sleep that we are immersed in, when we identify with everything outside us, and inside us, has an utterly different taste from those brief, calm but rare moments of touching Real ‘I’, which in the work are called “moments of awakening from sleep” or “moments of Self-Remembering”.  The very undeniable difference in inner taste, in emotional quality, between our ordinary  and these exceptional moments shews us that there is within us some other level of consciousness, some other centre of gravity and some other level of experience --  and clearly a higher level – that we do no customarily know.  Now in this Work, as in all esoteric teaching, it is said that to reach a higher level of ourselves, to make contact with ‘I’s that do not exist, so to speak,  in the basement of the house of our being, efforts on oneself have to be made.  We are told what efforts have to be made very clearly.  For example, to take one line, we are told that a man must observe himself, he must observe that he is not one but many, that he must by practical work destroy the illusion that he has Real ‘I’, he must get to know by observation some of his prominent ‘I’s that hitherto he has mistaken for himself and not identify with them – that is,   not say ‘I’ to them – because what in you you say ‘I’ to chains you to it.  Once you say ‘I’ to any thought or feeling it has power over you.  In hysteria, the victim identifies with every sensational and horrifying thought.  There is no power of self-observation and separation.  It is something like thinking that a snake in the grass is you and so not being able to separate object from subject.  There is a mystery here which goes very deep and cannot be entered into now – safe to say that this Work teaches that mankind is under a definite hypnotic force to keep it asleep and prevent it from waking up.  I will give one hint of this from another esoteric source.  It is said in Issaiah:  “The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes.  (Is. XXIX 10)  And in the New Testament:  “This people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are full of hearing and their eyes they have closed, lest haply they should perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears,  and understand with their heart . . .”  (Matt, XIII 15)  This Work merely says that Man is asleep and that we are born asleep into a world of sleeping people who are kept asleep and spend their time in killing one another.  Now the realization that we are many and not one, that the quality of our Being is characterized by multiplicity instead of unity, belongs to a stage in the journey called “awakening from sleep” which can end in a man being born again – that is, finding and becoming Real ‘I’.  What then undertakes this journey?  Those ‘I’s in a man which have the most understanding.  We come, then, to the idea that our different ‘I’s are not on the same level.  Some ‘I’s are very small in understanding – very mean, very poor, envious and stupid.  Some ‘I’s are bigger, and so on.  When a man begins to hear the Work with both ears, and to observe himself in accordance with its instructions, there gather around Observing ‘I’ all ‘I’s who wish to understand more.  This collection of ‘I’s is on a higher level that the ‘I’s that dealt with everyday life and its affairs.  This collection of  ‘I’s that form round Observing ‘I’ is called Deputy-Steward and if they are strong enough to persist and fight against all these negative and disbelieving ‘I’s that attack them a further stage is called “Steward”.  This is the herald of Real ‘I’.  So we can put them in this way:  Observing ‘I’, Deputy-Steward, Steward, Real ‘I’, in order of ascent.I said last time that one should try to observe and study the history of different ‘I’s in ourselves.  Some people undertake to write their biographies.  But in the autobiographies they always take themselves as one ‘I’, moving through Time.  They should write instead the history of different ‘I’s in them.  Now our most mechanical ‘I’s live in small parts of centres – in the basement of oneself.  They are usually  quite unintelligent and have no understanding.  They belong to the lowest level of our Being.  They take charge of us most of the day, speak through our mouths and call themselves ‘I’.  They are rigid, always saying the same things in the same way.  Towards the end of life it is often noticeable how the better and more understanding ‘I’s in a person get disconnected and there remain only the most petty and tiresome ‘I’s.  This is impossible to understand unless we realize that a person is not one ‘I’, but many ‘I’s, and that these ‘I’s are on different levels, as on the wires on a telegraph-pole.  In this Work one should aim not to go always in company with negative, weak, vain, poor ‘I’s, for they spoil everything, and produce bad, inner states.  It is a common thing that while we have no power of making ourselves happy we have considerable powers of separating from unhappy states once we begin to understand  what self-observation and non-identifying mean.  But all this belongs to awakening from sleep so perhaps it is not so curious in view of that goal.                                     

--           From “Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky – Volume 3” by Maurice Nicoll.  This talk was given at Great Amwell House, October 4, 1947

Something to keep in mind with Self-observation, and the need for Self-Remembering also.

