I have been reading with interest various comments posted by "corboy" about so-called "Fourth Way" groups and practitioners.

I have been participating in the Gurdjieff Work for nearly 30 years. I was schooled in the groups of two of Gurdjieff's direct pupils, Willem Nyland and Louise March (who I worked closely with from 1982 until her death in 1987); have had extensive contact with various leaders of the Gurdjieff Foundation; have been trained in the Movements, sittings, exercises and practical work activities that are part of this tradition; and I work to some extent today with new people interested in the Gurdjieff ideas. The experience has been healthy and balanced for me and my family. While I do harbor a few personal misgivings about the Gurdjieff Foundation for specific reasons outside the scope of this forum, my overall outlook remains very positive.

However I have been long aware of unhealthy, unsavory spin-offs (Horn, Gans, Burton, Gold and others) who are in what I call the "avoid at all costs" category. This comes through a few direct encounters; and many times over the years, colleagues in groups around the U.S. have referred me to postings and information on this forum. I've read a great deal and believe this venue provides an invaluable service.

It seems to me that as more material is cascaded on the internet, the name "Gurdjieff" is taken broadly to encompass and represent all strains, healthy or unhealthy, pure or grossly distorted.

When I read a post by someone expressing dismay over their experience with someone like Alex Horn, it makes me think "Gee, that's terrible. My experience with Mrs. March was nothing like that. What she told us of how Gurdjieff was in daily life was nothing like that either. She knew him closely for 20 years; Alex Horn and other frauds have stolen the name and misrepresented the education path that Gurdjieff offered."

I believe in warning people away from distorted strains, while upholding the integrity of the genuine. But I also know intimately well that even the most genuine thing is not for everyone, which is natural.

It seems to me that in submitting statements and opinions reflecting grossly distorted outgrowths of "fourth way" practice, corboy is issuing some fair warnings, but then also hyperextending himself in speaking about a whole movement or tradition under the "Gurdjieff" umbrella. This I find to be unreasonable, and wonder if it is based on speculations rather than direct experience. In any case, it does not appear that he has worked nearly as extensively with groups of direct lineage to Gurdjieff as I have.

For example, Corboy writes above: "Gurdjieffians have an ugly habit of suggesting that people who question the work or leave the work, will come to a bad end."

Speaking for myself, I know hundreds of people across several Gurdjieff groups, many of them closely as friends, and many who have left the work for various reasons --and I have never heard anyone express such a view. Perhaps the batch of "Gurdjieffians" corboy refers to is from another side of town, where the schooling is unhealthy and corrosive to the psyche.

Fair warnings should be just that: Fair warnings. In that way, a site like this can offer maximum, focused, objective benefit to the public.

Printer,
Although i do live 'on another side of town' my experiences mirror yours in many ways. Quite the contrary to the story that corboy recounts, i have found the work to be an oasis in a world of madness. Because one happens to be undergoing what might have been a psychotic break at the same time as being introduced to a group doesn't signify cause and effect - the very fact that he/she was searching for some help might have been symptomatic of a larger coming problem. But there are minds that will use any 'circumstantial evidence' to plead their case that anything that seems 'unknown' , new or secretive will be heaped into the pile of 'dangerous cults'. Those who have have been in genuine groups know how far the truth such beliefs are.

Regardless there are many people who are testifying bad experiences with Gurdjief groups. This alone should get one's red light warning.

Also of course alot of Gurdjief groups acusses each other of heresy and what not. Of course they will say they are legit and the other groups are not. Alot of groups & sects do that to one another and should be no suprise.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2008 07:07AM by Keir.

i have one question for those posters who have had positive and beneficial experiences in gurdjieffian groups: since it is axiomatic that self-remembering is the basis and linchpin of your particular discipline, why not submit some of your more advanced participants to the kind of scrutiny that tibetan monks have:

[psyphz.psych.wisc.edu]

this would go a long way to dispel suspicions that self-remembering is anything more than a form of auto-hypnosis. in the meantime it's only talk. why not back it up with proof? of course you have an out and i can see it coming: "it is merely pseudo-science that is doing the scrutinizing."

at the risk of sounding belligerent, that would be a pretty lame response, don't you think?

Mr. Keir,

Would you be so kind to list out groups or organizations that do not have

"there are many people who are testifying bad experiences with..."

Tell us please of any organization that has no complaints?

Tell us what the signs are for NON-cults?

Is Nancy Pelosi a non cult? Or is anyone who disagrees with her a nazi and un american?

Is the statement "you are with us or against us?" Uttered by wacko cults?

Is the scientist who works for Starbucks and authors a study proclaiming no harmful effects of coffee consumption truly honest? Or is he, by his compensation tied to the cult of Starbucks?

In the world today what is not a cult?

Science? Academia? Where is the truth?

So called advanced scientific thinkers tend to be the most cult like.

For example.

Leading scientist proclaimed that a heavier than object would never fly. Some blind and ignorant farm boys decided not to listen to the high priest.

The earth was flat. The earth was center of the universe. There was not only religous dogma but science as it was known in that day was just as dogmatic.

Do Licensed psychologist and medical doctors screw people up? Why aren't they a cult?

So what is not a cult?

"anticults":

You come across as little more than an "Internet Troll."

But OK. Here are the answers to your questions.

There are warning signs regarding potentially unsafe groups.

See [www.culteducation.com]

There is a working objective definition of a "cult" based upon group structure, dynamics and behavior.

See [www.culteducation.com]

I doubt that you are actually seriously interested, but there is the information.

Having said that this thread is not about cults generally, but rather specifically about "Gurdjieff" based groups.

Please stay focused on topic.

"at the risk of sounding belligerent"

That was belligerent. But, since you weren't "remembering yourself", at the moment, there was no risk.

By the way, why do you make belligerence sound so undesirable, then venture headlong into it?

Quote
SideOfBacon
"at the risk of sounding belligerent"

That was belligerent. But, since you weren't "remembering yourself", at the moment, there was no risk.

By the way, why do you make belligerence sound so undesirable, then venture headlong into it?

sorry but your post is unintelligible to me. maybe you or someone else can explain it to me.

Samael Aeon Weor--An Obscure Source of Material for South American Entrepreneur Esotericists/Commercial Shamans?

This discussant brought up Weor in context of a discussion from where some others may have obtained their sources.

and [www.enneagraminstitute.com]

This entire thread, all 37 pages of it, is worth studying.

Weor referred to Enneagon in his writings, though much later, others used it to refer to different stuff.

[books.google.com]

-------------
((IMO I privatly call the enneagram the 9 headed Hydra. It was never tested by psychometricians in an academic setting, but was propagated in personality centered groups. For all we know, it may merely be one of many items that are a useful focal point for cold reading.

[www.google.com]

Quote

In the above article on hypnosis, Chester notes the three ingredients for success in hypnosis, when discussing another technique: "it excited the imagination of the subject, concentrated his attention, and held him in a state of expectancy: the three essentials for success"

In the section on "Hypnosis among the Arabs" Chester writes that, among "certain important Sufi groups", hypnotic techniques are used only in a very controlled fashion:

"The reason for this is the belief-- or perhaps the fact-- that the personality touched by hypnosis is only a superficial one... experiencing hypnotic states may cause someone to imagine that these are touching a really deep area of his consciousness.... hypnotic states are associated with role-playing: play-acting if you like. To play a part is one thing: to play a part and to imagine that this is something real or significant is very much something else."

[hypnogenesis.com]

This material is of interest. The person who introduced the Esalen crowd to the enneagon/enneagram seemed to have quite an interest in various technologies.

[www.enneagraminstitute.com]