/lit/ - Literature

>>10702968
I agree that Gurdjieffs teachings and methods were from most angles of consideration convoluted and inferior compared to legitimate traditions but I think it's a little dishonest to write it all off and to stay he was basically a new-agey mindfulness guy. I mean that is an accurate description but to some extent you have to recognize that he was trying to teach people how to realize a higher level of awareness couched in terms that they would understand.

While he goes against most Traditions, the implication of practicing his teaching is not dissimilar to certain eastern practices as I mentioned. I'm not arguing that he should be considered a part of Tradition in a Guenonian sense but there are strong parallels and many people thought his teachings were valuable. Out of all the major Esoteric/Occultist/Theosophy-like groups going on at the time he was one of the ones closest to an eastern teaching while still remaining western and outside of Tradition. Why else would Evola and several other of the Traditionalists hold favorable views of him if he was a charlatan?

Nothings black and white and it's not as simple as everyone is either a legitimate part of Tradition or a complete larper. Guenon himself writes about how the philosophical and the mystical are often partially derived from metaphysics but still would say they were inferior and in certain cases not Traditional, it goes to show though that even if something is flawed it can still be partly rooted in truth and not entirely worthless (if only in the sense that it's meant for those who wouldn't otherwise accept or understand proper Metaphysical teachings).