Gurdjieff Thread

[Anonymous No.18976859]

Thoughts on this mess of a book? I tried to read it but it is too much for me.

[Anonymous No.18977037]

>>18976859
I've only read Ouspensky. I really appreciate how Fourth Way is literally anti-NPC mysticism.

[Anonymous No.18977211]

>>18976859
Some writers are called “writers’ writers.” In this book, Gurdjieff is the exact opposite of that. People used to and expecting normal literature will go, “What in the FUCK am I reading?” Gurdjieff did this on purpose to dissuade the normal reader, and reward the devoted one. If you read Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous”, Gurdjieff makes a point that, “It actually is precisely NOT good to make people too easily attracted to these ideas and to make it too easy for them to learn from us. Doing so is too tempting for the soft and easy part in people that wants everything to come without effort. Believe me, if someone with a real spiritual desire has felt something true in our work, he will stay up all night waiting for a call back from us, or even call back and inquire as much as possible.” This was in response to Ouspensky asking why Gurdjieff did strange things like suddenly cancel group meetings after he had scheduled them without warning anyone in advance, or suddenly moving group meetings from one town to a very far town in a manner of a few short days, making people have to change all their plans just so they could travel far to meet him. Of course, to the random outsider reading this, this sounds like Gurdjieff just being a theatrical charlatan and cult leader abusing his students because he thought it was funny. In the term given in Ouspensky’s book, he wanted disciples to make a “super-effort” to learn from him.

Gurdjieff was trained by and/or directly, personally learned from sources as diverse as the Naqshbandi Sufis, the esoteric Sarmouni sect, Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhists, Orthodox Christian monasteries, Nestorian Christians (obscure Christian sects in the Near East who don’t revere Christ as God but as a prophet/saint), the Yazidis, and definitely had to have learned from various Buddhists, Hindus, and even just wandering enlightened yogis, saints, holy men, and fakirs while traveling in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Far East looking for the truth behind all religions as a young man.

Of all these sources, it’s said the Naqshbandi Sufis and the Sarmounis were the ones he was most representative of and personally learned the most from — of whom, interestingly enough, esoteric teachings of theirs claim they are teaching the truth behind all religions and see valid sources of enlightenment behind all religions. Trans-cultural mysticism and enlightenment, in other words.

In his characteristically broken English (he was actually a polyglot who knew maybe over a dozen languages which he learned with at least some fluency in the course of his travels so he could talk to people and stay in the most different countries — fun fact — as a child living in Kars, a multi-ethnic region now being a city in northern Turkey, where people as diverse as Armenians, Russians, Caucasus Greeks, Georgians, Turks, Kurds and smaller numbers of Christian communities from eastern and central Europe

[Anonymous No.18977300]

>>18977211
such as Caucasus Germans, Estonians and Russian sectarian communities like the Molokans, Doukhobors, Pryguny, and Subbotniks were represented, and where he grew up surrounded by an aura of living in Biblical times, surrounded by Muslims, obscure Christian sects, the Yazidis, and obscure Caucasian folklore, legends, and bards, he grew up learning to speak Armenian, Pontic Greek, Russian and Turkish fluently, and in the course of his life, came to learn enough French, German, English, and even some other European languages enough to have lived in all these countries) — anyway, he was capable of speaking and writing English much more fluently when he wanted to, but to relax and enjoy himself, this very strange, multicultural, non-traditional mystic, Georges Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, would speak in broken English with a thick accent when he wanted to around his English-speaking disciples — in his characteristically broken English, he once said, “In thees book I dig dog so deep is hard to find it.”

A disciple asked him, “Don’t you mean you bury the ‘bone’ so deep it’s hard for the dog to find it?”

Gurdjieff firmly responded, “No, dog! I bury dog deep in book.”

His disciple, J.G. Bennett, who later converted to Roman Catholicism but still felt a deep respect for Gurdjieff, whom he went to the grave regarding as his master, claims in some book of his (I forgot which one) that this dog represented the Dog Star, Sirius, a symbol of wisdom in the Zoroastrian tradition. In other words, he made it very hard to get to the wisdom buried deep in this book. In early adulthood, he traveled to places as diverse as Central Asia, Egypt, Iran, India, Tibet and Rome, studying their folklore and the historical monuments there and whatever obscure bits of historical lore and religious traditions and texts he could find.

Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson is not a book for wussies, for weak men and uptight, manly women who sleep with their eyes half-open and love to read Theosophy, Edgar Cayce, Shakespeare’s sonnets, and other easygoing tracts that soothe their little baby brains and feeble, self-centered hearts and think that they can enter into Heaven still with their galoshes on. No! Is book for people wanting to become REAL man or REAL woman. Not for your transgender-supporting bullshit half-ass androgynous man who always invariably look at woman he want to sleep is but who is not his wife with his left eye.

[Anonymous No.18977328]

Idries Shah, the Naqshbandi Sufi who made much of Gurdjieff’s Sufic sources of learning and teaching methods in his works, has this extremely relevant and interesting passage in an interview he gives about Gurdjieff’s teaching methods (he doesn’t bring up Gurdjieff directly, but rather is simply talking about Sufi teaching methods, here — which are also strangely rather similar to Zen teaching methods):

>EH: Why are the traditional Western methods of study inappropriate for the study of Sufism?
>IS: They are inappropriate only up to a point. Both the Western and Middle Eastern methods of study come from the common heritage of the Middle Ages, when one was regarded as wise if he had a better memory than someone else. But some of the teaching methods that Sufis use seem rather odd to the Westerner. If I were to say to you that my favorite method of teaching is to bore the audience to death, you would be shocked. But I have just results of some tests, which show that English schoolchildren, when shown a group of films, remembered only the ones that bored them. Now this is consistent with our experience, but it is not consistent with Western beliefs.
Another favorite Sufi teaching method is to be rude to people, sometimes shouting them down or shooing them away, a technique that is not customary in cultivated circles. By experience we know that by giving a certain kind of shock to a person, we can-for a short period-increase his perception. Until recently I wouldn’t have dared speak about this, but I now have a clipping indicating that when a person endures a shock he produces Theta rhythms. Some people have associated these brain rhythms with various forms of ESP. No connection has been made yet, but I think we may be beginning to understand it.
>EH: Recent studies of memory indicate that unless adrenalin is present, no learning takes place, and shock causes adrenalin to flow. We also know from experience that when you find yourself in a situation of grave danger, you tend to notice some very small detail with great clarity.
>IS: Exactly. Concentration comes in on a strange level and in an unaccustomed way. But using this knowledge has traditionally given Sufi teachers a reputation for having bad manners. The most polite thing they can say about us is that we are irascible and out of control. Some people say that a spiritual teacher should have no emotions or be totally balanced. We say that a spiritual teacher must be a person who can be totally balanced, not one who cannot help but be balanced.

https://ishk.net/idries-shah-psychology-today/

[Anonymous No.18977360]

One rather funny story about Gurdjieff is that he was an extremely handsome, sexy man to women, often sleeping with many of his female disciples, even into as late of an age as his 70s. But one time, he drew on a young naive woman who had heard about Gurdjieff’s rather uninhibited attitudes towards sexuality — “free love” before the term was even invented — seemingly flirting with her and saying, “Yes, you come to my apartment tonight this time. I see you then.”

She came at midnight, knocked, and Gurdjieff opened the door and suddenly became a sweet, confused, sleepy, chubby old man. With wide open eyes, he said, “Why you here? Is late! Here is bon-bon.” He thereupon gave her a chocolate bon-bon and sent her home.

[Anonymous No.18977391]

https://gurdjieff.work/texts/All-and-Everything---First-Series-Beelzebubs-Tales-to-His-Grandson-Print.pdf

Just read it

https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Beelzebub%27s_Tales_to_His_Grandson

also wtf (Found this by googling Beelzebub's Tales)

[Anonymous No.18977416]

>>18977391
Means Gurdgiefff essence/spirit is in this thread.

[Anonymous No.18977562]

>>18977391
Strange to see Gurdjieff exposed to the masses by Cyberpunk a shit game. They probably think is in game flavor text.

[Anonymous No.18977768]

Here’s a bit of trivia about how obscure Gurdjieff could be in this book.

In a late chapter in the book, it’s talked about the narrator, Beelzebub (a stand-in for Gurdjieff himself), meeting the dervish Bogga-Eddin as well as the dervish Bokhara (dervish is a term for an Islamic Sufi monk or mendicant). Bahauddin Naqshband (1318-1319) was was born in in the village of Qasr-i-Hinduvan (later renamed Qasr-i Arifan) near ***Bukhara***, in what is now Uzbekistan and it was there that he died in 1389. He was the ethnically Arabic, outwardly, apparently, externally, socially Muslim man who started the Naqshbandi Sufi order. Sufism is a term for a mystical movement of Islam, being the tradition luminaries like the poet Rumi (1207-1273) belonged to. Internally, personally, and privately, it was believed that he was not a Muslim at all, and only pretended to be a strict Muslim out of respect for the society around him and so as not to offend them.

In Arabic, the pronunciation of Bahauddin is actually closer to “Bogga-Eddin.” There’s a sort of -gh sound in Arabic that the transliteration into English can’t approximate exactly. Bogga-Eddin was born near the town of Bukhara, which has also been transliterated at times as Bokhara, and Beelzebub meets the dervishes Bogga-Eddin and Bokhara.

Not once does Gurdjieff mention the Naqshbandi order. To his disciple, PD Ouspensky, he was very evasive about the sources of his teaching, refusing to give a specific answer to, “What are you teaching?” or “What is the school that you came from?” Although, he DID admit that he was teaching some what-he-called “movements” of dervish dancing to his disciples in Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous.”

Is because Gurdjieff is real man. Is not your sissy monk or priest who say he learn exclusively from your so called “Christ,” “Muhammad,” “Buddha,” “Krishna,” or even “Padmasambhava,” founder of so-called tradition named “Tibetan Buddhism.” Is real man who learn from many real man how to be real man in teach with real “God,” not your-so called “Lord, Lord, Lord have mercy on us” you sing hymn to in Church without understanding what you do, like animal or piece of shit.

