_____

[Dekalb_Blues]

Is he a GI like Military?

  I.G.W., you are very intuitively adept to penetrate this Wanderer-gone-bad's cunning camouflage! 

But-- beware his evil hypnotic gaze!

 

Here he is in an early photo subverting an innocent pussy-cat, attended by two hell-hounds:

 


You know, I actually was in a Gurdjieffian esoteric school thirty-five years ago; the teacher was a quite interesting and accomplished man, a very learned archeologist (then in his 80s) who, as a teen-ager, had studied under Gurdjieff in France in the 1920s.* This learning experience was a positive one for me, I think, for it allowed me to recognize and begin to deal with a certain visceral complex of deeply-seated cultural conditionings in myself which -- as in all our cases -- if left unexamined and in untempered control, reduces one to little more than a predictably self-deluded (and thus remotely exploitable) herd animal, a sort of animate automaton totally in the grip of groupthink. Now, it stands to reason that this kind of austerely objective, unflattering view of man's peculiar susceptibility to his own self-enchanting relative stupidity (and thus his almost unreasonable open-ness to malign manipulation) does not sit well with people who are... well, self-enchantingly relatively stupid (and thus almost unreasonably open to malign manipulation). Certain other kinds of people have no problem at all taking aboard this basic fact of terrestrial life, and then from this humility-inducing starting-point, engaging realistically with the Sufis' current diffusion of their amazingly advanced and humane scientific/technological/artistic/philosophic culture, with its eminently useful framework of knowledge for properly self-referencing one's mortal, terrestrial self in a world like this one, in this kind of time, oriented within an immense greater reality with its own great design of being and becoming. Their society existed in the days of ancient Egypt when the illustrious Akhenaten spearheaded the Ra-cultural diffusion of monotheism, a startling and radical innovation in thought; in all times and places on this planet they have worked to serve the One in certain specific ways unique to their specialist skillset, adapting universal truths to specific time/place/social-grouping needs and limitations, and teaching humans how to optimally approach the high-energy domain of advanced knowledge so as to sustain its effects and become truly sentient and effective beings, and not to amateurishly be deranged by it so as to become useless pseudomystics, who tend to be big pains in sensible peoples' necks, faux-spirituality-wise. In Ra-esque terms, it is as if the most powerful Wanderers incarnate on Earth have, through the millennia, intelligently joined together in a supremely effective positive-polarity social memory complex which has protected mankind's potential against tremendous opposition, while serving as the nucleus from which Man's future species-wide positive social memory complex should evolve. Which is no big deal... except for being the whole bloody point of our being in form at all in this density, on this sorrow-wracked planet! If this sounds unbelievable, remember that most people who support so-called "consensus reality" would consider (rightfully, from within their worldview) the Ra's existence to be pure fantasy, and we here to be crazily self-deluded ones babbling frightful self-validating cultworthy nonsense of the kind commonly heard when paranoid schizophrenics concoct extravagant cosmic sagas of inter-galactically  battling empires, complete with exotic higher densities and dimensions, aliens, gods... all swirling around them personally. Well, as the Sufis say, "The dogs bark-- but the caravan moves on."

* http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/northeon12.htm

Yes, I went to a Fifth Way school and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!:




Oh, well. Live and learn.





And don't even get me started on that super-fraud, that upstart, the late Idries Shah Sayyed! Some people are just beyond the pale.



"Better the demon which makes you improve than the angel who threatens." --- Ditto

The kittéh-subversion angle is always the dead giveaway of that old black-magic sheer-quintessence-of-evil diabolically in play:



When the Waters Were Changed

Once upon a time Khidr, the teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed, with different water, which would drive men mad.
Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water and went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.
On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.
When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.
At first, he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKzcdz68F6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRKXsJHRBq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5svUTE6PgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7nmFU1eAJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKgY5WMHtU
https://idriesshahfoundation.org/
http://mystical-faction.blogspot.co.uk/2...m-for.html

Cheers!  Fiat lux!    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY3aiOXkzUk 





From these stars like inverted candles, from these blue awnings of the sky
There has come forth a wondrous people, that the mysteries may be revealed
-- Jalaludin Rumi (13th century Sufi and poet)
https://vimeo.com/25996242



Ancient Sufi symbol, the naqsh or design


 

[Dekalb_Blues]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2511...cHumor.pdf
http://i-c-r.org.uk/publications/monogra...ve.php#M47
http://lucidity.com/nasrudin.shtml
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=humor

