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.

Mundane Right View in Buddhism and celebrating good action.

Some reflections on Mundane Right View in Buddhism and celebrating good (or wholesome) action:

Mundane right view in Buddhism is the understanding that actions have consequences, and that wholesome actions lead to happiness and unwholesome actions lead to suffering. It is also the recognition that there is a law of moral causation, called karma, that governs the results of our actions. Mundane right view is contrasted with supramundane right view, which is the direct insight into the true nature of reality, beyond the conventional notions of self and phenomena.

Celebrating when good action happens is a way of expressing gratitude and joy for the positive outcomes of our wholesome deeds. It is also a way of strengthening our motivation and confidence to continue on the path of virtue and wisdom. It's a great way to make use of psychological positive reinforcement as well.

Celebrating when good action happens is not a form of attachment or pride, but rather a skillful means of cultivating wholesome mental states and reinforcing the law of karma.

Effort vs Surrender

 

I have been reflecting on the dichotomy between Effort and Surrender recently.

Initially, Effort can be quite beneficial, especially when one feels disconnected. It provides the mind with a purpose and aids in developing valuable skills such as concentration, positive habits, and ethical behavior. 

However, as time progresses, Effort may transform into an obstacle or create a metaphorical “wall” that hinders further insights. In such cases, Surrender can prove to be immensely valuable. Surrender allows us to release ingrained patterns, overcome ignorance, and intuitively embrace “grace” or naturalness. It enables us to perceive reality beyond the confines of our ego/mind’s fixed perspective. 

Even on a smaller scale, finding the right balance between Effort and Surrender during contemplation is crucial. This balance ensures that we avoid excessive rigidity while also preventing excessive slack or relaxation.

Experiences come and go. Consciousness remains the same.

 

"It came as a flash and disappeared as such. That which has a beginning must also end. Only when the ever-present consciousness is realized will it be permanent. Consciousness is indeed always with us. Everyone knows ‘I am!’ No one can deny his own being. The man in deep slumber is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body; there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of his body; there is body-consciousness. Therefore, the difference lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in the Real Consciousness. The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These limitations are the bondage; the feeling ‘The body is I’ is the error. This false sense of ‘I’ must go. The real ‘I’ is always there. It is here and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is, must also persist forever. That which appears anew will also be lost." (Ramana Maharshi, Talks, 96).

The quote talks about how temporary experiences of consciousness are not the same as the true realization of our own being.

The quote says that sometimes we may have glimpses of apparent changes in consciousness or states of mind that come and go quickly. These are not lasting or satisfying, because anything that has a beginning also has an end. The only way to be truly free and happy is to recognize the consciousness that is always present and never changes. This is our real nature, our true 'I'.

The quote also compares the states of deep sleep and waking. In deep sleep, we are not aware of our body or anything else. In waking, we become aware of our body and the world. But this does not mean that our consciousness has changed. It is the same consciousness in both states. The difference is that in waking, we identify with the body and its limitations. This is the cause of our suffering and ignorance. We need to let go of this false sense of 'I' and realize the true 'I' that is always here and now. This 'I' does not come and go, it is eternal and infinite.

Is a teacher necessary in the nondual teachings?

 “It is earnestness that will take you through, not cleverness - your own or another’s.”

― Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Is a teacher necessary in the nondual teachings?

Nondual teachings are a form of spiritual inquiry that aim to reveal the true nature of reality and the self. They are based on the premise that there is no separation between the subject and the object, the observer and the observed, the self and the other. Nondual teachings challenge the conventional dualistic view of reality that assumes a distinction between the inner and the outer, the personal and the impersonal, the relative and the absolute.

One of the common questions that arise in the context of nondual teachings is whether a teacher is necessary or not. Some people may argue that a teacher is essential, as they can guide, support, and challenge the seeker along the path of awakening. They can point out the pitfalls, misconceptions, and blind spots that may hinder or obscure the recognition of one's true nature. They can also offer feedback, validation, and encouragement to help the seeker integrate and embody their realization in daily life.

Others may contend that a teacher is not necessary, as they may create dependency, authority, or hierarchy that may interfere with the direct experience of reality. They may also impose their own views, beliefs, or interpretations that may limit or distort the seeker's understanding of nonduality. They may also have their own flaws, biases, or agendas that may compromise their integrity or authenticity as a teacher. Furthermore, some people may claim that there is no need for a teacher, as one's true nature is always present and accessible within oneself. They may suggest that one can rely on their own intuition, insight, or inner guidance to discover and realize their true nature. Some teachers openly admit that the whole purpose of a teacher is only to point out the 'inner teacher' that each apparent individual innately contains (or actually is).

So, is a teacher necessary in the nondual teachings? There is no definitive answer to this question, as different seekers may have different needs, preferences, and experiences. Some may benefit from having a teacher, while others may not. Some may need a teacher for a certain period of time, while others may need one for longer or shorter durations. Some may find a teacher in a person, while others may find a teacher in a book, a video, a podcast, or even in nature. Ultimately, the question of whether a teacher is necessary or not is secondary to the question of whether one is sincere, open, and willing to inquire into their true nature and reality. As long as one has this genuine aspiration and curiosity, they will find their way to the truth, with or without a teacher. 

Why you should probably write stuff down and free up some attentional space for creativity or contemplative activity.

 

Attentional space is the mental capacity we have to focus on different things at the same time. It is limited and can be affected by stress, distractions, or multitasking. One way to manage our attentional space is to write down on paper what is occupying it. This can help us to prioritize, organize, and delegate our tasks and responsibilities. Writing can also reduce the cognitive load and free up some attentional space for more creative or complex activities.

The concept of attentional space is a term used in cognitive psychology to describe the amount of information that can be processed by the brain at any given moment.

The concept was first introduced by William James in his book “The Principles of Psychology” in 1890. James described attentional space as the amount of information that can be held in consciousness at one time. The concept has since been expanded upon by other psychologists and cognitive scientists. The idea has since been used in a number of productivity type books by various authors such as Chris Bailey.

Should we focus on the I-thought / ego or on pure awareness during self-enquiry?

 

Self-enquiry is a method of meditation and introspection that aims to discover the true nature of one's self. It involves turning one's attention inward away from external objects and asking the question "Who am I?" or "What am I?". There are different approaches to self-enquiry, and one of them is to focus on the I-thought or the ego, which is the sense of individuality and identity that arises in the mind. This is one's every day experience of being an individual. It is the sense of being that seems to wake up in the morning. 

Another approach is to focus on pure awareness, which is the background consciousness that witnesses all thoughts, feelings and sensations. It is ever-present as one's beingness, presence and sense of existence itself.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Focusing on the I-thought can help to dissolve the attachments and identifications that cause suffering and ignorance, but it can also reinforce the sense of separation and create a subtle sense of duality. 

Focusing on pure awareness can help to experience the peace and bliss of one's true nature, but it can also bypass the psychological issues and emotional wounds that need healing and integration. Spiritual bypassing is a common occurrence for those that seek the teachings as a way to transcend and bypass every day challenges that face the individual. Therefore, it is important to balance both approaches and use them according to one's needs and preferences. Ultimately, self-enquiry leads to the realization that the I-thought and pure awareness are not separate, but expressions of the same reality or nondual foundation only.