Dog make shit. You see shit dog make? He shit on carpet. No control. Is not what-you-call “house trained.” Maybe man has to be house-trained like dog, too. Man go everywhere he like, do whatever he want, he shit on carpet like dog. 99 man is like this, only doing what he like, what is pleasant to him. Only 1 is not. Man does not have “real being.” Real ability to control self, to really think, to really feel, really be. When “man” thinks, is not man thinking, is dog thinking. Is dog feeling. Is dog doing. Dog is “married”, but he see pretty woman walking by, and dog’s tongue hang out. He look at dog’s tail and hinderparts and go *pant* *pant* *pant*. Ees like dog — no, even worse, ees like dog’s shit, and die like dog.

[Anonymous No.18977846]

Shit go in Earth, like manure, to make way for tree to grow. Is not real person. Most people is like this — is not real person, is just manure for real person to grow. You meet people in life, make friend, even wife, coworker, go to school — but how many is real person? None is real person. Is only manure. You become real person, maybe you help “people” close around you to grow, to become real person at least a little bit. They die, become manure in ground, and maybe return, come back to life as plant. Plant become animal, then animal become man. Ees very slow. Die like shit, reborn as dirt, reborn as rock, reborn as plant, reborn as animal, reborn as man. But hundreds, thousands of times. Very slow. “Man” has “soul” but is very small, very undeveloped, like piece of shit. Must learn much, grow much, know much, suffer much to become real soul. Then one day becomes real MAN like Buddha, Christ, Muhammad. You know Christ? Very far to become like Christ. Maybe you not like Christ in this lifetime, but you smart enough to be reading my words, and you become like Christ in few lifetimes. Then is chance open to you to be gone forever, gone from Earth. Reborn anywhere you like in galaxy, or live in heaven “forever.” But even forever is minimum time. All is temporary.

You not understand?

Many people become like Christ in this world, people you not even heard of. Man in India living in cave, he is more developed than your piece of shit Professor, priest, monk, or politician. Because he KNOW himself. Can be. Can do. Struggles against himself.

What can I do, Muslims? I do not know myself.
I am neither Christian nor Jew, neither Magian nor Muslim,
I am not from east or west, not from land or sea,
not from the shafts of nature nor from the spheres of the firmament,
not of the earth, not of water, not of air, not of fire.
I am not from the highest heaven, not from this world,
not from existence, not from being.
I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin,
not from the realm of the two Iraqs, not from the land of Khurasan.
I am not from the world, not from beyond,
not from heaven and not from hell.
I am not from Adam, not from Eve, not from paradise and not from Ridwan.
My place is placeless, my trace is traceless,
no body, no soul, I am from the soul of souls.
I have chased out duality, lived the two worlds as one.
One I seek, one I know, one I see, one I call.
He is the first, he is the last, he is the outer, he is the inner.
Beyond He and He is I know no other.
I am drunk from the cup of love, the two worlds have escaped me.
I have no concern but carouse and rapture.
If one day in my life I spend a moment without you
from that hour and that time I would repent my life.
If one day I am given a moment in solitude with you
I will trample the two worlds underfoot and dance forever.
O Sun of Tabriz, I am so tipsy here in this world,
I have no tale to tell but tipsiness and rapture.
>Jaluddin Rumi

[Anonymous No.18977909]

>>18977416
Is true! Not arrogant. Am humble man. Thousands more advanced on me on this planet, many more. Am only random messenger. But you look up at stars — millions of planets, tens of millions, hundreds of millions. Many perhaps more advanced than Earth. So much more advanced. I write book, people not even understand, ees about Beelzebub in spaceship watching over Earth, then traveling back to planet Karatas and other planets. You read Bible? Here, I throw a bone to dog. In Bible is talked about, “Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot,” “Star of Bethlehem” that three wise men follow to find your Christ. Even angels is mentioned, and demons, too. Is moving stars and chariots and ships in sky. Maybe man is just one amongst many others, experiment, even, of these beings. Maybe they all more advanced than man and laughing at man, or pitying man, and saying, “How sad — man is not developed enough to meet us. Only rare man can meet us, then they call us ‘angel’ and develop religion, become prophet of religion, or even be called insane, crazy, making it all up.”

I write book OP is talking about in early 1900s, recently Pentagon give report on “UFOs.” Is weird, no? One time I say to student (is real, is not just anon making it up), “One day even your Pope reads ‘Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.’” Is one of greatest books ever written. Am crazy? No. Am real man. Also tell student once (also real, not just anon making it up), “Look at stars. Could be many civilizations far more advanced than man. Man very small part of universe. Is good to remember how small man is part of universe sometimes.” Very good feeling to feel smallness, insignificance in universe. Always man is thinking himself biggest man in universe, biggest genius in universe. Even anon himself think this, is only person, biggest person, smartest person, best person. Know all. No. Knows nothing. Is just one little atom in universe.

[Anonymous No.18978009]

I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones, 'To Him we shall return.'

--Jalal ed-Din Rumi (1207-1273) Translated by A.J. Arberry

[Anonymous No.18978062]

Another interview of Naqshbandi Sufi, Idries Shah

EH: Before we go any farther, we'd better get down to basics and ask the obvious question. What is Sufism?

IS: The most obvious question of all is for us the most difficult question. But I'll try to answer. Sufism is experience of life through a method of dealing with life and human relations. This method is based on an understanding of man, which places at one's disposal the means to organize one's relationships and one's learning systems. So instead of saying that Sufism is a body of thought in which you believe certain things and don't believe other things, we say that the Sufi experience has to be provoked in a person. Once provoked, it becomes his own property, rather as a person masters an art.

EH: So ideally, for four million readers, you would have four million different explanations.

IS: In fact, it wouldn't work out like that. We progress by means of NASHR, an Arabic word than means scatter technique. For example, I've published quite a number of miscellaneous books, articles, tapes and so on, which scatter many forms of this Sufi material. These 2,000 different stories cover many different tendencies in many people, and they are able to attach themselves to some aspect of it.

https://sherpoint.uk/sherpoint/docs/TheSufiTradition.pdf

The scatter (nashr) technique is a technique in which many crumbs are placed in many different places, slowly and disparately, until eventually “the penny drops,” and the devoted reader eventually has an instant enlightenment or “satori” moment. In modern psychological terms, the introduction of disparate, confusing elements, sudden detours, and a non-linear way of expressing things also promote non-linear thinking and creativity, or “right-brained” thinking (a somewhat outdated but still valid term) as opposed to “left-brained”, strictly logical thinking. At it’s most dramatic, this can even lead to the development of extrasensory perception and what feels like immediate, direct telepathy with the writer of these messages. In Robert Anton Wilson’s writings, this is known as “mindfuck” or “being mindfucked.”

[Anonymous No.18978096]

Sounds like Crowley-esque woo woo.

[Anonymous No.18978133]

http://absolutoracle.com/Gurdjieff/Articles/hiddenSignificanceOfGurdjieffsGrave.htm

What do I know? I’m just a humble parodist and shitposter. Anyway, here’s a website that gave me higher experiences. I didn’t create it myself. Maybe it’s your ticket to higher experiences yourself.

Think about it. What would a modern Gurdjieff do to reach people? Maybe he would create an anonymous website to reach out to people. I doubt you have it in you. You’re too normal. You read “In Search of the Miraculous,” but didn’t develop the true desire for the godman, the developed man, the guide, the guru, or “the school”. It’s not for this lifetime. It’s for another one. I’m nuts. I never had any higher experiences or anything.


>In Idries Shah’s Wisdom of the Idiots, the ‘idiots’ are Sufis, called this because their wisdom penetrates to a depth which renders it inaccessible to the merely intelligent or academically knowledgeable.

>The exercise-stories of the Sufis are tools prepared for a specific purpose. On this level the movements of the characters in a story portray psychological processes, and the story becomes a working blueprint of those processes.

Did you know that Mulla Nasrudin — prominent figures in “Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson,” if you managed to read it, is also a prominent figure in Sufi folklore, tales, and jokes? Did you know that Sufis have a tradition of teaching through jokes, much as Zen masters taught through koans? Idries Shah collected and published four books of jokes/tales about Mulla Nasrudin, the famous Sufi figure. He claimed that, although in the West, jokes, short stories, and folk tales are typically regarded as just for entertainment, or, at most, as having allegorical and “moral lessons”, in the East, it’s accepted contemplation of these stories can be used to genuinely develop one’s character and lead to moments of enlightenment. They are therefore also called “teaching lessons.”

Christ teaching through parables is a parallel to this. The story format bypasses the rational mind and allows it to reach something deeper, the subconscious, the essence if you want to call it that.

Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson is like this. It’s not written for fun or just for “moral edification” (“the moral of Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, is...”), although it could end up doing both at times. It’s written primarily for essence, for your essence.

>A friend asked Mullah Nasruddin how old he was. “Forty”, replied the Mullah. The friend said, “but you said the same thing two years ago!”. “Yes”, replied the Mullah, “I always stand by what I have said”.

In Gurdjieffian terms, this, of course, would correspond to man being a machine who always stands by what he does, and cannot really “do”, “think,” or “feel.” As he is quoted in saying in Ouspensky’s book, in man it is always “it” who feels, “it” who thinks, “it” who does

[Anonymous No.18978162]

>>18978096
In BTTHG, Gurdjieff says that the five main sacred individuals of modern humanity are Saint Moses (founder of the tradition known as Judaism), Saint Christ (founder of the tradition known as Christianity), Saint Muhammad (founder of the tradition known as Islam), Saint Buddha (founder of the tradition known as Buddhism), and Saint Lama (old name for Padmasambhava, founder of the tradition known as Tibetan Buddhism). This is antithetical to Crowley, who rather would have written stuff about all their eyes being pecked out by the hawk-headed god, Horus, and Crowley being the playful antithesis to all these ancient traditions.

Gurdjieff, on the other hand, believed there was an ancient source of wisdom mankind had fallen out of touch with, and that real saints in touch with this wisdom could be found in every religion. He praised true devotion, wisdom, and kindness, conscience, and consciousness, but claimed that, unfortunately, few people, whether religious or not, today really knew how to have these qualities. He claimed he was teaching people how to really be religious, and that people of any religion could follow and learn from him.

At one of the buildings he taught in, he pasted up a sign, “Here there are neither Buddhists, Christians, nor Jews. Only those wishing to ‘be.’”