Looked at in one way, the spiritual quest for truth, love, light, and so on can be perceived as working on improving your order of self-referential ability to fully see yourself as you're busy being yourself busily being yourself in media res, in vivo, in the form of an oh-so-vulnerably squishable and devourable and ephemeral critter ascended basically from an ape, yet capable of visions of glory, of infinity, of eternity, of being that ineffable One... that is, enabling yourself to see the joke of the thing... after all, we're all already in the amusing-ourselves mode on a grand cosmic scale! (according to a certain interested superorganismic entity):

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWNnuKOXQhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF-CkMpQtlY , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RicaXxiU1WM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIJ92NbW82M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX1jMmfG2Xk

[herald]

Yin Yang, you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff, so I joined this forum to respond.
Your zeal to condemn way outpaces your knowledge of this man and his works and I pray that you cease misinforming people.
Your tirade contains no examples of his outstanding biography, and your only quote from him is actually from a poem written by the wife of one of Gurdjieff's most loyal companions, in jealous rage.
You do quote from some hack on supernatural figures with giddy enthusiasm, however, while turning away curious seekers on this forum of a man whose entire life was dedicated helping others understand the genuine human need for service to others (which he called being parktdlog duty), in order to graduate (which he called transform).
I am so sorry that you completely misunderstood his great work and that you were mislead by the combination of not knowing enough about P.D. Ouspensky and his relationship with Gurdjieff and by reading the work of modern scam artists -especially when there are dozens of books by him and by people who knew him and worked with him.

[WanderingOZ]

[quote='herald' pid='210631' dateline='1470530283']
P.D. Ouspensky and his relationship with Gurdjieff

Hi 'Herald', I read a little from their books a long time ago. I did find Gurdjieff a little confusing, but interesting. Ouspensky on the other hand was a lot easier to read. Both authers where ok and insightful I thought. Not applicable to me at the time because I was taking a different road but ok.

WanderingOZ

[YinYang]

Yin Yang, you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff, so I joined this forum to respond.
Your zeal to condemn way outpaces your knowledge of this man and his works and I pray that you cease misinforming people.
Your tirade contains no examples of his outstanding biography, and your only quote from him is actually from a poem written by the wife of one of Gurdjieff's most loyal companions, in jealous rage.
You do quote from some hack on supernatural figures with giddy enthusiasm, however, while turning away curious seekers on this forum of a man whose entire life was dedicated helping others understand the genuine human need for service to others (which he called being parktdlog duty), in order to graduate (which he called transform).  
I am so sorry that you completely misunderstood his great work and that you were mislead by the combination of not knowing enough about P.D. Ouspensky and his relationship with Gurdjieff and by reading the work of modern scam artists -especially when there are dozens of books by him and by people who knew him and worked with him.

Truth is not defamatory.

[herald]

Ignorance is not bliss. When extolled as wisdom is is treachery and poison.

[YinYang]

I have no desire to continue discussing Gurdjieff, I have shared sufficiently for anyone to make up their own mind. And I especially have no desire to get into a mudslinging contest with one of his true believers...

[herald]

Excellent, Yin Yang, I will take it from here, though my introduction as "one of his true believers" is ironically a fallacy called "Poisoning the well" I hope you don't do that every time you debate.
For anyone interested, I have read the entire collected works of Mr Gurdjieff three times, as per his recommendation in order to more deeply absorb the meaning of his writing. He was born in the late 1800s and grew up under harsh conditions in a war riddled part of the middle east. He had a very loving family and an Orthodox Christian upbringing. As a very young man he was independent enough to travel on his own, by foot and was taken in by a few of the remaining groups that were originally called the Essenes ( Law of One readers will recall Ra discussing the Akashic Records being accessed by Edgar Cayce- Mr. Cayce reported that Jesus was born into a community following this spiritual tradition ). Following his well documented course of travel in biographies, we learn about the various ancient teachings that were given to him as the wars began their annihilation of the surviving members.
In his later life, Gurdjieff struggled to support dozens of people who were moving as refugees after the horrific takedown of the Tsar of Russia and his family. He made money buying and selling rugs and art, teaching sacred dance and earlier, by performing hypnosis to help alcoholics recover and repairing small machines. He is said in dozens of biographies to have worked tirelessly, and always with the intent to help others who wished for a better understanding of their human potential.
The central core of his work is that as we are ... due to unfortunate circumstances... we do not easily and automatically transform (what the LOO calls "become harvestable"). In fact I calculate the so-called harmonious evolution of the Ra group as harvesting .169 or thereabouts.
The key to this transformation as it turns out in his teaching, is exactly this "service to others" that pervades the Ra material. There are two minor differences of perspective in Gurdjieff's work. One is that he says the wish for this transformation must be imperative and acted upon. The other is that he does not have any offering for those not seeking service to others.
I have also read extensively the works of P.D. Ouspensky, J.G. Bennett, and others associated with what is called "The Great Work" and will be happy to answer other any questions about him.