I've been doing some extensive reading on the topic of Self-Observation- with respect to the teachings of Nicoll, R.Nottingham, Ouspensky, Colin etc.


These teachings on self-observation place it at the 'top' of the 'to do' list in terms of Work (Fourth Way) practices and activities. In fact, these teachings teach that it is pretty much all that should be done for a number of years, at least until the 'Observing-I' has been strengthened to some degree, and a large number of observations or 'photographs' have been stored, which describe the 'machine' at work. To aid in this, reminders may be set up (such as new habits), which can help us remember to perform this primary aim. No attempt should be made to change or judge what is observed, or to modify the machine's behaviour in any way.


As a result of the above, the idea is that our mechanical habits and nature would slowly be fully made conscious and of itself transform into a more intentional nature, a "Real-I" having been formed in us. Our real Self becoming more apparent, as opposed to what it is buried under.


These schools, in particular Nicoll, and R.Nottingham, assert that Self-Remembering shouldn't be attempted at all, and that it is rather an exalted and rare state, which may occur here and there, as a result of repeated Self-observation.


--


This is all well and good, and I tend to agree with the above. Self-observation is of importance at the start of any practice in 'knowing-oneself', and as a foundation for Self-Remembering. A certain degree of concentration or attention power is needed. And Self-observation can be safely carried out for a good length of time, starting with external observations on the physical body, and tending to internal (psychological) observations of our emotional states etc.


However, there is a slight danger here, and an omission that these above teachings tend to leave out- and which history seems to attest- to their own detriment.
And that is that an over-emphasis on 'self-observation' can easily lead to 'self-absorption' related to one's internal states, external habits, and external reactions. This is especially so, if one omits completely the practice of Self-Remembering.


The student can so easily get lost in 'self-observation' precisely because it is not-Self, and in fact, all of these observations are completely external to WHAT one really IS.
As a result, one could spend years observing the machine and its parts, and still not be any closer to a direct encounter with one's Self (ie. Self-remembering) or the 'big picture' (ie nondual awareness), apart from some vague feeling or random encounter. One could at best remain self-absorbed in an endless practice focusing on phenomenal objects- a practice which has reached its full potential- or at worst go completely insane (which actually happened to more than a few Fourth Way students and teachers tragically).




This is why the 'Direct Pointing' teachings such as those on Self-inquiry (Ramana Maharshi), or the Direct Path (Sri Atmananda) or other direct pointing methods such as Zen, or Mahamudra etc.,  are so valuable at a certain stage in the path (and yet are often given after a certain time spent in fruitful practice). These direct pointing applications offer the possibility of an encounter with what is beyond or at the origin of the merely external (phenomenal), and onto That which is actually doing the observing. Since the 'Observer' is already present, it does not need to be built (contrary to most Fourth Way teachings). Further, the original Fourth Way teachings, and Gurdjieff in particular, often mentioned explicitly that Self-remembering needed to be done in conjunction with Self-observation- otherwise, self-observation would largely be useless (this fact is often ignored in the above stream).


Therefore it is of big importance to actually learn to practice, and fit in, some work on direct self-attentiveness (Self-Remembering, or Self-inquiry etc.), along with one's practice of the observation of one's 'not-self' characteristics (ie. done during self-observation, vipassana, noting, mindfulness, etc.).


DP.

"The Work begins with dividing one's attention. If you have had no experience in this practice, try the following: While being aware of your external experience become concurrently aware of your inner state. This internal awareness is the beginning of self-observation. Self-observation is the foundation effort in this process, its value cannot be overestimated, and all development proceeds from that point. You must intentionally turn a portion of your attention inward in order to observe yourself. It is essential not to judge or criticize what one observes in oneself. These emotions will distort what one observes and inhibit progress."

- Rebecca Nottingham. Self-observation in the Fourth Way.

Self-Observation by Red Hawk.

I both love and hate this book. 

First the good points- the author seems to be speaking from experience, and seems to have given his own unique account of many Fourth Way concepts, as well as the main focus on Self-Observation. The practical advice to use the body/sensations with self-observation is useful, and his principles are good, common sense material. Someone who had read all of the original Fourth Way material would likely get something from this book. 
The insistence on not changing any of the observations is great advice also, essential, and not really spelled out in much Fourth Way material.