[Anonymous No.18978169]

>>18978133
>They are therefore also called “teaching lessons.”
teaching stories**

[Anonymous No.18978196]

All I know about this guy is that Hermitix has become a Gurdjieff shill vehicle for some reason

[Anonymous No.18978260]

>>18978196
Hermitix is usually cool but extremely cringe when discussing numerology, the occult, and magic (which he takes very seriously). I don't know if he's still Orthodox but it's cringe when he larps as a trad christian on discord. On top of that, he's a Deleuzian (despite giving off Platonist vibes).

[Anonymous No.18978266]

>>18978162
>five main sacred individuals of modern humanity are ... Saint Buddha (founder of the tradition known as Buddhism)
Gurdjieff confirmed for midwit, Buddha was retroactively refuted by Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.18978271]

>>18978162
These individuals are also called by him “Messengers of His Endless.”

If you read about Gurdjieff’s life and teachings (given the name “The Fourth Way” to Ouspensky and his disciples in “In Search of the Miraculous”), you can find parallels to it in almost every religion. For instance, Gurdjieff acted at times like an aggressive Zen master shouting, whacking a disciple with a stick, or giving out some bizarre, seemingly incomprehensible answer or koan. He acts at times like a Sufi master employing Malamati, Arabic for “the way of the blame,” with a parallel to what Idries Shah talks about in this interview >>18977211 about how a favorite technique of Sufis is, strangely enough, shouting people down, shooing them away, or appearing to have bad manners. You can see a parallel to the tradition of holy fools, fools for Christ, or what is known in the Russian Orthodox tradition as “yurodivy.”

>The Holy Fool or yuródivyy (юpoдивый) is the Russian version of foolishness for Christ, a peculiar form of Eastern Orthodox asceticism. The yurodivy is a Holy Fool, one who acts intentionally foolish in the eyes of men. The term implies behaviour "which is caused neither by mistake nor by feeble-mindedness, but is deliberate, irritating, even provocative."

>In his book Holy Fools in Byzantium and Beyond, Ivanov described "holy fool" as a term for a person who "feigns insanity, pretends to be silly, or who provokes shock or outrage by his deliberate unruliness." He explained that such conduct qualifies as holy foolery only if the audience believes that the individual is sane, moral, and pious. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that holy fools voluntarily take up the guise of insanity in order to conceal their perfection from the world, and thus avoid praise.

>Some characteristics that were commonly seen in holy fools were going around half-naked, being homeless, speaking in riddles, being believed to be clairvoyant and a prophet, and occasionally being disruptive and challenging to the point of seeming immoral (though always to make a point).

In the Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhist tradition, there’s what modern Tibetan lama, meditation master and holder of the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, the 11th of the Trungpa tulkus (reincarnated Tibetan Buddhist lamas and meditation masters), and supreme abbot of the Surmang monasteries Chögyam Trungpa (1939-1987) called “crazy wisdom.” The Tibetan word for this is being a “nyonpa,” or “mad one,” such as Drungpa Kunley (1455-1529), who once is known to have pulled out his erect what-is-called “penis” in the middle of a monastery when asked about enlightenment.

>The Nyönpa is essentially a free spirit who follows the rule of spontaneity and intuition, not subject to any external book of rules....he is one dedicated to renunciation and the path of enlightenment who does not fit within the disciplines and practises of the formal orders.

[Anonymous No.18978302]

In Hinduism, it would be called being an “avadhut siddha” or “avadhuta.”

>Avadhūta (IAST avadhūta) — अवधूत in Sanskrit — is a Sanskrit term from the root 'to shake' (see V. S. Apte and Monier-Williams) that, among its many uses, in some Indian religions indicates a type of mystic or saint who is beyond egoic-consciousness, duality and common worldly concerns and acts without consideration for standard social etiquette. Avadhūta is a Jīvanmukta who gives his insight to others and teach them about his realisation of the true nature of the ultimate reality (Brahman) and self (Ātman) and takes the role of a guru to show the path of moksha to others. Some Avadhūta also achieve the title of Paramahamsa.

Gurdjieff’s way, strangely enough, is meant to be lived in ordinary life, not in a monastery, using the events, struggles, sorrows, suffering, and joys of ordinary life all as a means of reaching enlightenment privately, secretly, not setting oneself up as a guru or cult leader. It therefore has an even closer parallel to the idea of the “kulavadhuta.”

> Kulāvadhūta : These people are supposed to have taken initiation from the Kaula sampradaya or people who awakened their Kundalini and capable of merging it at Sahasrāra Chakra or people who are capable of raising their awareness to Turiya and Turiyatita states. They are adepts in Kundalini Tantra. It is very difficult to recognize these people as they do not wear any signs outside which can identify them from others. The speciality of these people is that they remain and live like usual people do. They can show themselves in the form of Kings, a warrior, a family man or a beggar. That is, a Kulavadhuta shows no outside signs of their spiritual status.

Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981) was a cigarette-smoking shop-owner in Mumbay, a very ordinary seeming man who nevertheless reached enlightenment under his guru, Siddheramshwar Maharaj (1888-1936), and wrote the famous book “I Am That” about his own questions and answers with seekers in much more plain, modern English, as opposed to the poetic phraseology of texts like the Bhagavad Gita. Enlightenment can be had even in the modern day, even in a Western body. If it was only limited to the Buddhists and Hindus, would it really be “enlightenment” or would it just be deforming your mind to fit into a limited tradition?

[Anonymous No.18978308]

>>18978162
Why no Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.18978310]

>>18978260
He's cringe when discussing occultism but only because he doesn't understand it, not because he takes it seriously

He also invites on academics rather than people who have worked the material, so you get an hour of
>well what do we MEAN when we say 'Poopoo', well, to answer that we have to go back to.....
where you end up knowing nothing about the topic

[Anonymous No.18978334]

Students of the phenomenology of religion — or even just of phenomenology, and/or of existentialism — could learn much from all this. Gurdjieff’s own teachings, basically, are like the idea of the perennial philosophy with roots in the Renaissance interest in neo-Platonism and integrating neo-Platonism and Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought by some of these mystics and thinkers. Of course, this was then appropriated by Aldous Huxley writing “The Perennial Philosophy” (1945), with an even greater range of traditions integrated into it.

Gurdjieff’s approach to this is, “Very well — all these traditions have similar experiences of enlightenment, of higher awareness reached in all of them. But you only write about it, you only talk about it. Do you experience it? What if there was a way to train yourself to experience it and experience it for longer and longer, to become a real person having real mystical experiences instead of just talking and writing about it?”

Strange as it sounds, and (comparatively) obscure as he is, I believe Gurdjieff to be a man who, at some point in his mid-life or later life, at least, reached a similar state reached by Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and the like. But the strangest thing is Gurdjieff did this in the West, while traveling around, experiencing as much as he could of life, having sex, drinking alcohol and the like (analogous of course to Tantric traditions in which these things, normally forbidden to ascetic Buddhists and Hindus, are allowed to them). So you could argue perhaps Gurdjieff’s way is an even more interesting, fruitful, but more difficult (and therefore more rapid) way. To experience enlightenment in the midst of the ordinary things of life instead of going out into a monastery. This is why he called it “the way of the householder, meant to be lived in ordinary life.”

Anyone who for some reason in this thread and happens to have read Heidegger’s “Being and Time” could even make parallels between how Gurdjieff talks about how the average man, living as an automaton and mere member of the crowd, does not remember his death, and remembering one’s death is one of the best ways to make oneself a real man, as well as the deaths of everyone one lays eyes on — this is advice given by Beelzebub, for instance, in a long-winded speech at the end of BTTHG. He also makes the distinction between “personality” (what is given to one by society, by education, by training, by one’s parents, family, friends, etc.) and “essence” (the true self in man, which he claims is very undeveloped, asleep, and tiny in most, but which should and can be developed to its utmost and lived in). In Heidegger, of course, this would be being an authentic and resolute individual, Dasein, in the mode of Being-towards-death, who has waken up from fallenness in the They (Das Man), or the inauthentic and irresolute They-self.

[Anonymous No.18978359]

>>18978308
He brings up Krishna in the book, actually, I forgot to mention that — Saint Krishnatkharna, the avatar sent by His Endlesness to Pearlandia (India) — he has a really weird terminology he endlessly uses in the book to shock the reader, mess with and bypass their linear mind, and constantly keep them on their toes — but to a student, he’s once apocryphally known to have disparagingly mentioned Hinduism as “a bordello for the truth.” This is because, contrary to what you as a Westerner may think, a lot of Indians and their monasteries and fakirs and gurus aren’t necessarily enlightened. They shit in the goddamned street. A lot of the priests only know the exoteric stuff, the rituals, worshiping some six-armed deity, praying thoughtlessly just like a Christian priest, maybe knowing and repeating the teaching “atman is one with Brahman” (a better formulation, at least, than what you usually find in the West) but not really understanding it. He definitely learned from India and Hinduism, too, though. How could he not have, in all his travels?

>Heidegger refers to this concept of the One in explaining inauthentic modes of existence, in which Dasein, instead of truly choosing to do something, does it only because "That is what one does" or "That is what people do". Thus, das Man is not a proper or measurable entity, but rather an amorphous part of social reality that functions effectively in the manner that it does through this intangibility.

>Das Man constitutes a possibility of Dasein's Being, and so das Man cannot be said to be any particular someone. Rather, the existence of 'the They' is known to us through, for example, linguistic conventions and social norms. Heidegger states that, "The "they" prescribes one's state-of-mind, and determines what and how one 'sees'".

>To give examples: when one makes an appeal to what is commonly known, one says "one does not do such a thing"; When one sits in a car or bus or reads a newspaper, one is participating in the world of 'the They'. This is a feature of 'the They' as it functions in society, an authority that has no particular source. In a non-moral sense Heidegger contrasts "the authentic self" ("my owned self") with "the they self" ("my un-owned self").

See, Gurdjieff is very simple to understand!