[herald]

P.D. Ouspensky and his relationship with Gurdjieff

Hi 'Herald', I read a little from their books a long time ago. I did find Gurdjieff a little confusing, but interesting. Ouspensky on the other hand was a lot easier to read. Both authers where ok and insightful I thought. Not applicable to me at the time because I was taking a different road but ok.

WanderingOZ

Gurdjieff would like your way to change the world -except for the random part- he was into discipline, but also humorous and spontaneous too. The children of the community he established all loved him.

[YinYang]

though my introduction as "one of his true believers" is ironically a fallacy called "Poisoning the well"

With all due respect, but 4th way schools are notorious for being some of the most psychologically damaging cults out there, and if you start a post with "you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff", then you'l forgive me for placing you in the true believer category. I happen to know ex 4th way students, who today are recovering cult members... anyone can do a Google search for themselves and read the innumerable survivor stories and tales of post traumatic stress disorder.

Fortunately it's a free will universe, and you are welcome to attempt to recruit. Best of luck to you.

[herald]

Yin Yang, It troubles me that you would sully this forum with trash novella substitutions for biography. The hack you quote with the misleading title of "P.D. Ouspensky" apparently has a reputation for dubious research. Consider what Paul Krassner says about your overquoted "source": "Lachman chooses to focus on the negative aspects of a mass awakening that provided hope, inspiration, joyfulness and a sense of community to countless young people. In the process, he resorts to ... lying generalizations . . . Marred by a dependence on secondary research . . . and even takes metaphors literally to express his prejudice."
Prejudice, that would be " preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience".
Perhaps you would like to take your talk about P. D. Ouspensky to another topic forum. But as far as Ouspensky's relationship with the topic of this post goes: Try an internet search on the term "Ouspensky Renounced Gurdjieff" and the only items that pop up are from an "anonymous" blogger called Gurdjieff-Con and the has-been rock and roll guitar player who cashes in by slandering the names of historical figures.
Even though depressed, alcoholic Ouspensky, didn't like Gurdjieff' teaching the dance movements and the personal work- (he wanted this to be a fixed system that was taught in the classroom) he NEVER renounced Mr. Gurdjieff.
You said you were done here, Yin Yang, Good day.

[YinYang]

It is not even necessary to venture into the land of Gurdjieff detractors and Gurdjieff apologists, and he said this and he said that... etc. etc. Gurdjieff apologists will always try to discredit Gurdjieff critics, that goes without saying, as you are doing in your post. Since he died in 1949 we unfortunately have to rely on the accounts of other people, and then it just becomes a matter of who you choose to believe.

Gurdjieff's own words makes him incompatible with the Law of One:

No 'faith' is required on the fourth way; on the contrary, faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. On the fourth way a man must satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told.

In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.
You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

But hey, we know now that you admire Gurdjieff, and I don't. So let's just agree to disagree. I have shared my findings and views already, so people can take it or leave it. Free will is paramount in the Law of One.

[herald]

though my introduction as "one of his true believers" is ironically a fallacy called "Poisoning the well"

With all due respect, but 4th way schools are notorious for being some of the most psychologically damaging cults out there, and if you start a post with "you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff", then you'l forgive me for placing you in the true believer category. I happen to know ex 4th way students, who today are recovering cult members... anyone can do a Google search for themselves and read the innumerable survivor stories and tales of post traumatic stress disorder.

Fortunately it's a free will universe, and you are welcome to attempt to recruit. Best of luck to you.

I am not here to recruit followers... I came here because you were spreading untruths. Are the founders of this forum not heros for you? How would you feel about someone quoting pages from a single source that was set against them, and making a living out of it?
I am glad that you took down your extensive quote by Gary Lachman. I will keep my post up so that others may see what you did here.
Now on to your newest deception about so-called "fourth way" schools: Gurdjieff died in 1945. In the seventies and eighties dozens of wacky schools cropped up, that latched on to the PD OUSPENSKY term "fourth Way. I am sorry that your friend got involved in all of that. This is why it is best to be discerning about one's sources.