Now, the bad- there's just too much theologising and waffle throughout the book, even though it is small. Talk of the Earth being a school or kindergarten for the soul, with people here to 'learn lessons' is trite. Talk of the soul being an 'angelic being' from the 'angelic world' which descends 'into the body' is pure theory, and might suit some, but is certainly not Fourth Way material. After each chapter, the poetry, although original, was completely unrelated to the prior chapter(?!) And lastly, and probably a little concerning from my POV is that the author equates Self-Remembering with self-observation while being attentive to sensations in the body. This isn't Self-Remembering. This is still self-observation. Just observing body sensations or going around throughout the day while being centred in the body or on some 'point' (such as the belly) still isn't self-remembering-- it's useful no doubt, but won't bring about a complete gaining of impressions of the _whole_ self. There's really no distinction here between these methods and any mindfulness practice one can pick up from a community centre meditation seminar. A little more directed practical advice and/or exercises on the topic could have come in useful. 

Overall, still worth a read for those interested in the topic.. and I maintain my 4/5 rating.

Self-remembering as an entry into nondual awareness.

(From "Views from the Real World"):

"Question: What is a higher state of being?

(Gurdjieff:) Answer: There are several states of consciousness:
1) sleep, in which our machine still functions but at very low pressure.
2) waking state, as we are at this moment. These two are all that the average man knows.
3) what is called self-consciousness. It is the moment when a man is aware both of himself and of his machine. We have it in flashes, but only in flashes. There are moments when you become aware not only of what you are doing but also of yourself doing it.

You see both 'I' and the 'here' of 'I am here'— both the anger and the 'I' that is angry. Call this self-remembering, if you like.
Now when you are fully and always aware of the 'I' and what it is doing and which 'I' it is—you become conscious of yourself. Self-consciousness is the third state."

----

From the above we can see that what Gurdjieff is actually pointing to is a state of consciousness (or a state of mind) in which we are aware of both (simultaneously) the apparent individual self (the machine, the constructed personality) and also one's state of being as nothing other than pure inclusive awareness. This awareness, which is our own natural state, MUST be attributeless- since there is nothing here other than awareness (pure "I"), which is normally completely fixated on the individual self (the machine), and the known world.

A stepping stone is often given, of having the 'practitioner' become aware of themselves throughout the day, performing an action- ie. a dual observation of both the action, and the "I" performing the action. However, this isn't the end goal (the "third state") mentioned above. In this scenario there is still a doing and a doer (although at least complete object-identification, which is our usual but abnormal state of mind, has been reduced). 

The hope is that the realization will occur (naturally, and when it does), in which it is discovered that the action, the "I" performing the action, and everything observed is seen or known from another vantage point that is beyond the known (and the knower!), but which paradoxically, also includes both. This is none other than nondual awareness, or what Gurdjieff calls 'self-consciousness' above.

Self-observation as a practice.

The Keyword for the day is "Self-observation" or "self-observation".

Note- There is no difference in spelling 'Self' with a capital S or 'self' with a small 's'. Countless books seemed to have confused the point beyond repair, in order to stress the point that there is a 'true' self (Self) and a false self (self). However, practically speaking, there is only one findable self- the self that you are right now, which is aware of this sentence. Inquiry into your self, right now, always works (regardless of what you think that 'self' is).

"Self-observation"

As a verbal cue, we can use this word today to bring us back to our self (and ourselves apparently, for as Gurdjieff said, we appear as multiple "I"s all day long).

"Self-observation" can be done either by focusing on a part, or a function or a segment of ourselves, or by focusing on ourself as a 'whole'. Either way is OK. Focusing on a part or function (or "centre" in Fourth Way terms) is normally done first, since it is easier to gather attention or concentration on a specific external part, rather than the whole. However, if we find it easy to do, it is probably more efficacious to focus our observation on the whole, which includes all parts (that we think constitute 'us').

Self-observation brings me back to myself, breaks identification of the mind with objects, and strengthens the 'witnessing' power of the mind. Ultimately, it enables us to remember ourselves, or 'self-remember', which often takes enormous energy and can only be done a few seconds at a time. With repeated self-observation (and especially during quiet sitting sessions), self-remembering can happen more frequently, for longer periods of time, and automatically throughout the day.