> To know means to know all. Not to know all means not to know. In order to know all, it is only necessary to know a little. But, in order to know this little, it is first necessary to know pretty much.
G.I. Gurdjieff

[Anonymous No.18978385]

>>18978308
Also, Theosophy (and thereby Hinduism) was very popular in occult circles, Westerners looking for wisdom of the East, in those days. Gurdjieff, as a prankster and rascal guru, liked to deconstruct his disciples’ notions constantly and shock their expectations. So, in ISoTM, when asked about the Hindu teaching of kundalini, he (perhaps somewhat mischievously, or as a deconstruction of the facile Western occult and Theosophical notions of it) says:

>In so-called ′occult′ literature you have probably met with the expression ′Kundalini,′ ′the fire of Kundalini,′ or the ′serpent of Kundalini.′ This expression is often used to designate some kind of strange force which is present in man and which can be awakened. But none of the known theories gives the right explanation of the force of Kundalini. >Sometimes it is connected with sex, with sex energy, that is with the idea of the possibility of using sex energy for other purposes. This latter is entirely wrong because kundalini snakeKundalini can be in anything. And above all, Kundalini is not anything desirable or useful for man′s development. It is very curious how these occultists have got hold of the word from somewhere but have completely altered its meaning and from a very dangerous and terrible thing have made something to be hoped for and to be awaited as some blessing.
>In reality Kundalini is the power of imagination, the power of fantasy, which takes the place of a real function. When a man dreams instead of acting, when his dreams take the place of reality, when a man imagines himself to be an eagle, a lion, or a magician, it is the force of Kundalini acting in him. Kundalini can act in all centers and with its help all the centers can be satisfied with the imaginary instead of the real. A sheep which considers itself a lion or a magician lives under the power of Kundalini.
>Kundalini is a force put into men in order to keep them in their present state. If men could really see their true position and could understand all the horror of it, they would be unable to remain where they are even for one second. They would begin to seek a way out and they would quickly find it, because there is a way out; but men fail to see it simply because they are hypnotized. Kundalini is the force that keeps them in a hypnotic state. ′To awaken′ for man means to be ′dehypnotized.′ In this lies the chief difficulty and in this also lies the guarantee of its possibility, for there is no organic reason for sleep and man can awaken.
>Theoretically he can, but practically it is almost impossible because as soon as a man awakens for a moment and opens his eyes, all the forces that caused him to fall asleep begin to act upon him with tenfold energy and he immediately falls asleep again, very often dreaming that he is awake or is awakening.

[Anonymous No.18978407]

> >There are certain states in ordinary sleep in which a man wants to awaken but cannot. He tells himself that he is awake but, in reality, he continues to sleep – and this can happen several times before he finally awakes. But in ordinary sleep, once he is awake, he is in a different state; in hypnotic sleep the case is otherwise; there are no objective characteristics, at any rate not at the beginning of awakening; a man cannot pinch himself in order to make sure that he is not asleep. And if, which God forbid, a man has heard anything about objective characteristics, Kundalini at once transforms it all into imagination and dreams.

This sounds like Gurdjieff is bullshitting or talking out of his ass, right? Like he doesn’t know anything about Kundalini Yoga and Hindu and Tantric teachings about awakening the kundalini shakti from the root chakra at the base of the spine, and/or the genitals, up through the spine until it reaches the sahsrara, crown chakra, thereby reaching enlightenment?

In Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, at some point late into it’s 1,100 pages — I actually read the book three or four times, many years ago — writing this whole thread makes me want to read it again — he has this extremely strange headache passage which sounds bizarre, of course, out of context, but is a nice sample for anyone who wants to see what all this fuss and confusion of the OP is about:

>Just these same substances in beings, according to the fifth deflection of the Sacred Heptaparaparshinokh, have the free possibility of giving, in the manifestations of the common presences of three-brained beings, results not similar but ‘opposite to each other.’ “That is why, in respect of these being-substances, the beings themselves must always be very, very much on their guard in order to avoid undesirable consequences for their entire whole. From the cerebrum of beings a part of these definite substances also goes to serve the planetary body itself, but the other part, passing in a particular way through the ’nerve nodes’ of the spine and the breast, is concentrated in the beings of the male sex, in what are called ‘testicles’ and in the beings of the female sex in what most of your favorites call ‘ovaries,’ which are the place of concentration in the common presences of beings of the ‘being- Exioehary,’ which is for the beings themselves their most sacred possession. You should know that this particular way mentioned is called ‘Trnlva.’"

This is the sex energy going up through the spine to the back then top of the head, leading to ecstatic experiences and enlightenment. Gurdjieff here also makes the warning about how one has to be particularly careful about derangement arising from these experiences and messing around with this stuff without knowing what you’re doing.

[Anonymous No.18978446]

>>18978334
>Strange as it sounds, and (comparatively) obscure as he is, I believe Gurdjieff to be a man who, at some point in his mid-life or later life, at least, reached a similar state reached by Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and the like. But the strangest thing is Gurdjieff did this in the West, while traveling around, experiencing as much as he could of life, having sex, drinking alcohol and the like (analogous of course to Tantric traditions in which these things, normally forbidden to ascetic Buddhists and Hindus, are allowed to them). So you could argue perhaps Gurdjieff’s way is an even more interesting, fruitful, but more difficult (and therefore more rapid) way. To experience enlightenment in the midst of the ordinary things of life instead of going out into a monastery. This is why he called it “the way of the householder, meant to be lived in ordinary life.”

> The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Matthew 11:19


And, by the way, Gurdjieff also calls his teaching “esoteric Christianity” in Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous.” Incidentally, in Naqshbandi Sufi Idries Shah’s “The Sufis” (1964), Shah notes Sufis have sometimes called themselves “masihi-i-battini,” Arabic for “esoteric Christians”, and some of them revered Christ particularly so much as a wise Sufi figure that they were accused of being secret Christians and therefore persecuted by the dogmatic, backwards, narrow-minded society around them for doing so.

[Anonymous No.18978460]

>>18976859
Either celibacy or monogamy are preferable for enlightenment. Any "mystic" who engages in orgies and promiscuity is unworthy of one's time. Gurdjieff did have orgies.

[Anonymous No.18978466]

>>18978407
So just Kundalini 101 then

wew

[Anonymous No.18978505]

>>18978460
Krishna literally had 16,108 wives.

[Anonymous No.18978546]

>>18978505
Polygyny is fine too if the social conditions allow for it.
The problem is with the women sleeping with other men. Any woman who cheats on a man is as good as trash and deserves execution. Once a virgin woman is taken, she must be 100% faithful. "Popping her cherry" is to mark them as your own property. Any man who tries to take another man's property is deserving of death.
Any society that lets a woman fuck around is as good as dead.

[Anonymous No.18978557]

>>18978546
But ... but ...

What if I, the effort-poster in this thread, simply like BOOBA?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18978566]

>>18978546
People aren’t property. Mush heads that hold to this brain-rot need to be put down

[Anonymous No.18978568]

>>18978566
Based Butterfly. You read anything else in this thread? Have any questions or comments? I enjoy feedback.

LEGGA

[Anonymous No.18978570]

>>18978566

>People are very important and if anyone disagrees I want those particular people to be fucking killed!!!

[Anonymous No.18978573]

>>18978566
Trannies like you are worth less than trash. You don't even deserve to be called property, more like debris.
Human life in the modern age is the most disposable thing. If there's one thing the Satanic elite have right, it's the need for depopulation through a scamdemic where the "cure" wipes out most morons.
Letting women fuck around destroys communal integrity to the point where active eugenics is needed

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18978617]

>>18978570
YES

[Anonymous No.18978627]

>>18978573
Strangely enough, this is also a somewhat Gurdjieffian comment. He talks about stuff like this, about how mankind is just the pawn of higher forces passing through it, sometimes more benevolent and sometimes less so. When Ouspensky asks him, “How can war be stopped?”, he says, “War cannot be stopped because it is the result of higher influences passing through mankind. When a huge amount of death and suffering is needed, it is created, and it then ‘feeds’ those forces.” You can see a parallel to the idea of archons and the Demiurge in the Gnostic tractates, as well as simply to demons and Lucifer in the Abrahamic tradition.

So the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, and the various elected officials who are stooges for them, would seem to be channels of this bad karma onto humanity, soulless demonically possessed puppets without the chance of redemption in this lifetime, precisely because they are so evil that they have destroyed their soul. Gurdjieff talks about evolutionary and involutionary forces in ISoTM, and points out the disturbing, horrifying chance of “conscious evil.” This is a knowingly malevolent, involutionary force that is deliberately rebellious against the evolutionary desire to return to and unify oneself with the Source of all. He doesn’t focus on it much but simply says it’s another part of the grand cosmic scheme.

In BTTHG, he goes into the nature of these kinds of people more, and calls them “Hasnamusses,” having deliberately crystallized in themselves the essence of evil, to put it poetically.

>There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge. This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.
>This aspect of the question is clear. The crowd neither wants nor seeks knowledge, and the leaders of the crowd, in their own interests, try to strengthen its fear and dislike of everything new and unknown. The slavery in which mankind lives is based upon this fear. It is even difficult to imagine all the horror of this slavery. We do not understand what people are losing. But in order to understand the cause of this slavery it is enough to see how people live, what constitutes the aim of their existence, the object of their desires, passions, and aspirations, of what they think, of what they talk, what they serve and what they worship.

[Anonymous No.18978630]

>>18978573
>>18978627
Hasnamuss supposedly means in Persian, by the way, “shit-soul.”

[Anonymous No.18979501]

I see we have a Gurdjieff superfan here. Where to start with him?

[Anonymous No.18980184]

>>18979501
Thank you. First, you have to have some religious faith (even if you don’t know in exactly what), as well as an open intellect willing to consider many new ideas and not necessarily fully tied to any one religion or occult school itself, although you can of course come in starting with a tendency — even a particularly strong one — of being attracted to and considering yourself a part of a particular school or religion you’re attracted to, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism (we’re on a Western-speaking board so it’s probably one of these you grew up in), Buddhism, Hinduism, or even the modern clever tendency of being attracted to perennial philosophy, the occult, the New Age, Native American shamanism (is true — don’t laugh), arguing about Guenon, and even having read a little bit of Blavatsky’s Theosophy. Then you read his disciple P.D. Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous,” then Ouspensky’s book, “The Fourth Way,” a collection of questions and answers he did with his own disciples as own older man, is a great start, in my opinion, and the first book is always recommended by everyone to people who want to get into Gurdjieff because it’s such a good primer of his ideas.