[herald]

It is not even necessary to venture into the land of Gurdjieff detractors and Gurdjieff apologists, and he said this and he said that... etc. etc. Gurdjieff apologists will always try to discredit Gurdjieff critics, that goes without saying, as you are doing in your post. Since he died in 1949 we unfortunately have to rely on the accounts of other people, and then it just becomes a matter of who you choose to believe.

Gurdjieff's own words makes him incompatible with the Law of One:

No 'faith' is required on the fourth way; on the contrary, faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. On the fourth way a man must satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told.

In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.
You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

But hey, we know now that you admire Gurdjieff, and I don't. So let's just agree to disagree. I have shared my findings and views already, so people can take it or leave it. Free will is paramount in the Law of One.

[herald]

It is not even necessary to venture into the land of Gurdjieff detractors and Gurdjieff apologists, and he said this and he said that... etc. etc. Gurdjieff apologists will always try to discredit Gurdjieff critics, that goes without saying, as you are doing in your post. Since he died in 1949 we unfortunately have to rely on the accounts of other people, and then it just becomes a matter of who you choose to believe.

Gurdjieff's own words makes him incompatible with the Law of One:

No 'faith' is required on the fourth way; on the contrary, faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. On the fourth way a man must satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told.

In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.
You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

But hey, we know now that you admire Gurdjieff, and I don't. So let's just agree to disagree. I have shared my findings and views already, so people can take it or leave it. Free will is paramount in the Law of One.

OMG Did you just lay down some more disinformation up here also. TAKE THIS DOWN BEFORE YOU RUIN YOUR REPUTATION HERE.
The book you attribute to Gurdjieff- is written by OUSPENSKY.   Share your feelings, of course, but don't pass off insulting lies and misinformation as good advice to seekers of truth!

1945. And- by the way there are plenty of books written by Gurdjieff himself.

[YinYang]

I came here because you were spreading untruths.

Point them out please. And I hope you realise it's not going to be plausible if you continue to call every critic a liar, as Gurdjieffians are prone to do. In Monsieur Gurdjieff's case, there is no shortage of critics, as this thread shows.

Are the founders of this forum not heros for you?

No I don't engage in hero worship, and I don't put people on pedestals. That's a sure recipe for disappointment. In fact the philosophy espoused on this forum discourages any exalted status, it's all about egalitarianism. Another significant difference with Gurdjieff, who encourages hierarchy.

How would you feel about someone quoting pages from a single source that was set against them, and making a living out of it?

I have never had the desire to defend any spiritual teachers, who all undoubtedly had/have many critics. I love free speech. That's perhaps something you might wish to take into consideration...

I am glad that you took down your extensive quote by Gary Lachman.

I don't know which quote you refer to, since I haven't taken anything down.

I will keep my post up so that others may see what you did here.

Lol!

Now on to your newest deception about so-called "fourth way" schools: Gurdjieff died in 1945. In the seventies and eighties dozens of wacky schools cropped up, that latched on to the PD OUSPENSKY term "fourth Way. I am sorry that your friend got involved in all of that. This is why it is best to be discerning about one's sources.

No, there you are wrong I'm afraid. And that's the beauty of the internet, anyone can easily do their own research. The 4th way schools are still abundant, and still as damaging as they always have been. There are plenty of cult recovery forums out there, and none of those stories are from the 70s and 80s. I also feel you are not disagreeing with me in good faith, I find you aggressive and trying really hard to discredit me, as Gurdjieffians do to critics.

But that goes with the territory if you are a critic, and Gurdjieff followers tend to be rather... let me be kind and say passionate.

Gurdjieff died in 1949 by the way.

[YinYang]

OMG Did you just lay down some more disinformation up here also. TAKE THIS DOWN BEFORE YOU RUIN YOUR REPUTATION HERE.
The book you attribute to Gurdjieff- is written by OUSPENSKY.   Share your feelings, of course, but don't pass off insulting lies and misinformation as good advice to seekers of truth!
1945. And- by the way there are plenty of books written by Gurdjieff himself.

