15.02.12
Danger of Gurdjieffianity to the Christian legacy
Gurdjieffinaity, an obvious pun on Christianity, is actually a liability for Christianity. It seems strange that Gurdjieff would speak of ‘esoteric Christianity’, without any real evidence. I will be that the real esoteric Christians have always been horrified at the torpedo in disguise Gurdjieff launched at that religion: the outcome is the loss of the innocent trust that animates real Christians, and the entry of a cynical reactionary black magic that makes all spiritual cults into dishonest scams demanding money. So I think that Gurdjieff, whatever his intent, was far more destructive of Christianity than the secular crowd.
david said,
28.02.12 at 4:43 pm
While I agree that there can be more than a little criticism of Gurdjieff’s teaching of Christianity, in what way was G. a black magician? A gnostic – even a nicolation, can well be argued, but when you spill over from critic to slander you do your whole endeavor a disservice.
I am an Orthodox Christian who grew up with the Work as ‘the religion of my youth’ the opposite ironically of G. himself.
Where they differ, I hold to traditional Christianity.
However your to my mind bizarre assertion that Gurdjieff somehow ‘plundered’ Indian philosophy, is based on what?
Where does samkhya teach reciprocal maintenance? Or the enneagram?
As for Bennet’s distinction between sensitivity and consciousness this is held by ‘orthodox’ Gurdjieffeans as well. See Tracol, the taste for things that are true. As for this being a cosmic energy and not a ‘personal’ one, one’s own experience of consciousness should lead one to this conclusion. A room full of conscious people can come to agreement on any number of things in a way a room of people who are merely sensitive never will. I have seen this play out many times.
Not sure if you have read Bennett’s energies or not, he gives in depth treatment to this topic.
LAst I heard [as of a couple of years ago] the amount of money the scammed from SF students of the work were charged was 15 dollars a month. That is a foundation group mind you.
Whether G has done more good than bad to Christianity is hardly a clear cut question.
He was responsible through Ouspensky of having the first sizeable translation of the Philokalia translated into English [Writings on the Prayer of the Heart] this and the manyh references to Way of A Pilgrim scattered throughout O’s books certainly led me to Traditional Christianity far more directly than had I never encountered them.
Have you ever studied the Gurdjieff Meditations? I assure there is no cynicism or Black Magic involved.
I urge you to – in your attempted service of Christ to be more honest and less reactionary in your portrayals. The smack of a certain mania frankly, as least as read over the net. And this is from someone who hopes to be spared long enough to write a book on Gurdjieff: Gnostic and Orthodox Chrisitianity explored.
Sincerely,
David
nemo said,
01.03.12 at 2:33 pm
The issue of Gurdjieff and Samkhya has been raised by many, among them the text To Live Within by an Indian guru, who pointed out the obvious. The link to Samkhya lies in the ‘law of three’ and the idea of triads in a doubling series. The idea of 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, cosmic laws is pure Samkhya. But Samkhya may not be the ultimate source, and Gurdjieff’s thinking about the subject may have had another set of sources. It is not the deep science it is made out to be. Noone can properly explain the meaning of this ‘law of three’, or of triads. Everyone has failed, down to Hegel (with a slightly different tradition, not doubt related, or the same, the ‘dialectic’, etc…). So I remain open to the real version, but am losing hope.
Let me note that Schopenhauer, unaware of Samkhya produced a vision of real ‘samkhya’ in his transcendental idealism of the ‘will in nature’. If he had studied the tradition, he would have gotten it wrong!
I am hardly reactionary here, please. I am a western leftist critical of Gurdjieff’s reactionary anti-modernism, and fascist latencies.
I think that Gurdjieff has thrown a lot of things in a bad light, such as the Philokalia. Which is unfair. But everything Gurdjieff touched is now a toxic mess under a new monopoly. His vampire game has delayed beyond reason the emergence of exemplars in his own teaching. He cares nothing about this, and has ditched his own legacy, as he seeks reincarnation (as depicted in his Karnakrocket ship myth) in a new disguise for his next meal.
Study Da Free John here, also, he openly confesses to being a vampire using a transit ashram to restock his energies, discarding his disciples on death, as he moves on.
You cannot use these things safely anymore, because Gurdjieffianity tries to coopt them. You should read the introduction to Bennett’s Dramatic Universe, to see how Bennetf fell in the trap. He had a host of great ideas, and a different source, but his book is now a channel leading to Gurdjieff authority, as if Gurdjieff were in charge of it. That’s grotesque. Bennett’s work might have prospered better in general secular culture. But as Bennett quotes Gurdjieff telling him, you ‘trash’ (he didn’t quite say it) will be useful if it is advertising for ‘me’.
Benntte clearly distoted his vision with its hybrids with Gurdjieff.
What a shame.
So I would warn you, I wouldn’t ever again, touch the philokalia, after the Gurdjieff demons have touched it. It is all a lost garbage dump of ancient and mostly lost gnosticism.