It’s good to have a working knowledge of at least the Gospels, the Bhagavad Gita, some of the Buddha’s teachings, some Greek philosophy, Hermeticism, and the like — the basic texts about getting into “perennial philosophy.”

Then if you’re enough of a genuine fucking lunatic and a devoted enough masochist after all that, you can pick up “Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson,” (Vol. I of “All and Everything”), follow the instructions Gurdjieff gives in the opening about how to read him, then move on to “Meetings With Remarkable Men” (Vol II of “All & Everything”), then his incomplete but still mind-blowing, strange, and even at times occasionally very funny, “Life is real only then, when ‘I am’” (Vol. III of “All & Everything”). Then just see where life takes you.

Gurdjieff, incidentally, grew up surrounded particularly by Christianity, and almost became an Orthodox Christian priest, having studied for the priesthood and an old picture having been found of him dressed up for it as a young man. He apparently abandoned it at the last moment, for whatever reason. He’s said to have told his disciples in ISoTM, “I am here to teach you how you can really be a Christian. If you come to me as a Christian, I could be here to make you a better Christian, a true Christian, instead of someone merely saying he is a Christian.”

Then, weirdly enough, I recommend reading all of Naqshbandi Sufi’s Idries Shah’s books that you can get your hands on. You could do this at any point in your life, even apart from Gurdjieff.

>Religion is doing; a man does not merely think his religion or feel it, he lives his religion as much as he is able, otherwise it is not religion but fantasy or philosophy.
Gurdjieff

[Anonymous No.18980431]

>>18980184
Thanks anon, appreciated.

[Anonymous No.18980477]

>>18980431
No problem at all. Enjoy and hopefully get some wisdom out all the reading!

[Anonymous No.18980513]

My mom attended Gurdjieff group meetings for a while. I don’t think she did a great job explaining to me what the whole deal was but I basically told her it sounded weird as fuck and if they asked for money then run. Pretty sure she didn’t stick with it for very long. Now she’s a Zen Buddhist who graduated some chaplaincy program and received a Japanese “dharma name”.

[Anonymous No.18980685]

>>18980513
She got filtered.

[Anonymous No.18980788]

>>18980513
Do NOT join Gurdjieff groups. Just don’t. I’m not joking. They’ll do shit like that and pull leaders around by the nose and some even do ask for money because they think they’re hot shit for knowing someone who knows someone who took a shit in the same bathroom Gurdjieff once did. None of them ever were directly trained and learned from Naqshbandi Sufis, or Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhists, or wandering enlightened Hindu yogis.

I myself may or may not be a pseud pulling everyone’s leg, but notice how I’m not doing this for money or fame? At least I didn’t do it for money. You’re better off joining some Westernized Zen sangha than a Gurdjieff group.

>>18980685
No. Ees you who got filtered, anon. Random anon on 4chan know better than Gurdjieff group. He read Beelzebub book many, many times. Is now like piece of dirt on toenail on the toe of servant of Beelzebub, Ahoon. Advanced state for man to be in, but even I am beginner.

Joking and bullshitting aside, imitating Gurdjieff or anyone won’t bring you enlightenment. Only being uniquely and inimitable yourself will do so. So, strange as it sounds, you could even come at all this by getting deep enough into J. Krishnamurti, but not by joining a God-awful Krishnamurti group, or by getting deep into Zen, into Hindu yoga, into Sufism, or even into Christianity and the imitatio Christi (paradoxical as that sounds — I don’t recommend trying to imitate Gurdjieff, but you can still get something on literature on and a sense of devotion to Christ and trying to imitate how He lived and what He taught to people!)

Another random book recommendation: “The Teachers of Gurdjieff” by Rafael Lefort. Western seeker who searched after and found the Naqshbandi Sufi teachers of Gurdjieff, then studied and learned under them.

[Anonymous No.18980840]

Gurdjieff himself would probably make fun of and object to me imitating him, and make many withering comments about this thread. More for fun than anything else. Gurdjieff was who really “started” me on the spiritual path so I feel a deep respect and devotion for him and that’s why I know a lot about him. In Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, Gurdjieff even predicted this phenomenon with the buffoonish, uptight character of Ahoon, who is Beelzebub’s servant. Ahoon constantly imitates Beelzebub and his mannerism of speaking, and sharply criticizes the grandson, Hassein, at times, as if Ahoon is qualified to be the grandson Hassein’s teacher just as well as Beelzebub is. Beelzebub sometimes has to tell him, “My dear, tremendously dear servant Ahoon ... ekh! What can I say, my boy? In fact, your criticism of my dear grandson Hassein’s question, demeanor, and behavior is unmerited. I shall now explain why.” A lot of Gurdjieff’s followers became Ahoons, and Gurdjieff even compassionately predicted and understood this. At the end of the book, very moving passage — Ahoon has tears in his eyes when he sees how truly advanced Beelzebub is and all he has been through, and admits, “I do not have the potential in my lifetime to be like him.”

Why you reading this, anon? You think you get enlightenment here? No. Is only Gurdjieff imitator and charlatan.

Pic related is Gurdjieff talking in the preface of his book about how, as a kid, something strange arose in him that made him want to do everything in an opposite or strange way from other people.

[Anonymous No.18980855]

[Anonymous No.18980867]

[Anonymous No.18980886]

Combining a bunch of disparate traditions is retarded. It leads to contradictions and new age bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18980939]

The seven rays of light emanating from the seven points of the tooth, of course, represents the “law of seven,” which manifests in the seven notes of the musical octave, which is the interval between one pitch and another pitch with exactly double its frequency, called “do,” “re,” “mi,” “fa,” “sol,” “la,” “ti,” the seven colors of the rainbow (portion of light visible to mankind), called “red,” “orange,” “yellow,” “green,” “blue,” “indigo,” and “violet,” the seven days in which God created the Earth, called, “Monday,” “Tuesday,” “Wednesday,” “Thursday,” “Friday,” “Saturday,” “and then on Sunday he rested,” the seven factors needed in Buddhism for enlightenment, called, “sati,” “dhamma vicaya,” “viriya,” “piti,” “passaddhi,” “samadhi,” and “upekkha,” or “mindfulness,” “investigation of the nature of reality,” “energy or determination or effort,” “joy,” “tranquil relaxation of the body and mind,” “one-pointed concentration,” and “equanimity,” the Seven Laws of Mr. Noah given to him in the Talmud, the seven continents, known as, “Africa,” “Asia,” “Europe,” “South America,” “North America,” “South Antarctica,” and “North Antarctica,” and the seven classical planets of antiquity, known as “Moon,” “Mars,” “Mercury,” “Venus,” “Sun,” “Jupiter,” and “Saturn.”

[Anonymous No.18980948]

>>18980939
>the Seven Laws of Mr. Noah given to him in the Talmud
Stfu already, man.

[Anonymous No.18980956]

>>18980886
You no like? I combine all traditions just for you, anon. American hippie say, “Just do lysergic acid diethylamide and read a bunch of religions, especially Hare Krishna and Zen Buddhism, and peace out, man!” Is like me, except I am not sissy leftist queer.

[Anonymous No.18980973]

>>18980956
I am getting tired of people reducing the complexities of mysticism and more to political affiliation. I don't give a shit if you're far right or far left because you are still an idiot who, by combining a bunch of unrelated traditions, loses the fruits and nuances of each.
Far left and far right hippies are both trash. Go smoke some pot, shithead, and stop acting like you've come across something great.

[Anonymous No.18981041]

>>18980948
You don’t like the Talmud? What are ya, an antisemite?

>>18980973
It’s a free country. Make me. Say that to my face in real life, pussy. That’s right. You wouldn’t. Because you’re a pussy. Yeah, you talk tough behind a screen, but in real life you’d be walking away with your tail between your legs. Go watch some more MSNBC and rag on people who disagree with you like you’re some fucking God. Stupid piece of fucking shit. You know how much effort I put into this thread? Into my fucking life? All for some fucking retard like you to mess it up with your stupid joke post. What a disgusting halfwit you are. I’m genuinely pissed off, anon. I was having a good day until you came in and ruined my mood with this crap.

Can you apologize? Seriously. No one needed to hear that.

[Anonymous No.18981104]

>>18980973
I haven’t smoked pot regularly for months, by the way. I’m an enlightened genius, unlike you, ya fucking faggot. What? What? What you gonna say? What you gonna do about it? Feeling insecure? Good. Yeah, you rag on other people because of your insecurity. You meet a talented industrious genius like me, and you just come and piss on my leg like a fucking dog. I’ll actually fuck your shit up. Where do you live?

>you’re not half as funny as you think, dude

I’m not kidding. Let’s see how tough you are in real life.

[Anonymous No.18981126]

What’s that? Anon isn’t responding? Anon isn’t responding because he’s a little bitch?

[Anonymous No.18981170]

>>18981041
You live a vapid life.
I am not a liberal.
I just don't think politics and mysticism mix well. I was confused when politics was randomly brought up. Stop politicizing everything, you stupid Amerimutt. And yes, you can be a far right mystic, but I am confused about why it would be randomly brought up. Mixing a bunch of random traditions is still retarded.

[Anonymous No.18981190]

>>18980973
I’m not far right, you stupid fuck. Anyone calls out the leftist queers and you call them “far right.” What the fuck?

>It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.
Cormac McCarthy

>But I don't like enforced integration any more than I like enforced segregation. If I have to choose between the United States government and Mississippi, then I'll choose Mississippi. What I'm trying to do now is not have to make that decision. As long as there's a middle road, all right, I'll be on it. But if it came to fighting I'd fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the street and shooting Negroes. After all, I'm not going out to shoot Mississippians.
William Faulkner

A guy lives in a nice ranch in the rural South, owns a shotgun, and is ready to start shooting niggers, and you call him “far right”? Who’s the real racist, man?

