Combining and Separating
For full citations of abbreviated references, please see Introduction and Bibliography.
Both regarding the study of the writing and so on of Gurdjieff's direct pupils and Gurdjieff's own earlier and later teaching, it's almost as if there are built in seeming incompatibilities,1 alongside the broad brushstrokes of similar and complementary material. Working with and through as yet unreconciled contraries, trying to form a whole for oneself, is quite a special experience. If nothing else, a fire from intellectual-emotional work is kindled, which itself can help power the engine of ongoing search.
I could be criticised for bringing in material from different periods of Gurdjieff's teaching, as well as from his pupils, that may not be obviously consistent, or that even seems flatly contradictory. And there seem few who are willing to examine and compare closely the teaching of the various pupils of Gurdjieff. However, although I take as my gold standard Gurdjieff's own writings, my ongoing working principle is that the material recorded from Gurdjieff's different periods of teaching, and that of his major direct pupils (and "minor"), are, or may be, of use in helping to fathom the gist of what it was that Gurdjieff wished to impart to posterity. The very fact that there are seeming discrepancies within and between all of these texts, means that personal effort is required to work with it. At the very least, this may counteract the dilution of the psyche2 that Gurdjieff complains about.
Ouspensky emphasises not mixing ideas of different orders,3 and although I try to avoid it, it may be that I fall now and again into this trap.
The worst nightmare of Ouspensky in this context might have been at one time a certain young man, with whom, along with another man, an experiment was undertaken by Gurdjieff to demonstrate the separation of personality and essence. Ouspensky describes this man in his usual state:
. . . Many of us did not consider him to be a serious person. Very often he played what is called the fool; or, on the other hand, entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the system without any relation whatever to the whole. It was very difficult to understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view and words belonging to different categories and levels . . .4
During the experiment, however, things were quite different:
[He] began to listen to the talk and then spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple, and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances, and without buffoonery.5
Ouspensky also records Gurdjieff talking about the danger of the mixing of lines of different systems of teaching, "in the absence of a complete knowledge and understanding of the fundamental lines," when he introduced the symbol of the enneagram. And Ouspensky complains of a "uniting of two ideas of an entirely different order, scale, and significance."6
Yet, in spite of the differences within and between different lines of Gurdjieff's teaching, different levels and categories of ideas, it seems that there must be a certain lawful, as it is said, mixing of influences, ideas, substances, of different levels, in order to have the possibility of transmutation. After all, "the higher blends with the lower in order to actualize the middle . . ."7 And perhaps to find the correct mixing and proportions requires a certain amount of trial and error.
One of the main purposes of this writing is to help clarify my thought and deepen the understanding, making ideas and experience meet. Thus, there is an exploratory nature to all such endeavour, and with it, the risk of falling repeatedly into error. This may even not be a bad thing, if, by so doing, one gradually learns from one's mistakes, and even uses them as means to advance towards the ideal of truth. To share this process of exploration with others is doubly beneficial.
E.g., Gurdjieff's teaching on the " 'interval' mi-fa," recorded by Ouspensky (e.g., ISM p.126, p.377), as opposed to "the obstacle note Fa," taught by Orage (e.g., The Oragean Version, p.80). These are among many other examples.
E.g. BT p.695.
E.g., ISM p.56.
ISM p.252.
Ibid.
ISM p.56.
BT p.751. The principle is also demonstrated many times in ISM, e.g., p.293.
Undertaken in the right spirit; keep going!