Okaaaay... I can see we're not going to make much progress. Now you consider Gurdjieff's no. 1 pupil an invalid source. I remind you what Gurdjieff said when he read In Search of the Miraculous, "Ouspensky has a good memory", and Gurdjieff himself even had some of his students read parts of the book as part of their studies, so since it carried Gurdjieff's approval, we can regard it an accurate portrayal of the teaching. Come to think of it, I think this is where much of your anger comes from, since I was quite apologetic towards Ouspensky in this thread, and very critical of Gurdjieff, because "true" Gurdjieffians despise Ouspensky.... or sees him as a traitor of sorts.

Anyway I would also encourage you to remain calm, because at this point you are coming across as rather fanatical... sorry to say.

[Minyatur]

It is not even necessary to venture into the land of Gurdjieff detractors and Gurdjieff apologists, and he said this and he said that... etc. etc. Gurdjieff apologists will always try to discredit Gurdjieff critics, that goes without saying, as you are doing in your post. Since he died in 1949 we unfortunately have to rely on the accounts of other people, and then it just becomes a matter of who you choose to believe.

Gurdjieff's own words makes him incompatible with the Law of One:

No 'faith' is required on the fourth way; on the contrary, faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. On the fourth way a man must satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told.

In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.
You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

But hey, we know now that you admire Gurdjieff, and I don't. So let's just agree to disagree. I have shared my findings and views already, so people can take it or leave it. Free will is paramount in the Law of One.

Interestingly enough, I was thinking not too long ago that faith as being used in the Ra material seems to evoke a magical principle that cannot be correlated so much with the definition of the traditional word. This quote about how a little trust is needed for a little while is exactly how I understood the principle of faith in the Ra material, it is a bit like the act of doing instead of trying, stepping into a different and more magical perspective or state of mind. Faith is often misguided, people attribute wrongly their magical experience which does not prevent them from being experienced, because once experienced the magical confidence remains there, because it becomes known.

This is a bit how an initiatory experience works, or at least did in my case. It requires a little bit a trust which allows a sincere opening, and then the experience is beyond whether you believe or not, it is an actual experience that is happening and remain known to have happened. I'd understand why some could want to reject the use of a word like faith and try to define it as otherwise, whereas some like Ra probably lack a better word to transmit what they are trying to teach using our language.

To simplify things, faith very soon becomes actual experience which then makes the word "faith" less fitting, which is a bit what seems to be implied in the quotes shared above. I don't really know the author mentioned, but in this case I see more of a barrier upon language. It is a bit like when some channeling describe the word Love as being inadequate but still remains what is most fitting to describe what is tried to be shared with us. Love is a hint toward something we have no word for, just like I think faith is a hint to what is not the word "faith".

[WanderingOZ]

[quote='YinYang' pid='210665' dateline='1470605870']
So let's just agree to disagree. I have shared my findings and views already, so people can take it or leave it.

Strong personalities. lively debate. Interesting. I like it!
Walk well YinYang

WanderingOZ

[WanderingOZ]

[/quote]
Gurdjieff would like your way to change the world -except for the random part- he was into discipline.

I like to help anyone that comes into my sphere of influence when and if needed. But most of all it's the random act, I think, that leave the most impression. I'm quite sure that Gurdy' had done his share of random in his time.

WanderingOZ

[herald]

though my introduction as "one of his true believers" is ironically a fallacy called "Poisoning the well"

With all due respect, but 4th way schools are notorious for being some of the most psychologically damaging cults out there, and if you start a post with "you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff", then you'l forgive me for placing you in the true believer category. I happen to know ex 4th way students, who today are recovering cult members... anyone can do a Google search for themselves and read the innumerable survivor stories and tales of post traumatic stress disorder.

Fortunately it's a free will universe, and you are welcome to attempt to recruit. Best of luck to you.

Fourth way schools started in the 70's nothing to do with Gurdjieff,

[herald]

though my introduction as "one of his true believers" is ironically a fallacy called "Poisoning the well"

With all due respect, but 4th way schools are notorious for being some of the most psychologically damaging cults out there, and if you start a post with "you have slandered a hero of mine and your words from this forum were used against me in defense of my hero Mr Georges Gurdjieff", then you'l forgive me for placing you in the true believer category. I happen to know ex 4th way students, who today are recovering cult members... anyone can do a Google search for themselves and read the innumerable survivor stories and tales of post traumatic stress disorder.

Fortunately it's a free will universe, and you are welcome to attempt to recruit. Best of luck to you.