It remains, of course, on one level an historical zone of great interest. But Gurdjieff completely spoiled even the slightest interest I might have in esoteric Orthodox Christian. I have better ways to spend my time.
With Gurdjieff et al. it will all be sufi fried chicken. Be forewarned. Criminals don’t deserve you false reverence.
I think that Bennett explained in his autobiography the source of his own work, in the later thirties or early forties, and this source is not Gurdjieff, hence his friction with Ouspensky.
Bennett seems to have contacted the ‘demiurgic powers’ he speaks of later. In any case, his work should stand by itself, without a Gurdjieff connection. But, of course, he used a lot from Ouspensky in his hybrid, so the damage is done.
His work should be rewritten in a new form, to be the independent work that it was.
I should note that Bennett was in contact with a source of radical spirituality, the force behind the rise of modernity, perhaps, and his correct insights into the rise of democracy and communism, and his ideas about 1848, are signatures of this unknown domain of radical spirits, anathema to the likes of Gurdjieff and vice versa. Bennett unwittingly exposed his liberal views, which have made him unmentionable in reactionary sufis circles.
Mikhail said,
01.03.12 at 9:25 pm
Nemo, your speculations are interesting but based on ignorance. For example, aside from Kadloubovskys (Ouspensky’s secretary) translating it into English (and there are other translations now), Philokhalia has nothing to do with Gurdjieff, nor with ‘esoteric Orthodox Christianity’. Such does not really exist, apart from Gurdjieff’s metaphorical phrase for his own Work, and point of view. Philokhalia still holds an important place for Orthodox Christian ascetics in monasteries, etc. However, here one would do well, to contrast not just sensitivity and consciousness but also quasi spiritual psychosomatic effects ie ‘prelest’ with real humility and groundedness in real Christian virtues.
Anyone who enters the Gurdjieff dimension, beware, you do so at your own risk. It’s impossible to evaluate it even with years of participation in the Work, let alone from the outside.
David, you would do well to write your book, as you say in the role of the critic and not a slanderer. There is great need for such a book. It is alarming how many people in the Gurdjieff Work, speak about Orthodoxy convinced of their comforting ‘perennialist’ beliefs, without having a clue what Orthodoxy really teaches.
nemo said,
02.03.12 at 12:31 pm
I never said what you think I said. My point is that the Philokalia is very ancient now, and a not very useful technique anymore. Has anyone ever succeeded with it? There are far more effective ways to meditate.
Mikhail said,
02.03.12 at 9:57 pm
No, I think you are making the same assumption perennialists make. You assume that Philokalia ‘techniques’ are for anyone. They are not. Firstly they are not techniques. Secondly they are only for Christians and then only for those who have renounced the ‘world’, live a monastic/ascetic life and have a ‘staretz’ to guide them. You can visit an Orthodox Monastery in Russia or on Mount Athos, and there you will find many who benefit from the ancient experience of Orthodox monasticism, including the guidance that Philokhalia provides.
If you learn about what place ‘hesychasm; has in Orthodox praxis, you will understand that it is impossible to take a ‘technique’ from Philokalia and apply it by yourself in your everyday life. The only results you are likely to get are delusional, and Orthodox Christians will warn you openly not to undertake any such practice unless you were so instructed by your spiritual (orthodox Christian) elder.
nemo said,
03.03.12 at 1:37 pm
I don’t wish to argue this too much further: your points are well-taken, but technically not correct.
After all J. G. Bennett spent years doing a ‘Jesus’ prayer, which, while not connected with Philokalia as such, was most definitely inspired by it, and by Gurdjieff’s curious ‘Orthodox’ slant.
Anyone you have restated the issues of the Philokalia with reference to Gurdjieff, so I am satisfied. Just be careful of associating the two, please. Gurdjieff was a self-proclaimed devil, and did do evil things at length, and that is not condoned in Christianity, or by any staretz that I have heard of.
nemo said,
03.03.12 at 1:43 pm
You can’t have it both ways. If you affirm Christ the demonslayer, do so.
If you affirm Gurdjieff the devil Beelzebub, then I can’t stop you, but you can stare down my gunbarrel, because your are a devil yourself.
Mikhail said,
03.03.12 at 10:10 pm
If the Gurdjieff phenomenon could be dismissed as 100% pure charlatanism or even 100% evil, then the issue would be far more simple than it actually is.
This kind of thinking just perpetuates the status quo of those who are for him and those who are against. I think contrasting Traditional Christianity with Gnosticism as it relates to a teaching such as Gurdjieff’s is the step in the right direction.
nemo said,
04.03.12 at 11:30 am
You don’t get it, mister: you approach a stranger and demand in the name of spirituality that he accept the counsel of a devil. Then you are puzzled when that person reists.
You have been hypnotized by an occultist, OK?
And you almost rescued Philokalia from the confusion, but now you are confused again.
So I recommend that the public be advised of the demonic factor entering this classic subject.
Get with it, asshole. Following devils is not a duty.