How do you look in real life? You know when a woman “drops” something and bends over to pick it up in front of you? How many times does that happen to you? Not at all? Didn’t think so. I bet you’re one of the retards who thinks COVID-19 is actually a serious disease and not just a jacked-up flu. Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.18981216]

>>18981170
Anon, I’m messing with you! I don’t care man. Do whatever you want or hate me or have disdain for me. I brought that up as a troll and a parody of Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff was apolitical, but overal supported conservative, traditional values (strange as that sounds when combined with his attitude towards sex). When he lived in Germany during the Third Reich, he was known to have helped smuggle and hide out people hiding from the Nazi regime, and even got arrested for publicly mocking and making fun of the Nazis in public. He somehow got out of it — it’s said he had Intelligence agency connections from all his travels he did as a young man (supposedly having been employed as an agent for various countries as part of the “Great Game,” which he did so he would be allowed to travel freely to countries usually off-limits to foreigners, as well as so he could even be funded to travel to these countries and study their traditions), and also was said to be an extremely charismatic, unexpected man who could unexpectedly somehow MacGyver himself out of situations like this.

[Anonymous No.18981233]

The Great Game was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire, over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and South Asia. It also had direct consequences in Persia and British India. Britain feared that Russia planned to invade India and that this was the goal of Russia's expansion in Central Asia, while Russia feared the expansion of British interests in Central Asia. As a result, there was a deep atmosphere of distrust and the talk of war between two of the major European empires.[1][2][3] Britain made it a high priority to protect all the approaches to India, while Russia continued its conquest of Central Asia.[4] Some historians of Russia have concluded that after 1801, Russia had minimal intentions or plans involving India and that it was mostly a matter of British suspicions[5] although multiple 19th century invasion plans are attested including the Duhamel plan and Khrulev plan, among later plans that never materialized.

It’s believed he also played some role in the Anglo-Tibetan War, and may or may not have been and/or posed as a person known as Dorjieff (Dorzhiev), a person who was a close confidante of and worked as an envoy for the 13th Dalai Lama.

[Anonymous No.18981264]

>>18981190
You have poor reading comprehension, Amerimutt.
I never made my own political positions clear. I just said I don't like the mixing of politics with mysticism.
I don't think the modern era is normal by any means. It is not normal for people of different races to live side by side and so forth. I tend to be a big misanthrope, and I don't consider whites superior because your race created these globalist problems in the first place. It doesn't matter if Jews tricked you, you were ultimately fooled and set the stage for your own self-destruction while taking it out on others like me.
I have no responsibility for your own hubris and being fucked by kikes. I won't have any kids because, unlike others of my kind, I can foresee shit will hit the fan.
Anyways, go and neck yourself. Gurdjieff is a lousy thinker and you're a dumb piece of shit. Combining the thoughts of a bunch of retarded Sufis, Christian mystics, Buddhists, and Hindus is retarded. Their views don't jibe well together.

[Anonymous No.18981329]

>>18981264
Who brought up politics until you got your knickerbockers up in a bunch over me making a parody of Gurdjieff and suggesting he would make fun of hippies for some of them being drug-addicted leftist queers? Gurdjieff says in BTTHG that there are three sexes of mankind: male, female, then the in-between, whom he dismisses as failures of human beings. If some long-haired young White pothead came up to Gurdjieff and asked him something stupid like, “Hey, man, listen to my mixtape I made, it’s based off of the Beatles and Tame Impala, sort of a cool mixture of both I made with my band, which is named—“ Gurdjieff would probably smack the Caucasian off of him before he could even finish that sentence.

>THE WORLD OF TANTRA IS NOT INTELLECTUAL; IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHICAL. DOCTRINE IS MEANINGLESS TO IT. IT IS CONCERNED WITH METHOD, WITH TECHNIQUE—NOT WITH PRINCIPLES AT ALL.
THE WORD TANTRA MEANS DYNAMICAL SYSTEM, LIVING PATH, GENUINE METHOD OR SET OF WORKING TECHNIQUES. SO IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHICAL: NOTE THIS. IT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH INTELLECTUAL PROBLEMS AND INQUIRIES. IT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WHY OF THINGS: IT IS CONCERNED WITH HOW—NOT WITH WHAT IS TRUTH, BUT HOW THE TRUTH CAN BE DIRECTLY ATTAINED AS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
Osho Rajneesh, another man I like.

[Anonymous No.18981343]

>>18981329
Tradition is important. That doesn't mean you can't learn interesting stuff from other traditions, but it's retarded to just lump a bunch of stuff from other traditions together.

[Anonymous No.18981368]

>>18981264
>I just said I don't like the mixing of politics with mysticism.
>I don't think the modern era is normal by any means. It is not normal for people of different races to live side by side and so forth. I tend to be a big misanthrope, and I don't consider whites superior because your race created these globalist problems in the first place. It doesn't matter if Jews tricked you, you were ultimately fooled and set the stage for your own self-destruction while taking it out on others like me.
Ah, at least you admit to the JQ. Gurdjieff, interestingly enough, once wrote on a sign he hung up at the Chateau du Prieure at Avon, near Fontainebleau:

>Here there are neither Russians nor English, Jews nor Christians, but only those who pursue one aim—to be able to be.

But of Jews, he also admitted, “They tend to feel themselves very apart from the rest of humanity and cluster together in their own groups.”

In BTTHG, he also satirizes John D. Rockefeller of the day, wearing a top hat, as the archetypal 1% businessman accumulating wealth at the expense of everyone else. The Rockefellers had and have ties with the Rothschilds.

Did Gurdjieff know more about the JQ then he was letting on? Did he try to warn us?

>>18981216
Also this is during the Nazi occupation of Paris with Gurdjieff teaching there**, not Germany itself. My apologies.

[Anonymous No.18981389]

>>18981343
I’m not lumping a bunch of traditions together, you Goddamned fucking retard. This is all pure GURDJIEFF, and Gurdjieff himself was pure Zen, Advaita (not-two), Sufism, and esoteric Christianity. In fact, he refused to use religious terminology frequently in his direct teaching, except as an example or a quote to demonstrate how his teaching was superior even to their religion and took the best parts out of it.

For instance, Gurdjieff would go, “Here in the Gospels, Christ says: ‘A man must die before he can be reborn again.’ The Buddha once said, ‘You must sit in the lotus position to learn how to really be enlightened.’ But my teaching is about how to really do that. I am like Christ and Buddha combined but even better, because I can actually teach you how to talk to God instead of just half-assing it.” I forgot where he’s recorded as saying this but I’m sure he actually said something like that at some point.

[Anonymous No.18981420]

>>18981389
>pure Zen, Advaita (not-two), Sufism, and esoteric Christianity
These already contradict each other.
>Christ and Buddha
Very little in common between them.

[Anonymous No.18981433]

>>18981420
What are you? Do you know or do you merely assume things about your being so as to not have to inquire too deeply or experience too vastly? We could of course keep these questions impersonal and ask, what is the Self, as if the Self, You or I, were merely an abstract object. A “self” can be a kind of objective entity for the material brain to think about, in which case it can be easily construed to be a common epiphenomenon of the neurocognitive activity of human bodies. When the question pertains to you and your relationship with your own supposedly “thinking” material brain, you can feel the issue more personally as having something existential and not merely ontological. So let’s ask You:

What are you?

Your material brain is an object within your body, which is also an object. Through these organic objects of yours you are able to have cognitive sensory experiences of surrounding physical objects. Your body is your most intimate and persistent objective neurocognitive sensory experience for You, the Dualistic Subject, who has Consciousness as a gap between You and your objects of your world. Consciousness through the body and its brain is a phenomenal timespace subject-object relation. On the objective pole, consciousness is dualistic and phenomenological, but going within from your body to your selfhood as a subject has no apparent gap or inner space, so it seems to be nondual as if you are your body. Object is a phenomenal duality; subject is a noumenal nonduality or it is not a pure and real subject or self.

A body is made of organic matter, but a self is not made of any kind of matter, for only a phenomenal object can be made of matter. A noumenal subject is immaterial and immeasurable by any form of material instrumentation.

[Anonymous No.18981439]

You are not your body! It is your most vivid and persistent experiential cognitive activity during your waking sensory hours, but in a “flying dream” you are in your subtle body of death and dreaming. Your subtle body is what you call your mind of perception and imagination, as well as your emotional states, throughout the day. The mind, the subtle body, can be energetically detached from the physical body and be developed to do extraordinary things. If you have read the books of Robert Monroe, Carlos Castaneda or Swami Muktananda, you can begin to see, at least theoretically, how this works. From the standpoint of physical sensory duality of physical world, objects and other human bodies, your selfhood is all too easily identified as a bodily subjective object, which makes the mind or subtle body, the dreamer, seem to be a relative noumenal subject transcendentally above and beyond the physical world and physical bodies of physical phenomenal subject-object consciousness as neuro-cognition.

Developing the subtle body and its extraordinary faculties, powers or siddhis is a big deal for most human beings who can do such things or who at least aspire to do such things. The human soul (whatever that might turn out to be) eventually outgrows the ignorance of naïve materialism and develops a kind of subtle supermaterialism of identifying conscious selfhood with the mind or subtle body as a subtle subjective object (the subtle or dream body) that experiences subtle subject-object phenomenal consciousness of subtle worlds, objects and other subtle bodily persons, such as ghosts of the dead or nonhuman spirits such as are called angels and demons. But the subtle “self” is not real because the even subtler causal plane or world of sheer abstractions or pure ideas, thought-structures, then becomes the relative noumenal subject in nondual consciousness of the subtle subject-object phenomenal dualistic realm. The causal seeming noumenal self sees then that the Dreamer is the Dream, the Perceiver is the Perceived, the Feeler the Felt, just as before it was the seeming subtle noumenal self or supersensory mind that could see that the physical seer is the physical seen and the physical doer the physical thing done. But the causal self is still a mere concept and not an ultimate transcendental reality, not a phenomenological transcendental ego as conceived by Edmund Husserl. It is still a third plane of duality of phenomenal abstract subjective object looking at phenomenal abstract objective objects.

[Anonymous No.18981448]

>>18981433
>>18981439
Guenonfag is better than you because he sticks close to tradition and goes into the nuances of Adi Shankara's argumentation. l don't give a shit about new age faggots. There's a reason they're largely forgotten.