Fourth Way is Ouspensky, not Gurfjieff, They started in the seventies; nothing to do with Gurdjieff

[herald]

Yin Yang, You have leveled insults at me throughout this thread: "one of his true believers, fanatical, infantile, malicious, gurdjieffian, recruiter."
If you had said on this forum: Mr. Gurdjieff is an evil jerk! ...I would not be here, but you came across as an authority and your misinformation found its way to me. You have attributed quotes to Mr. Gurdjieff that he did not say, indeed an entire book that he did not write. when I pointed this out you attacked me and fourth way schools, which were not of his creation.
You extensively quote a has-been rock and roller-cum critic of the occult and also a man who was considered to be quite jealous of Gurdjieff, passing it off as verbatim.
Now you have skillfully passed of a "review" of The Gurdjieff Work (A book that I have actually read) as the book itself. The reviewer is none other that the anonymous Gurdjieff-Con blogger (Clear to me it's the same money hungry hack ex-rocker above).
Now you want to bring all of the ills of Sufism in order to further defame this great man.
You failed to bring a single actual quote of his into the forum.
I love free speech too, but slander is not free speech. "Sniffing out the evil" may be fun for you but it has dangerous karmic results if you are wrong.
You: "if we lived according to Gurdjieff's dictates, no-one would ever help another"- and Gurdjieff's central theme was service to others.
I'm sad to see you say that you don't have any heros you would defend against an onslaught of mistruths and misquotes. I consider it a service to reveal the tactics you have used here against a hero of mine. There are dozens of books by Georges Gurdjieff and people who knew him - before you lose all credibility in discussing his life further I suggest that you take a look at one or two of them, and not just copy and paste a review that was thrown together by a profit-driven critic.

[herald]

Gurdjieff would like your way to change the world -except for the random part- he was into discipline.

I like to help anyone that comes into my sphere of influence when and if needed. But most of all it's the random act, I think, that leave the most impression. I'm quite sure that Gurdy' had done his share of random in his time.

WanderingOZ
[/quote]

[YinYang]

Fourth way schools started in the 70's nothing to do with Gurdjieff,

Trying to separate 4th way schools from Gurdjieff is like trying to separate Scientology from L. Ron Hubbard. Everything to do with Gurdjieff reeks of mind control and cult indoctrination. In fact I am very happy that the internet is such a thorn in the side of these exploitative cults who try to keep their abuses a secret. Mind you, when it comes to secrecy, 4th way gets first prize! Gurdjieff demanded absolute secrecy from his disciples, as 4th way schools do to this day, since secrecy is central to the doctrine.

Yin Yang, You have leveled insults at me throughout this thread: "one of his true believers, fanatical, infantile, malicious, gurdjieffian, recruiter."

Let's just say your aggression and insults from the get go warranted Yin to make a guest appearance. I generally try and keep that to a minimum, but harmful cults and deceptive gurus make it a bit difficult.  And if you exhibit fanaticism, childishness, malice etc. expect to be called out on that. This conversation could have turned out very differently if you approached it in a decent manner.

If you had said on this forum: Mr. Gurdjieff is an evil jerk!

I'm afraid "Gurdjieff is an evil jerk!" does not help someone to disentangle themselves from his web of lies, and his web is particularly difficult to get out of. Only a meticulous and factual approach can be of any benefit. Gurdjieff had a brilliant mind, I mentioned that in this thread, but his philosophy was unmistakably left-hand-path, which is why it is taught today by Satanic and left-hand-path organisations, although he did attempt to ape positivity for the susceptible. Just the elitism alone... and this is a forum dedicated to the right-hand-path, so here we are... there is nothing wrong if anyone wants to follow the left-hand-path, the Creator blinks neither at the light nor the darkness, but don't try and pass it off as a right-hand-path philosophy.

I would not be here, but you came across as an authority and your misinformation found its way to me.

There you go again, I challenged you to point out the misinformation. And as for these words by Gurdjieff which you also deny he said:

But what is a woman, just nothing but a man's handkerchief. I need a new one every day. Let others for the washing pay.

Forgive me if I take the word of the wife one of his closest disciples, who knew him, above yours, who never met him. Here's her entire poem:

He calls himself, deluded man,
The Tiger of the Turkestan
And greater he than God or Devil
Eschewing good and preaching evil.
His followers whom he does glut on
Are for him naught but wool and mutton,
And they still come and sit agape
With Tiger's rage and Tiger's rape.
Why not, they say, The man's a god;
We have it on the sacred word.
His book will set the world on fire.
He says so - can God be a liar?
But what is a woman, says Gurdjieff,
Just nothing but a man's hankerchief.
I need a new one every day,
Let other for the washing pay.

Gurdjieff's misogyny is well known, this is just one example of many, not to mention his contempt for humans in general. He's also notorious for seducing his female disciples and fathering several illegitimate children.

You have attributed quotes to Mr. Gurdjieff that he did not say, indeed an entire book that he did not write. when I pointed this out you attacked me and fourth way schools, which were not of his creation.

As for the quote, see above, and do you honestly expect us to only critique him on his own books, and leave out the entire collection of memoirs by his disciples and critics? The most harmful of all the 4th way schools, was his own creation.

You extensively quote a has-been rock and roller-cum critic of the occult and also a man who was considered to be quite jealous of Gurdjieff, passing it off as verbatim.

If you want to discredit this source, you have to do a little better than that. Ad hominem attacks isn't going to lend you any credibility.

Now you have skillfully passed of a "review" of The Gurdjieff Work (A book that I have actually read) as the book itself

I remind you that I have read every single one of Gurdjieff's works, before I sent them up in flames. Beelzebub burned with a green flame, which was quite something. I even read his first obscure little number The Herald of Coming Good which he tried to sweep under the carpet.

The reviewer is none other that the anonymous Gurdjieff-Con blogger (Clear to me it's the same money hungry hack ex-rocker above).
Now you want to bring all of the ills of Sufism in order to further defame this great man.

This blogger is an ex 4th way school member, which makes him very qualified to speak on the matter. I salute him for speaking out.

I love free speech too, but slander is not free speech.

Again, truth is not defamatory.

"Sniffing out the evil" may be fun for you but it has dangerous karmic results if you are wrong.

On the topic of Monsieur Gurdjieff I'm not wrong.

You: "if we lived according to Gurdjieff's dictates, no-one would ever help another"- and Gurdjieff's central theme was service to others

If you think Gurdjieff's central theme was service to others, I suggest you go back to the drawing board. People don't suffer from PTSD after involvement with the positive polarity. This comment of mine was also in relation to another of his attempts to ape positivity while espousing negativity.

I'm sad to see you say that you don't have any heros you would defend against an onslaught of mistruths and misquotes.

Another attempt to discredit again... As for criticism, some of my favourite spiritual teachers had a fair chunk of criticism levelled against them, from Jiddu Krishnamurti to Alan Watts, to name just two. That's the world we live in. Silencing critics is definitely not an option. Krishnamurti's criticism came mostly from disgruntled cult members when he dissolved the cult which he was made the head of.

I consider it a service to reveal the tactics you have used here against a hero of mine.

And I consider it a service to lay the Emperor bare for all to see.

There are dozens of books by Georges Gurdjieff and people who knew him - before you lose all credibility in discussing his life further I suggest that you take a look at one or two of them, and not just copy and paste a review that was thrown together by a profit-driven critic.

I'm afraid reading only the memoirs by a number of his brainwashed flock defeats the purpose. I say to you again, bring facts, which will lend you more credibility, instead of ad hominem attacks.

[herald]

Wow you are really good at slicing and dicing up my words so that you can deceive readers easily.
Here I go... 1. You : Trying to separate (the KKK) from (Jesus) is like trying to separate Scientology from L. Ron Hubbard.
2. Let's just say your aggression and insults ( no citations)
3. If you want to discredit this source, you have to do a little better than that. Ad hominem attacks isn't going to lend you any credibility. (Of course I can discredit the source That is debate Ad hominem is what you have don to me My citation: "one of his true believers, fanatical, infantile, malicious, gurdjieffian, recruiter."
4.Your blogger went to a forth way school! Wow! hezanexpurt he is a has-been guitar player who makes money defaming people.
5. On the topic Monsieur Gurdjieff I'm not wrong. WOW! so are you for never completing a single book of his!!
6. You: "I suggest you go back to the drawing board." Keep in mind that I went there/ you did not.studied all of the material,you did not. You read a hit piece.
7. You said you had no heroes you would defend, now you list a couple/ make up your mind.
8. I consider it a service to speak out against Gurdjieff. Good for you. Use the truth when you do it and I will fade away.
9. You mislead "I'm afraid reading only the memoirs by a number of his brainwashed flock defeats the purpose:". . I told you earlier that I have extensively , unlike yourself, read His and others writings.
10. You: Forgive me if I take the word of the wife one of his closest disciples, who knew him, above yours, who never met him." No I will not. That poem was written in jealous rage, and you took a line from it and attributed it to Gurdjieff. Slander. John Bennet was with Gurdjieff when he died. DeHartmann and Georges wrote music together. Ouspensky was asked to leave the group for being too nihlisti, even to the point of being suicidal, so no, I don't consider him a good judge of Gurdjieff's character, though he loved and respected Gurdjieff until he died despite what your favorite washed up rock and roller has to say about it.
You: "I have no desire to continue discussing Gurdjieff, I have shared sufficiently for anyone to make up their own mind." Aren't you even true to your own word?
-herald

[YinYang]

And once again you bring nothing to the table, just more empty accusations. I don't see the point of responding to any of it, except this particular point:

Ouspensky was asked to leave the group for being too nihlisti, even to the point of being suicidal

It is common for cults to defame someone who walks away, and Ouspensky was no exception. The reason Ouspensky left was because of Gurdjieff's near rape of someone, as per James Webb's book The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G. I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers.

You are going to have difficulty discrediting James Webb, a more astute researcher is hard to find.

[herald]

Sorry to see that you ignore my other 9 points to bring another un-cited defamation of character.
Now you accuse Gurdjieff of rape! where is the passage? Why wasn't it reported? Why wasn't he arrested? Your source was three when Gurdjieff died. He again is a money seeking hack who at least went to college. He should stick to writing about Satan.
Okay, Yin Yang Yeah G was a "rapist" and your super sleuth caught him 40 years later. Good work!

BTW Ouspensky was thrown out! He was such a drag on the group that anyone who studied with him was no longer allowed to be a part of Gurdjieff's great experiment "The Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man". Look up Ouspenky and suicide. He believed humans were doomed to live the exact same life over and over again. I read Ouspenky. Every word.
Like you said Yin Yang: "I have no desire to continue discussing Gurdjieff, I have shared sufficiently for anyone to make up their own mind." Aren't you even true to your own word? There are dozens of biographies out there (many of their authors , like me have actually read the material) and a few hit pieces let's see the genuine seekers choose to read.
-herald

[YinYang]

Sorry to see that you ignore my other 9 points to bring another un-cited defamation of character.

I don't see the point in responding to ad hominems. I have told you over and over, bring substance.

Now you accuse Gurdjieff of rape!

No, I'm not accusing Gurdjieff of rape, I cited a source which said that the reason for Ouspensky distancing himself from Gurdjieff was because of Gurdjief's near rape of a woman. I guess he forced himself on her an she managed to escape. That's usually what "near rape" implies. It must have been the last straw for Ouspensky.

where is the passage?

Page 384.

Why wasn't it reported? Why wasn't he arrested?

Why wasn't the sexual abuse in the Children of God cult ever reported? Why wasn't the sexual abuse in the FLDS Church ever reported? Why is sexual abuse in cults seldom reported? I suggest you start studying cult psychology.

Speaking of arrest, Gurdjieff did do some prison time. Are you aware of that?

Your source was three when Gurdjieff died. He again is a money seeking hack who at least went to college. He should stick to writing about Satan.

James Webb is considered by most an exceptional researcher on Gurdjieff. He was so meticulous in his research that it took him 8 years to complete, which included interviewing the remaining direct students of Gurdjieff who were still alive in the 70s. And you are also going to have difficulty citing money as his reason for writing the book, given that he committed suicide in the same year the book was published. To be honest, if I have to immerse myself in Gurdjieff for 8 years, I would also commit suicide. And I also wouldn't be surprised if he was harassed by Gurdjieff disciples after the publication of the book.

Like you said Yin Yang: "I have no desire to continue discussing Gurdjieff, I have shared sufficiently for anyone to make up their own mind." Aren't you even true to your own word?

As long as you continue to misrepresent Gurdjieff, I will continue my participation in this thread. Like your comment above "The children of the community he established all loved him."... That's a bit of a stretch if you listen to all the devotees he impregnated. They said he didn't want anything to do with the kids... and I haven't even touched on his heavy drinking.

Also tell me why you considered Gurdjieff compatible with the Law of One when Gurdjieff categorically denied that humans have souls? His whole philosophy dehumanises people, calling them machines and automatons... Dehuminisation of people is stereotypical of all left-hand-path philosophies by the way. His "philosophy" is wholly incongruent with the Law of One.

[YinYang]

There comes a point when a sufficient number of facts spell a truth, and from that point further facts exemplifying the same truth become redundant.