a larger quote.
Gold would’t get much for suing me. As for suing him…
Rodney Collin to Gold??? Don’t think so.
>In article , d…@netcom.com (Lefty Redux) writes:
>|> ANyone know anything about E. J. Gold? Apparently his approach is
>|> “Gurdjieff-inspired”. Any information would be appreciated.
In article <34381t$...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
>From what I recall (I don’t have my books here with me), I believe
>the line of transmission from Gurdjieff to Gold is:
> Gurdjieff->Bennett->Rodney Collins->E. J. Gold
>I’ve scanned some of Gold’s books at my local New Age Freakshop (Being
>in Cambridge, MA, our bookshops are well-stocked). As far as I can
>tell, he’s into the enneagram-personality stuff similar (but not identical)
>to that found in Helen Palmer’s work. After all, the lineage from
>Gurdjieff to Helen Palmer is:
> Gurdjieff->Bennett->Rodney Collins->Oscar Ichario->Helen Palmer
Now, right at the start, relax as I am just poking a stick in here to
stir something a little. I’m not angry nor screeching about anything.
(People who know me personally threaten to get even with my silly sense
of humor, though. )
OK, some questions arise about “lineage” and “line of transmission”
stated so emphatically as to be some kind of “fact.” What does this
mean? Gurdjieff taught Bennet who taught Rodney Collins who taught E.
J. Gold? I don’t think so. Or they read each others’ books or what?
Helen Palmer can be traced back to Gurdjieff?
Gee, methinks even *I* probably can be traced back to Meher Baba, too.
Huh? I’m not flaming here, I hasten to repeat. Just poking a little at
the seemingly automatic acceptance with no sources about all these lines
of communication and who transmitted something to whom, thus implying
all sorts of credentials so we should believe these people, eh?
Where did *you* find out about this “line of transmission”? By reading
books in which other people suggest this and that? You said you didn’t
have your books with you. Do you believe what is printed in books?
The writer says the Gold books were “scanned.” Maybe it was a poor
choice of words, since “scanned” does not mean thoroughly studied nor
verified by any means.
I have heard about a bunch of people who have claimed to receive
annointment directly from Gurdjieff himself (either before he left this
mortal coil or channeled afterward)! One person wrote recently that
some famous channel person probably was Gurdjieff! ACK! (I think I saw
that in alt.consciousness before this group started.)
>I’m sure I spelt names incorrectly here. Oscar Ichario was responsible for
>Arica, and that training DID have a lot of enneagram/personality stuff in
It had a lot of hyperventilation in it, too. (If one hyper-
ventilates in unison with a room full of devotees, something unusual may
happen to one’s mind. Many people, especially Americans, think if
there’s a crest in the chest, something “high” is going on. )
>I believe that Rodney Collins may have come up with it, more because
>two lines comming from students of his, say pretty the same thing.
Oh, we can assume then that your *belief* is what might have really
happened? And, from some points of view, it hardly matters anyway since
the big guys are dead, and what’s left are Xerox copies of copies, and
you know how they get after being copied so many times. Lines fall
out, shading is sparse, parts are missing.
We are admonished by the Bible – “do not put new wine in old wine
skins,” meaning don’t befuddle one’s understanding with old understand-
ing of something. An assumption is made because two lines coming from
Collins “say pretty [much] the same thing.” This reminds me of people
who hear the G ideas and say, “Oh, that’s just like Fritz Perles!” ACK!
(That is spoiling the wine = understanding. Outward appearance may be
similar; that’s all.) This can happen because people generally do not
scratch the surface to see what’s underneath.
What we are witnessing is B-influence becoming A-influence. Once it has
become A-influence it is quite ordinary and has lost the ‘magic’ (for
lack of a better word; and, who knows, there may be ‘magic’). These
ideas by their nature *cannot* become generally popular with large
numbers of people. Lots of folks absolutely *hate* these ideas because
they threaten everything that is false in one. If the ideas are watered
down and pablum of misinformation is added, they become acceptable, and
become A-influence, and as such they can become widely popular.
Pretty soon there are “experts” on the Enneagram. (If anybody saw the
report about the latest Stanford University seminar on this topic, and
know the Enneagram at all, fainting may take place when one sees how
it looks after going through that experience.)
It is more and more difficult for people to come to esotericism because
of the infiltration of opinion and conjecture. I think it must be more
difficult for genuine teachers who have something basic to share.
>I have more to say on this topic. However, I’m getting tired typing and
>if someone else doesn’t say more, I will. (However, considering all the
>knowledgable folks here, I’m sure someone else will help me out.)
Hey, I probably can out-write everybody with these tomes, eh? Oh,
you said “knowledgable”….hmmm, well, that lets me out.
Maybe someone will find something interesting in the book “Circle of
Harmony” (forget the author’s name), the “compleat” 4th Way gossip book
(forget the author is reported to have caused his own demise).