Practice: Verbally repeat the phrase 'self-observation' today, and then rest in some quiet self-observation for a few moments. This can be done at any time or any place. Alternately, it can be done on the hour throughout the waking day.

Gurdjieff's system simplified in a page.

Having been a student of Gurdjieff's system (or Gurdjieff-Ouspensky) at some point, I felt compelled to write this little piece in the hopes that it could save some people a few decades of work.

Gurdjieff's system (as outlayed by Ouspensky probably most concisely, and as taken up by various other Fourth Way groups somewhat mistakenly) can be summarised as follows, with the main points as:

1. Self-observation
- which as the name implies, is simply the development of attention and concentration using the body, mind, and emotions as immediately available objects for focus.
- people spend years observing (and trying to observe) their thoughts, feelings, and sensations, though the practice in essence is simply to develop some basic degree of concentration and focus which is to be used on the next point.
- this basically serves the same purpose as any "meditation" or "awareness" practice, such as vipassana, noting, mindfulness etc.
- there is an obvious me-as-subject and it-as-object focus. Nothing esoteric here.

2. Self-remembering
- this practice trips up most people, and some spend YEARS attempting to get it, or work out what the hell Gurdjieff / Ouspensky even mean by the practice. Still others interpret it (wrongly) as "self-observation", which it is not (see above).
- the practice merely flows on from having developed the objectives in (1).
- the practice, in essence, is nothing more or less than directing the mind (or focus) onto the subjective feeling of "I"- which is the "I-thought" or "me"-as-a-separate-self feeling/thought. It is simply the focused observation and awareness of oneself that we all automatically take on from childhood, and which forms a seemingly concrete (but mistaken) identity as "I".
- generally, it is done as much as possible, throughout the day, and one needs to get a very clear and definite feel for one's own identity as "I"-as-a-separate-self or doer of actions or instigator of all other thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
- going back again and again to this feeling of "me" or "I" (as a separate individual) IS the practice of Self-remembering.
- "Self" here refers to the ego, or concept of "me" as an individual and autonomous being. (Which in Gurdjieff's system is the 'man is a machine but doesn't know it' idea).
- This serves the same function as all direct path enquiries, such as self-enquiry (vichara).
- Self willed effort and "practice" ends at this point.

3. Beyond (Seeing through the false self)
- Hopefully, at some point, the seeing happens (without any self-willed effort- and hence Gurdjieff's insistence that one cannot perform true Self-remembering), that the "I" feeling/identity is a completely assumed concept or entity in itself.
- The dropping of this assumption is the beginning (and end of assumed volitional) Liberation.

By employing (1) and later (2), in all manner of situations, and especially in times of turmoil (often intentionally introduced by Gurdjieff onto his students), it was hoped that the false self identity would eventually be seen through and done with. "Man is a machine", thus becomes completely true from the "Man Number 4" perspective.

Unfortunately, from what I've observed in Gurdjieff groups, most groups get hung up on (1), especially veering off into learning 'dances', exercises, tricks etc., and never even get to (2). For those that get to (2), the need for groups often falls away. For those in which (3) occurs, the whole game is up, and appreciation arises for this unique little system.

Amen.


(PS- I've intentionally left out the huge body of Gurdjieff/Ouspensky's cosmology and related theology, as detailed somewhat in "In Search of the Miraculous", "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson", and other books. Although this highly complex body of theory (mostly swiped from Theosophy, Sufism, Buddhism, Kashmiri Shavism, and Gurdjieff's own imagination) is interesting, it is doubtful as to any immediate practical value which could not be explained much more simply. Certainly, the foundation of any of its usefulness would have to lie again with (1) and (2) above, without which, it would be yet another interesting informational philosophy only. It is likely that the early students of Gurdjieff's system in Russia & Europe, who were enamoured with Theosophy and occultism, needed some form of intellectual meat (or carrot), in order to even get started with the more direct practices of (1) and (2), and in this, the whole philosophy side probably has some value. However, the temptation in getting completely lost in Fourth Way concepts and philosophy seems to have been one of the chief elements in the Fourth Way's own demise, and on a more darker side, the higher than average rate (in spiritual groups anyway) for personality cults to emerge from the use or misuse of that very philosophy-- hence my insistence on side-stepping this area completely).