22.05.10
Comments on Lozowick (LoudSue)
#
LoudSue said,
21.05.10 at 11:44 pm ·
A wee tip:One clue that someone may be part of Lozowick’s ’shtick’ is if, anywhere, you see a picture of old guru Ramsuratkumar.
…..That would make sense since Yogi Ramsuratkumar is the younger
gurus guru.He is referred to either as a Godman or God child. The poor old gent, now deceased, did not dress in a gaudy manner. Usually had flowers around his neck,
………There are many pictures showing that but flowers where
not part of his regular dress.a plain cloth turban, big white beard and customarily wore a plain
dark wool shawl. In old age, he tended to sit crouched, hunched over, rather like Santa Claus lost amid a pile of laundry.If you see a picture like this in someones home or business, you can go online and see if it matches up with online photos of Ramsuratkumar (or Ramsurat Kumar)
…..Or you could just ask the owner of the pic who
the old guy is. Now that would be novel eh? Actually engaging
in conversation.Another note: Hohm publishes books, sometimes very expensively in high quality cloth covers and dense top quality paper. One bias is that Lee Lozowick looks young and handsome in the photos.
Can tell you those photos in the Hohm books are about 15 or more years out of date
……If you’re looking at a photo of him that looks 15 years old, it’s prolly
cause the book is 15 years old. Either that or the section of the book
it’s in has to do with things from 15 years ago.and Lozowick doesnt look nearly as good these days. Too much sun, too much coddling from disciples and too many years of eating well have made him less than photogenic, at least as of 2002.
And, according to the second edition of Speeths book The Gudjieff Work, Lozowick had started out in Gurdjieff work
……Nope.
and, according to Speeth, the presentations on G, given by the Hohm/Lozowick people seemed to her to just be a way to recruit for Hohm.
…..And she might be right…..or not.
This 1996 article, written years after Lozowick linked with Ramsuratkumar makes clear his basic interest in Gurdjieff work.
The disturbingly adultatory article says plenty about Lozowick in relation to Gurdjieff but zero in relation to Lozowick and Hinduism.
…..It says plenty about the author of the article who is very interested in the
Work, but almost nothing about Mr. Lozowick.http://sonic.net/~tayu/wayfourth/paris28.htm
Be alert, because some honor Ramsuratkumar and insist that Lee Lozowick stole the legacy and is misrepresenting it.
…….That’s always the way isn’t it, when the teacher dies, people
pointing fingers claiming others are clueless or posers.
Then it becomes so complicated because one has to check their sources.LoudSue
nemo said,
23.05.10 at 5:54 am
The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start. As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies).
The Indian angle seems to be window dressing.
The same for Andrew Cohen who was very lucky with his window dressing.
LoudSue said,
23.05.10 at 4:02 pm
The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start.
….I can see how it could seem that way because he didn’t met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not
‘window dressing’ in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don’t really see much.
As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies).
…….I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don’t see that anywhere.
Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn’t mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff’s work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene.
LoudSue
nemo said,
24.05.10 at 4:58 am
Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money’s worth ….
Transformational work? These people don’t transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious.
nemo said,
24.05.10 at 5:02 am
You seem ambivalent and hung up on these people.
How many decades have you wasted here?
And where/when will you start a real ‘path’?
Bruce said,
24.05.10 at 11:38 am
Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money’s worth ….
Transformational work? These people don’t transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious.
ape2angel said,
26.05.10 at 4:26 am
Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff’s work ended when he died. Gold’s work is Gold’s work, Lozowick’s work is Lozowick’s work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on.
Steve said,
27.05.10 at 8:41 pm
The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start.
….I can see how it could seem that way because he didn’t met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not
‘window dressing’ in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don’t really see much.
As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies).
…….I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don’t see that anywhere.
Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn’t mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff’s work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene.
LoudSue
nemo said,
29.05.10 at 11:39 am
This is not very clear: rewrite this to separate the quotes and commentary.
nemo said,
31.05.10 at 5:37 am
The idea of ‘work on self’ is too much of an abstraction invented with a hidden Gurdjieff agenda. Best to stop using it.
Remember that Gurdjieff was basically a kind of right wing ideologue whose take on ‘work’ resembles that of capitalist expoiters, and he was in fact ambiguous about slavery, thinking abolition a mistake.
The use of the idea of ‘work’ to describe spiritual practice is therefore a play on the idea of ‘surplus value’ and its extraction from ‘workers’.
Yogis don’t need this! Say goodbye to it.
Emily said,
03.06.10 at 10:34 am
Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff’s work ended when he died. Gold’s work is Gold’s work, Lozowick’s work is Lozowick’s work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on.
nemo said,
07.06.10 at 6:29 am
we commented on this already
http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/06/02/work-on-self/