[Anonymous No.18981454]

If you are not your physical body nor your subtle emotional mind nor your supersubtle abstract consciousness of causal karma and reincarnation, what are You? According to Hindu Vedanta and Samkhya traditions of India, you are a Fourth Level seemingly noumenal subject or pure witnessing self called Atman or Purusha. Unfortunately, that level is still an extremely supersensory and supracausal body! So you can kiss Vedanta and Samkhya goodbye! Though that level of apparent noumenal subject or self sees all three of the lower worlds as nondual, it has dualistic superconsciousness on its own plane of existence. Each supracausal bodily “self” appears there as a visible white star. That is the plane of existence where, as Aleister Crowley, once transmitted from his Teacher that “each man and woman is a star” possessing Thelema, True Will. Kashmir Shaivism also says that each Godself, Shivatma, of that level has truly Free Will, Swatantrya or Icchashakti, Power of Lordship. So, in this light, the supracausal bodily self seems rather ultimate and final from an ordinary human metaphysical point of view. But it is rumored in circles of secret ancient Yoga that there is a Fifth Level of Paramatma, Superself, that is Noumenal Subject looking down nondualistically on the Divine dualities of the Fourth Level. That Fifth Body is Paramatma Linga, the black Linga Sharira, which is one and the same as a black hole. But, it too is also only relative Noumenality of Subject. There seems to be no metaphysical upper limit to spiritual subtlety of higher dimensions. However many layers of grosser consciousness or duality we peel off the noumenal onion of selfhood, there seems to be no finite core in any absolute sense of the meaning. Noumenal Subject simply now means any plane or body of consciousness above a lower plane or body of consciousness. Subject and Object, as well as Noumenality and Duality, become totally relative only. This is the view in Vajrayana Buddhism called Dzog Chen, Maha Ati or the Great Ending, which Chögyam Trungpa describes as “the sky falling on your head”.

If you want to go beyond naïve scientific Eliminative Materialism and can somehow perceive immaterial selfhood or noumenal subjectivity, then you might as well go all the way as I have described above. The implications can be quite devastating even if you have the spiritual courage to think beyond virtually all scientific and philosophical schools or traditions on Earth.

What are you(?) is a loaded question! A “what” implies some level of body or subjective object. The idea of a fully noumenal subject gets inevitably pushed higher and higher beyond our conceptual ability. You are not a “what”, but more of an unidentifiable Who with ever higher levels of Self-discovery awaiting you. So welcome to My Realm, which is the realm of Pyaj Dev, the Onion God, who will never absolutely know even Himself.

[Anonymous No.18981470]

>>18981448
There cannot be a final definition or description of You or any self of any body in any universe on any level of Existence. There is, however, always a final definition or description of any body and its dualistic realm of the level that pertains to it. The final definition of a body happens precisely through transcending it and rising into the next higher level, plane or dimension consciously as an experiential mode and not a mere intellectual belief, opinion or conclusion. Each of us is ultimately an Onion God of eternal ever-new Self-discovery. For someone overly focused in the material intellectual activity of the brain, such a thought is usually either highly terrifying or utterly unacceptable. Rare indeed is the human quasi-self who wants to go all the way with existential metaphysics or cosmic ontology.

What is the real and fully rational meaning of Subject, Object and Consciousness? Who dares look into all this without prejudice or self-defensive brain egotism? The Object is always an Object for a Subject; the Subject is always a Subject for an Object. These two facts are always phenomenological, but the truth of them is always noumenological.

[Anonymous No.18981488]

Stfu you icchantika.

[Anonymous No.18981491]

This is straight from the Buddhist trikaya (three-bodies) doctrine, as well as the Hindu Sarira Triya (Three Body Doctrine), of waking physical sensory perception, dreaming, and then deep dreamless state. The fourth state, of course, would be turiya in Hindu yoga, including yet transcending these three states of awareness.

There is only cognition without a cognizer subject or cognized objects. The cognizer is the cognized and the cognized is the cognizer. The body is the world and the world is the body. The body generates a brain projected world and the world generates a brain injected body. When Consciousness sees all this for what it really is and is not, it has become truly aware and intelligent.

Most so-called “thinkers” do not realize that the thinker is the thoughts and the thoughts are the thinker. This abstract duality is an illusion, just as the subtle mental or psychic dichotomy of dreamer and dream is an illusion. So, cognition as such can be physical sensory, subtle pictorial or causal abstract. Three false subjects are dwelling in three false universes. Self or subject is identified with three levels of body. Only in a Fourth State beyond can there be a potential noumenal self, but that Self has not been activated through the long ages of cognition. So it is not that there is a Self Who identifies Itself with some level of body as a phenomenal subject. Instead, the body is reflecting transcendental Voidness as cognition as an illusory cognizer of an illusory cognized realm of objects. Thus even cognition itself is a nondual illusion that mirrors Nothingness and Reality, which are one and the same as cosmic polarity of Spirit and Matter. When fusion of Nothingness and Reality is merged with the fusion of Spirit and Matter, Self of Noumenal Being is activated as Self-realization as Immediate Awareness of Being in Everyone and Everything. But no brain-ego is equipped to reach such a goal, nor is such an illusory brain-ego able to validly deny ultimate Awareness of Being as Reality and Nothingness. Absolute Reality as Being is the philosophy of Vedanta; Absolute Nothingness is the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18981500]

Serious question. Why are there no meme pictures or memes of Gurdjieff? Is it because he's the meme itself?

[Anonymous No.18981503]

>>18981491
>Absolute Nothingness is the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism.
No it's not, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.18981508]

When the brain-as-an-Ego imagines that its analytical belief or disbelief in the two great metaphysical systems has decisive truth or real intellectual authority, it is just getting carried away with itself as a neuro-cognitive organism. The very idea of an organic “self”, a “believer” or “disbeliever” is a typical cosmic joke the human brain plays on itself, because no brain can comprehend itself for the same reason that a hand cannot grasp itself and an eye cannot see itself. When the brain thinks it is alternately a “self” and then a scientific “object” for study as simultaneously believing it is an organic scientist or philosopher, it is nothing but an endlessly confused turmoil of subject-object fantasies and clever assertions. The ambiguous brain-self is its own petty oblivion. Doctor Oblivion is contradicting himself everywhere with his anti-metaphysical metaphysics. As an unreal “self”, he is nothing but a cognitive it, a mechanism, a futile and impermanent intellectual pride. Such an entity is more of an asshole than a self!

Sometimes such arrogant assholes read this article in order to criticize it. They feel threatened by the cosmic fact of their continuing nothingness, which is something like being the victims of culturally conditioned anti-Buddhism when in fact the real truth of all this is only quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Vedantist. Reality is simply not culture-bound. Various brains on the present planet have different cultural conditionings that warp their thinking and prevent activation of Real Noumenal Self, which will itself always be incomplete and be ever pushed up to higher dimensions but never achieve Absolute Noumenal Self. Without some level of body, however subtle, there can be no means of generating Selfhood. The Self is always at least partially unreal. Even a God has to suffer this ultimate fact! It is not just the Earth’s ignorant scientists and philosophers who suffer from a too ultimate truth. Though a “God” is infinitely more real than you, the poor smartass “reader”, even He has a valid region of self-doubt! God is always a flawed Being. All Gods are thus evolving and cannot be finalized beings in the Grand Reality of Infinite Recursion. Try reading Stanislav Lem’s, Solaris.

This transcendental cognition that is saying all this is admittedly also incomplete and therefore evolving, just as the presented philosophy here today is also incomplete and evolving. Never trust any supposedly “complete” philosophy! Also, never trust your own opinion that you are a real self or real thinker with the perfect smartass opinions. Those who compare what is said with their own accumulated second-hand-knowledge are only preventing their own evolution as a cognitive entity. The entire Brain Game of comparative philosophy is not yet Real Thinking or Real Intuition, but just naive materialism.

[Anonymous No.18981521]

>>18981503
Sunyata. Emptiness.

Such deficient and ignorant Brainselves are bound to fail in Yoga, Zen or any other useful format of attaining Cosmic Awareness of Being. There is no hope for smartass “readers” who imagine there really is such a thing as a “reader” or “philosopher” or “scientist”.

Why is Gurdjieff’s way called the Fourth Way? Because he claims to be beyond the way of (but also including as necessary, in a holistic, well-rounded, balanced way) either merely the body (physical postures, asanas, Hatha Yoga), emotions (Bhakti Yoga), and intellect (Jnana yoga, smartasses like Guenon-fag). It’s also a way for getting into the — get it? — fourth state that’s beyond just physical sensing, feeling, or thinking. Pure awareness.

In Plato’s Republic, the just man is defined as the one who has balanced his body, heart, and mind.

[Anonymous No.18981541]

>>18981503
No self.

You ever read the Kama Sutra and become an adept at the tantric arts of cunnilingus? Making her squirt straight onto your face, except there’s no “her” or “you” in the moment, just a pure nameless transcendental state of being, like Ralph Waldo Emerson’s transparent eye?

[Anonymous No.18981615]

>>18981454
>But it is rumored in circles of secret ancient Yoga that there is a Fifth Level of Paramatma, Superself, that is Noumenal Subject looking down nondualistically on the Divine dualities of the Fourth Level. That Fifth Body is Paramatma Linga, the black Linga Sharira, which is one and the same as a black hole.
In other words, the microcosm is the macrocosm, as the Hermetic saying of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus quoted in “In Search of the Miraculous” goes. In ISoTM, he teaches Ouspensky and the disciples about how man contains in himself subtler, finer energies contained from the radiations of the planets, stars, and galaxies themselves, thereby being a miniature universe. Also, he says that just as the entire Universe we live in is “God” on our scale, man himself is “God” to the cells and atoms in his body. Total cosmic recursion, like in the teaching of Hwa Yen Buddhism.

“Big things are as little as little things can be, and little things are as big as big things can be.”

The jeweled net of Indra. All containing and reflecting all. One must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star. Could man exist without the sun? The energy of the sun is in your very own body and brain. Could the sun exist without man to perceive it? When a tree falls in a forest without anyone there to hear it, what do you suppose it sounds like?

As above, so below.

[Anonymous No.18981641]

In Gurdjieffian terms, I’m just wiseacring by the point. A wiseacre. But it’s fun to do.

>>18981500
Here’s one that made me cry laughing.

[Anonymous No.18981673]

> (...) we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, — no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite spaces, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.

In Ouspensky’s “The Fourth Way,” in response to a question of a disciple about what their work is really about, he compares man’s time while alive to spending time on a train inexorably heading towards its final destination of death. So he says this work is about learning to spend the time on the train usefully and living it to the fullest instead of just doing nothing and sitting there like a blockhead.

> Man (and woman) has an infinite capacity for self-development. Equally, he has an infinite capacity for self-destruction. A human being may be clinically alive and yet, despite all appearances, spiritually dead.
Idries Shah, Naqshbandi Sufi

>Q: What is a fundamental mistake of man's?
>A: To think that he is alive, when he has merely fallen asleep in life's waiting-room.
Idries Shah

>Banality is like boredom: bored people are boring people, people who think that things are banal are themselves banal.
>Interesting people can find something interesting in all things.
Idries Shah

> Materialism, attachment to things of the world, includes pride. Many religious people suffer from pride: taking pleasure or even delight in being good, or religious.
Idries Shah

>The Sufi way is through knowledge and practice, not through intellect and talk.
Idries Shah

[Anonymous No.18981683]

>>18981673
That opening quote is Ralph Waldo Emerson, of course, by the way.

[Anonymous No.18981731]

>>18981448
You can talk a lot, sure, and discourse intelligently on Adi Shankara, but can you read minds or see into the future occasionally?

> He gives one person the power to perform miracles, and to another the ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to know whether it is really the Spirit of God or another spirit that is speaking. Still another person is given the ability to speak in unknown languages, and another is given the ability to interpret what is being said (1 Corinthians 12:10 NLT).

As far as I’m concerned, most people on /lit/ are just statistics and numbers waiting to be crunched, a foreskin in an underground database, as an artist I respect put it, once. None of them have any gifts of the Holy Spirit or have ever experienced any miracles. Many wandering sadhus in India are worth more than all the grifters on /lit/ combined, to me, as are the saints revered by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Hell, even a Gypsy fortune teller is worth more to me than “Guenon-fag.” A joke? No. I know someone in my family traveling in Europe who swears on their life a Gypsy knew and predicted things about them that they shouldn’t have been able to know. How do you suppose that happens?

Do you ever read hagiographies? Read about the miracles in them? No? No faith in you. Very dry, nasty people on /lit/, with no sense of the miraculous or true religious faith. They just like the argue and tear other people down about it. Why don’t you go heal people or prophesy? What? You can’t do it, can’t you? Learn a little humility in this life before you have to learn it in the afterlife, chump.

[Anonymous No.18981739]

>>18977211
Wow, what a cock sucker

[Anonymous No.18981747]

Simeon the Holy Fool (Abba Simeon, Saint Simeon Salos or Saint Simeon Salus, Greek: Συμεών (ο δια τον Χριστόν) Σαλός) was a Christian monk, hermit and saint of Byzantine-Syrian origin, who lived in the sixth century AD. He is venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church as one of the first "fools for Christ".

His ministry also included trying to save a man whose eyes suffered from leucoma. Jesus had previously used saliva and clay to cure a man of blindness, and when the man with eye disease approached Simeon, he anointed the man's eyes with mustard, burning him and aggravating the condition to the extent that he reportedly went blind. Later the eyes were healed by the advice of Simeon, who used such way to explain the man's sins and bring him to correction.

[Anonymous No.18981762]

>>18981739
Kek. You’re honest and I enjoy that. Gurdjieff is very off-putting to most, and attractive to a minority of people. In Sufism, the Malamati (way-of-blame) technique is meant to cover up the Sufi’s own saintliness and also to ward off those who are unfit by making them think the Sufi saint is an unworthy, reprehensible, and/or simply idiotic man.

Basil the Blessed (known also as Basil, fool for Christ; Basil, Wonderworker of Moscow; or Blessed Basil of Moscow, fool for Christ Russian: Bacилий Блaжeнный, Vasily Blazhenny) is a Russian Orthodox saint of the type known as yurodivy or "holy fool" (c. 1459-1552 or 1557).

Basil had been a guest at Ivan the Terrible’s table many times, where, clothed in rags, his behavior was as bizarre as it was miraculous. In one instance, the holy fool received wine, and when everyone raised their glasses to drink to the Czar’s health, Basil threw his over his shoulder. He asked for more, then immediately threw it out again. He repeated this a third time. When asked the meaning of his actions, he replied “I’m putting out a fire!” All were baffled. But not long after, word reached the Czar that 350 miles away, the city of Novgorod was ablaze. Despite the fact that Russian cities at the time were built almost exclusively of wood, the fire was miraculously contained, and witnesses claimed to see a frail old man darting among the flames to put it out.

[Anonymous No.18981791]

> The Path of Blame is known in Persian as the Rahimalamat. Although called a "Path" it is in fact a phase of activity, and has many applications. The teacher incurs "blame". He may, for instance, attribute a bad action to himself, in order to teach a disciple without directly criticizing him.
Idries Shah, in “The Sufis” (1964)

>To illustrate such a practice it is said that a saint "was hailed by a large crowd when he entered a town; they tried to accompany the great saint; but on the road he publicly started urinating in an unlawful way so that all of them left him and no longer believed in his high spiritual rank. According to the Malamati, this saint was virtuous in his unlawfulness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamatiyya

What about Christ flipping over tables in the temple and driving out the moneylenders with a whip? Do you remember that?

[Anonymous No.18981841]

[Anonymous No.18981843]

[Anonymous No.18981852]

[Anonymous No.18981857]

[Anonymous No.18981861]

>>18976859
Gurdjieff is a fraud, Ouspensky too. You got memed, OP.

[Anonymous No.18981874]

A student’s account of meeting Gurdjieff:

Underneath this latter collection, on the floor against the wall, lay a long row of big cushions covered with a single carpet. In the left-hand corner, at the end of the row, was a Dutch stove draped with an embroidered cloth. The corner on the right was decorated with a particularly fine color combination; in it hung an ikon of St. George the Victor, set with precious stones. Beneath it stood a cabinet in which were several small ivory statues of different sizes; I recognized Christ, Buddha, Moses and Mahomet; the rest I could not see very well.

Another low ottoman stood against the right-hand wall. On either side of it were two small carved ebony tables and on one was a coffee-pot with a heating lamp. Several cushions and hassocks were strewn about the room in careful disorder. All the furniture was adorned with tassels, gold embroidery and gems. As a whole, the room produced a strangely cosy impression which was enhanced by a delicate scent that mingled agreeably with an aroma of tobacco.

Having examined the room, I turned my eyes to Mr. Gurdjieff. He looked at me, and I had the distinct impression that he took me in the palm of his hand and weighed me. I smiled involuntarily, and he looked away from me calmly and without haste. Glancing at A., he said something to him. He did not look at me again in this way and the impression was not repeated.

https://www.gurdjieff.org/views2.htm

[Anonymous No.18981886]

>>18981874
sounds like a tranny lookin for butt stuff

[Anonymous No.18982791]

Sounds like counter-initiation. Why don't you find a real guru/sheikh/monk and follow him instead?

[Anonymous No.18983509]

>>18982791
>>18982791
I’m the one shit-posting in this thread, which went off the rail after the first few posts I made because I’m a little cocky. Do whatever you want. Gurdjieff basically teaches “awareness of awareness,” self-inquiry, or what you will, which he calls self-remembering, and claims it’s not limited to any one specific religious tradition. That’s the point. Rafael Lefort says he verified the Naqshbandi Sufi sheikhs Gurdjieff studied under, anyway, in “The Teachers of Gurdjieff.”

[Anonymous No.18983534]

>>18981731
>> He gives one person the power to perform miracles, and to another the ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to know whether it is really the Spirit of God or another spirit that is speaking. Still another person is given the ability to speak in unknown languages, and another is given the ability to interpret what is being said (1 Corinthians 12:10 NLT).

“Man’s possibilities are very great. You cannot conceive even a shadow of what man is capable of attaining. But nothing can be attained in sleep.”

“Awakening begins when a man realizes that he is going nowhere and does not know where to go.”
— G. I. Gurdjieff

[Anonymous No.18983589]

Anyone turned off by my posts — just know the books are far better. “In Search of the Miraculous” is especially worth reading. He isn’t “New Age syncretism.” I’m just focusing on the parallels between Gurdjieff’s teachings and other religions because it’s interesting. If you read G. himself or the account his disciples gave of him, it’s far better than anything I wrote in this thread, and he’s not always bringing up whatever religious tradition he can just for the sake of it. Just did this for fun. Kind of a shitty thread looking back on it. I did it in such a way precisely because too many people are really brainy about all this, in my opinion. I wanted to focus on the character of Gurdjieff and interesting anecdotes about him as much as I did his “teaching,” because his teaching can’t be separated from he himself. Guenon is just some brainy sheltered priss. Gurdjieff actually had an interesting life and taught through his being and the way he behaved towards students and exercises he gave to them, not just through brainy discourses and writings. Fritz Peters’s “Boyhood with Gurdjieff” is also good.

Henry Miller loved him, but never met him. Some interesting quotes he made on Gurdjieff

https://mastergurdjieff.blogspot.com/2017/02/henry-millers-quotes-on-gurdjieff.html?m=1

To begin with, Gurdjieff was a thoroughly enigmatic figure. He was a living example of that Greek word, Enantiodromos, meaning the process by which a thing changes into its opposite. He could be tender, fierce, strict, indulgent, wise, clownish, utterly serious and a farceur all at one time.

Gurdjieff was a perpetual surprise. However, young as he was, and with no preparation for the ordeal, Fritz Peters, the boy, was astute enough to know that he was in the hands of a most unusual human being, a man who has been called a Master, a Guru, a Teacher, everything but a Saint.

Much has been written about the scandalous behavior of Gurdjieff. And it is true that he seemed to care little for conventional behavior. In a sense, he was like a cross between the Gnostics of old and the latter day Dadaists. Certainly, of him the Latin saying "nothing human is beneath me" was true. He was human to the core. At times he reached sublime heights.

It delivers over to us one of the most enigmatic and controversial figures of our time, one unfortunately too little known by present day man. I have read the book several times myself and each time with renewed interest. In a way of speaking I regard it as something on a par with Alice in Wonderland, a real treasure of our literature.
"Gurdjieff was one of the most mysterious figures of the twentieth century. His writing was incomprehensible to me, yet I feel I know him intimately because of a delectable book titled, Boyhood With Gurdjieff by Fritz Peters."
"Political leaders are never leaders. For leaders we have to look to the Awakeners! Lao Tse, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Milarepa, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti."