what do you think about this man

what do you think about this man

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dapper

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dabbed on Crowley in terms of understanding and power.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Real

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were friends thoughbeit

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Far beyond your average ordinary run-of-the-mill human being, and also even especially beyond your average run-of-the-mill “occultist” or “spiritualist” of the time (most of whom Gurdjieff largely condemned and criticized in the clearest manner, calling them either charlatans, themselves deluded, or simply eccentric academic-types on their favorite hobbyhorse).

    Numerous well-read, well-spoken, educated and intelligent people and disciples of his — even across different years or decades, and when they didn’t interact with each other or know the others very well — attest to Gurdjieff’s having supernatural abilities. Fritz Peters talks about his experiences with it in his Boyhood with Gurdjieff, John G. Bennett talked about it in his numerous memoirs/autobiographical works/studies of Gurdjieff, and P.D. Ouspensky did in In Search of the Miraculous.

    He walked the walk besides just talking the talk. Blavatsky claimed to have met her “Immortal Ascended Masters” or Mahatmas in the East, around Tibet and Central Asia (and she very well may have learned some esoteric teachings from Tibetan Buddhists and other geographically adjacent spiritual teachers, I’ll give her that), but then she also simply plagiarized lots of info from reference books to create her syncretic blend of a religion, and became involved in some fraud and trickery (maybe even as a “noble lie” of sorts, trying to make herself and those around her seem miraculous so as to convert more to Theosophy, which she saw as an uplifting universal teaching). Now Gurdjieff on the other hand, I’m certain learned even more directly from numerous powerful teachings of the East (besides of the West), gaining access to various fakirs, yogis, and dervishes, going from Tibet to Central Asian and Middle Eastern Sufism, besides remnants of Gnostic teachings he seems to have found in his travels (perhaps surviving through Mandaean, Yazidi, and other lore)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      seemingly anachronistically, since it was before the Nag Hammadi tractates were found in Egypt in 1945.

      Some people look at his life and teachings and see Zen (like one of his students William Segal who particularly stressed this connection, and came to study Zen after studying with Gurdjieff); others Sufism (J.G. Bennett particularly stressed this connection and made much of it in his works); yet others esoteric Christianity (an appellation G. himself preferred and suggested at times); and perhaps yet others see in it Tantra, or a new formulation of the Sanātana Dharma, the Eternal Teaching, as some of the Indian yogis say. All this and more is to be found in Gurdjieff if you study him, besides references to/teachings reminiscent of Hermeticism and Neoplatonism. But it goes way beyond being mere syncretism, and rather becomes its own unique thing far beyond the sum of its parts.

      Dabbed on Crowley in terms of understanding and power.

      Coincidentally I was also going to mention this before I saw your post — I was going to say Gurdjieff “should” have the reputation Crowley has, in my opinion, as a genuine 20th-century “mage” (although “should” is in scare-quotes because Gurdjieff explicitly said his teachings definitely cannot be understood and approached by many today).

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Quotes to foster discussion/thought (recorded from Gurdjieff’s lectures as recounted In Search of the Miraculous by P.D. Ouspensky)

    “Objective knowledge, the idea of unity included, belongs to objective consciousness. The forms which express this knowledge when perceived by subjective consciousness are inevitably distorted and, instead of truth, they create more and more delusions. With objective consciousness it is possible to see and feel the unity of everything. But for subjective consciousness the world is split up into millions of separate and unconnected phenomena. Attempts to connect these phenomena into some sort of system in a scientific or philosophical way lead to nothing because man cannot reconstruct the idea of the whole starting from separate facts and they cannot divine the principles of the division of the whole without knowing the laws upon which this division is based.“

    “In right knowledge the study of man must proceed on parallel lines with the study of the world, and the study of the world must run parallel with the study of man.”


    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. Whether he likes it or not he shows his attitude towards religion by his actions and he can show his attitude only by his actions. Therefore if his actions are opposed to those which are demanded by a given religion he cannot assert that he belongs to that religion.”

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One of man’s important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
      Man such as we know him, the "man-machine," the man who cannot "do," and with whom and through whom everything "happens," cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
      __
      Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I".
      Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "I"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "I". And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.
      __
      The being of two people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal. This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they definitely do not wish to understand it.
      __
      Man has the possibility of existence after death. But possibility is one thing and the realization of the possibility is quite a different thing.
      __
      You must understand that ordinary efforts do not count; only superefforts count.
      __
      Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.
      __

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Quote from a Sarmouni member in Gurdjieff’s “Meetings With Remarkable Men”:

        “Faith cannot be given to man. Faith arises in a man and increases in its action in him not as the result of automatic learning, that is, not from any automatic ascertainment of height, breadth, thickness, form and weight, or from the perception of anything by sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, but from understanding.
        “Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.”
        _
        “Views From the Real World” (a compilation by disciples of talks of Gurdjieff’s):

        Knowledge can be acquired by a suitable and complete study, no matter what the starting point is. Only one must know how to "learn." What is nearest to us is man; and you are the nearest of all men to yourself. Begin with the study of yourself; remember the saying "Know thyself."
        __
        There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him. For without this knowledge, he will have no focal point in his search. Socrates’ words, “Know thyself” remain for all those who seek true knowledge and being.
        I ask you to believe nothing that you cannot verify for yourself.
        __
        Pic related, it’s Gurdjieff looking very avuncular, grandfatherly even.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >avuncular
          1
          : suggestive of an uncle especially in kindliness or geniality
          avuncular indulgence
          Jovial and avuncular, the President's chief of staff seems oblivious to the pressures that accompany what is arguably the second most powerful job in the land.—
          Craig Unger
          2
          : of or relating to an uncle
          Two weeks of poker had led to his writing to his uncle a distressed, but confident, request for more funds; and the avuncular foot had come down with a joyous bang.—
          P. G. Wodehouse
          avuncularity
          ə-ˌvəŋ-

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/9Is18vL.jpg

      One of man’s important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
      Man such as we know him, the "man-machine," the man who cannot "do," and with whom and through whom everything "happens," cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
      __
      Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I".
      Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "I"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "I". And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.
      __
      The being of two people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal. This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they definitely do not wish to understand it.
      __
      Man has the possibility of existence after death. But possibility is one thing and the realization of the possibility is quite a different thing.
      __
      You must understand that ordinary efforts do not count; only superefforts count.
      __
      Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.
      __

      https://i.imgur.com/F9hbTep.png

      Quote from a Sarmouni member in Gurdjieff’s “Meetings With Remarkable Men”:

      “Faith cannot be given to man. Faith arises in a man and increases in its action in him not as the result of automatic learning, that is, not from any automatic ascertainment of height, breadth, thickness, form and weight, or from the perception of anything by sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, but from understanding.
      “Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.”
      _
      “Views From the Real World” (a compilation by disciples of talks of Gurdjieff’s):

      Knowledge can be acquired by a suitable and complete study, no matter what the starting point is. Only one must know how to "learn." What is nearest to us is man; and you are the nearest of all men to yourself. Begin with the study of yourself; remember the saying "Know thyself."
      __
      There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him. For without this knowledge, he will have no focal point in his search. Socrates’ words, “Know thyself” remain for all those who seek true knowledge and being.
      I ask you to believe nothing that you cannot verify for yourself.
      __
      Pic related, it’s Gurdjieff looking very avuncular, grandfatherly even.

      Thanks

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    emiliano zapata

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    goated

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Black personcultured homosexual.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where do you go with gurdjieff when you already know the basics?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When you say, "know the basics", what do you mean? By that I ask have you read his works, that sort of thing?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah his and ouspenskys. Was obsessed with him about a year ago. The centers and all that stuff are burnt into my memory but I feel like there must be more.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I cannot over stress how important it is to find other people on the path. To make any progress you need to find a group. There are groups that have a direct lineage from Gurdgieff that still exist today, in fact most major cities in the United States have a Fourth Way group. That being said you must be careful, a lot of cults and offshoots have picked up Gurdgieff's work and twisted it, so do some vetting. I recommend The Gurdgieff Foundation if you have access where you live.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah his and ouspenskys. Was obsessed with him about a year ago. The centers and all that stuff are burnt into my memory but I feel like there must be more.

      >i have only superficially evaluated his work
      This part seems key to me, I hope you’ll forgive me for saying that. But Gurdjieff is not for everyone and I accept and even encourage people to disregard him, which G. would probably agree with too.

      He is also nowhere near an “SJW”. Even St. Paul said “better to marry than to burn” [with pent-up sexual desire without an outlet]. The monks of Eastern Orthodox marry and have children various Protestant ministers do, too, it seems it’s the mostly the Catholics who require celibacy of their priests. If you’re speaking in a Christian context, many of the revered prophets or patriarchs of the Old Testament married and had children. Gurdjieff also is far from an “SJW” because his works are replete with very traditional, “old-fashioned” even outlooks and a condemnation of trends in modernity like feminism, atheism, etc. He also condemns onanism (masturbation).

      Unrelated, or addressed to the thread and those interested as a whole, I might dig up all my books and PDFs and post some excepts of interesting, rarer, more obscure Gurdjieffiana, as well as the tales of supernatural abilities of Gurdjieff’s (made by independent disciples of his across different years or decades). It’s very interesting stuff. Fritz Peters’s Boyhood with Gurdjieff is a good one particularly.

      [...]
      [...]
      There really is. It’s an amazing rabbit-hole to go down, there’s way more in this than just Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, who seem like the two most remembered ones.

      Fritz Peters’ Boyhood with Gurdjieff that I mentioned (with an introduction by Henry Miller!)
      J.G. Bennett’s works
      -Witness: The Story of a Search
      -A Spiritual Psychology
      -Gurdjieff - Making a New World
      -The Masters of Wisdom
      -Talks on Beelzebub’s Tales
      -MANY many more, these are just a few ones I read and found very significant
      Rafael Lefort’s The Teachers of Gurdjieff
      Ernest Scott’s The People of the Secret

      (Cont.)
      Maurice Nicoll’s Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (Vols. 1-6) [particularly recommended]
      Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man : An Interpretation of Some Parables and Miracles of Christ (an amazing work)
      Maurice Nicoll’s Living Time and the Integration of the Life (another amazing work, perhaps even more amazing)
      Maurice Nicoll’s The Mark (another amazing work)
      Rodney Collin’s The Theory of Celestial Influence, and perhaps more of Collin’s but I didn’t get to him yet (he’s an Ouspensky student but of course also familiar with Gurdjieff)

      You mentioned already reading Ouspensky but if it was just In Search of the Miraculous, don’t neglect the other ones, even the pre-Gurdjieff ones are interesting. Post-Gurdjieff, you have The Fourth Way (huge compilation of Q&As with Ouspensky, gets even deeper into some details of the Work and Fourth Way teachings than ISoTM), The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution (small work, an intro to these ideas), A Further Record: Extracts from Meetings 1928–1945, and probably more if you want to look through his works (these are just the ones I read).

      Gurdjieff and the Women of the Rope: Notes of Meetings in Paris and New York 1935-1939 and 1948-1949 is a particularly fascinating one for showing how he had his own entirely unique, but still at core inspired the same principles, way of dealing with a group of female disciples who were unconventional students. Slice-of-life stuff, much more down to earth and a literal recounting of how Gurdjieff talked and what he said and did at small meetings with this group of lady disciples. A much obscurer work probably to be saved only for if you’re deep down the rabbit hole and want to learn all you can about how he actually spoke and taught in his personal life.

      Many of these can be found online as PDFs.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think he was a schiester, but some of the most profound things I have heard, read and learned were from schiesters, so I can't hold it against him.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do not redeem saar take the poo to the loo

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A very powerful soul.
    The physical body makes us all appear to have similar power levels, but our souls are vastly different.
    Gurdjieff's soul is a whale compared to the average soul which is a salmon.
    Siddhis that would takes decades to feebly make work for an average soul is something Gurdjieff can pick up within hours of training, because his soul is simply far more powerful than the average soul.

    The soul gives life to the body, and when the soul leaves the body returns to the dust from which it came. For weaker souls, the human body is extremely limiting to its senses and thought processes, but to very powerful souls can overcome these soul entrapping limitations of the body and acquire siddhis - the siddhis that we all have when our soul leaves the body at death.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You seem like you know your stuff, got any recommendations?

      https://i.imgur.com/5NK2Nmd.jpg

      Where do you go with gurdjieff when you already know the basics?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No I haven't read his books, but his photos seem like his soul is glowing out of his body.
        IMO there are probably better teachers out there who are following traditions rather than making up their own stuff.
        Every teacher has something to offer to someone, but I myself have never felt the call of Gurdjieff.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one is born with a soul. A person can only generate a soul through crystallization. Crystallization is a very long process of work, the linchpin being self-observation. Until then, the individual is merely an automaton subject to the whims of the environment.
      For anyone wanting to check their own development, here is a fricking terrifying exercise:

      Observe an analog watch. If you haven't got one, make a plan:
      https://livecloud.online/en/analog-clock
      Be aware of yourself watching the clock. You are on your chair. The clock is in front of you. You are seeing the second hand moving. You are aware of yourself seeing it move. How long before you lose yourself?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How long before you lose yourself?
        By lose yourself you mean how long before I lose the concentration I place on myself watching the clock?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. You start with that goal. See how long you can stick to it. If you cannot, why not?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hardcore
    But most of his writings are only of historical interest now. There are still people who have learned from people who have learned from his school, but they are almost no more because not everyone has taken a student and the ones who set themselves up as Teachers with Schools are often the ones who didn't get it.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cult leader. typical strategy of cult leaders is to shit on previous movements. he has captured the 3 paths and shat all over them.
    he also made the claim that perfect celibacy is not necessary. speaks to the carnal man, but this is not the wisdom of immortal sages. completely in contradiction of the truth.
    a progressive SJW like in the spiritual domain.

    i have only superficially evaluated his work, i did not see the necessity to diver deeper upon finding what i described above!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i have only superficially evaluated his work
      This part seems key to me, I hope you’ll forgive me for saying that. But Gurdjieff is not for everyone and I accept and even encourage people to disregard him, which G. would probably agree with too.

      He is also nowhere near an “SJW”. Even St. Paul said “better to marry than to burn” [with pent-up sexual desire without an outlet]. The monks of Eastern Orthodox marry and have children various Protestant ministers do, too, it seems it’s the mostly the Catholics who require celibacy of their priests. If you’re speaking in a Christian context, many of the revered prophets or patriarchs of the Old Testament married and had children. Gurdjieff also is far from an “SJW” because his works are replete with very traditional, “old-fashioned” even outlooks and a condemnation of trends in modernity like feminism, atheism, etc. He also condemns onanism (masturbation).

      Unrelated, or addressed to the thread and those interested as a whole, I might dig up all my books and PDFs and post some excepts of interesting, rarer, more obscure Gurdjieffiana, as well as the tales of supernatural abilities of Gurdjieff’s (made by independent disciples of his across different years or decades). It’s very interesting stuff. Fritz Peters’s Boyhood with Gurdjieff is a good one particularly.

      https://i.imgur.com/5NK2Nmd.jpg

      Where do you go with gurdjieff when you already know the basics?

      Yeah his and ouspenskys. Was obsessed with him about a year ago. The centers and all that stuff are burnt into my memory but I feel like there must be more.

      There really is. It’s an amazing rabbit-hole to go down, there’s way more in this than just Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, who seem like the two most remembered ones.

      Fritz Peters’ Boyhood with Gurdjieff that I mentioned (with an introduction by Henry Miller!)
      J.G. Bennett’s works
      -Witness: The Story of a Search
      -A Spiritual Psychology
      -Gurdjieff - Making a New World
      -The Masters of Wisdom
      -Talks on Beelzebub’s Tales
      -MANY many more, these are just a few ones I read and found very significant
      Rafael Lefort’s The Teachers of Gurdjieff
      Ernest Scott’s The People of the Secret

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes G said his work would never be popular.

        https://i.imgur.com/5NK2Nmd.jpg

        Where do you go with gurdjieff when you already know the basics?

        I suppose branch out and work with others on the way. Joseph Azize has a book which came out recently that specifically goes over the practices he taught.

        https://i.imgur.com/3aBUpMb.jpg

        No one is born with a soul. A person can only generate a soul through crystallization. Crystallization is a very long process of work, the linchpin being self-observation. Until then, the individual is merely an automaton subject to the whims of the environment.
        For anyone wanting to check their own development, here is a fricking terrifying exercise:

        Observe an analog watch. If you haven't got one, make a plan:
        https://livecloud.online/en/analog-clock
        Be aware of yourself watching the clock. You are on your chair. The clock is in front of you. You are seeing the second hand moving. You are aware of yourself seeing it move. How long before you lose yourself?

        Yes this is G's teaching on the nature of the soul.

        cult leader. typical strategy of cult leaders is to shit on previous movements. he has captured the 3 paths and shat all over them.
        he also made the claim that perfect celibacy is not necessary. speaks to the carnal man, but this is not the wisdom of immortal sages. completely in contradiction of the truth.
        a progressive SJW like in the spiritual domain.

        i have only superficially evaluated his work, i did not see the necessity to diver deeper upon finding what i described above!

        You have completely missed it.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way is TOO MUCH for the kind of stupid trash with childish and ridiculous magical beliefs that populate this place of ignorant idiots with psychological problems. The fact that a disgusting, idiotic and ridiculous charlatan like Crowley is better known and appreciated here says it all.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Castaneda was inspired by Gurdjieff, see his worldview and the technique of looking at hands in dreams.

      Of the enneagram it is said that a person, from that symbol could derive all the knowledge of the universe.

      I again point out a story by a student of Gurdjieff (see picrel), which I am beginning to understand after years.

      I apologize for the telegram style, but I have the excuse that it is late at night for me and English is not my native language.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ouspensky was a genius and before meeting Gurdjieff he had already written many very interesting and very dense books like that one. I know it may sound pedantic but actually Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way is not for imbecile people like the majority are, including the filthy LARPers of this filthy place who believe they are different from the average normie and their peanut intellect.

        And I'm sorry again if I sound pedantic but it became very clear to me of what level the excrement that swarms in /x/ is at when I opened a thread about the law of octaves, which is TOP knowledge and true "magic" but that no one had any idea about and ended up dying ignored because here people only know how to believe in stupidities that do NOT exist instead of having real knowledge and understanding about the mechanics of the world. Indeed the Enneagram is an extremely powerful tool. It's basically a computer. But again I have to say that these are topics that are not for this filthy place populated by stupid ignorant idiots who only know how to have magical beliefs and who do not really KNOW or UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.

        I hope you continue with your search, but not here because in this place there is really no knowledge or teaching...

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is self-remembering an intellectual process?

          I understand your gripe with the deluded on this board, but don't think about it. ;^)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For me real self-remembering would be categorized as a characteristic of being rather than knowledge.

            The truth of G's teachings became even more apparent to me over the past few years. The world is filled with 'experts' so called. With immense knowledge in one pigeon-holed subject. They lack understanding (the ability to connect information) and they certainly have not crystalized in their being what they 'know'.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For me
            >For ME
            >understanding (the ability to connect information)
            >all that subjectivity

            Why don't you just be honest and say that you've never seriously studied anything and that you're just another butthole talking about what you assume about how things are as if it were certain knowledge? All wrong with this bunch of mistaken, senseless nonsense from a guy who thinks he knows and understands what he doesn't know or understand but about which he doesn't intend to inform or educate himself either since he lives in his own illusion where he's not an butthole...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/ESMqDBI.jpg

            No, self-remembering isn't an intellectual process but a cognitive mental state. In that STATE there really is no reasoning or any form of intellectual structuring but a sustained developed and expanded form of cognition (this is said in technical and current language in terms of neuroscience). Now, where is that cognitive state steadily directed? Well, that is what can't be described in a simple and clear way if the entire path prior to said state is ignored and if the individual has not worked on himself correctly to know how to identify perfectly well what he is doing, having truly set out to do so: WAKE UP from the sleep

            The only advice I'll give here is the following so that there are no longer examples like this butthole [...] who is lost in his nonsense believing he knows and understands something but DOESN'T.

            Everyone NEEDS TO LEARN how to eat, how to drink water, how to speak, how to wash their hands, how to brush their teeth, how to tie their shoes, how to cook soup, how to do an addition or a multiplication, how to write with a pencil, and even how to wipe his butt. Even you NEED TO LEARN TO CLEAN YOUR BUTT! But for some reason people believe that they don't need to learn to do, CORRECTLY, the most complex and elevated activity of the human being, which is THINK!

            (to be continue)

            https://i.imgur.com/0JoZF5M.gif

            [...]
            People are so lost in their illusion that they believe that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and also USE IT CORRECTLY. But that is as stupid as believing that because you were born with hands and fingers you are already capable of playing a good melody on the guitar or piano, or painting a good painting. JUST FOR BEING BORN WITH HANDS AND FINGERS. Without instruction, study, and training, you will only be able to make an unpleasant fuss with the piano, or smear paint stains on the canvas. That's why people's heads are full of stupidity and nonsense, because they have NEVER been instructed or studied about how to think and compile information correctly. That's why they are people who assume that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and that they already know how to think, CORRECTLY, by default.

            The brain constantly makes mistakes and makes mistakes. Mistakes and errors that you are NOT aware of. The brain edits and modifies the information it receives and processes. And you have no way to defend yourself from that, causing you to live in a world that IS NOT where you are seeing things WRONG. That is why there are tools like LOGIC, which guide the intellect and reason to avoid making mistakes. If a person doesn't know logic, he doesn't know how to think and it's very likely that his head is full of nonsense and idiocy. He is a person who lives dreaming and who is very, VERY FAR FROM WAKENING UP FROM THE DREAM.

            Before wanting to study true esoteric and mystical teachings, it's best that you learn to eradicate the errors that your brain makes all the time because otherwise all that effort will be useless and you will only keep dreaming about stupid things without ever achieving anything. In order to correctly carry out self-observation, you need to know how to think correctly and for that you first need to be trained in logic and conceptual philosophy.

            >The only advice I'll give here is the following so that there are no longer examples like this butthole

            For me real self-remembering would be categorized as a characteristic of being rather than knowledge.

            The truth of G's teachings became even more apparent to me over the past few years. The world is filled with 'experts' so called. With immense knowledge in one pigeon-holed subject. They lack understanding (the ability to connect information) and they certainly have not crystalized in their being what they 'know'. (You) who is lost in his nonsense believing he knows and understands something but DOESN'T.

            Who are you to give advice, and speak from a place of authority? What did I claim I know and understand that you are taking issue with? That I use subjective wording? I am a subjective butthole like everyone else, including yourself. You typed so much in your messages, but did not say much of substance. You sound like a hasnamuss.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hasnamuss
            Is that a creature from Beelzebub's Tales?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, self-remembering isn't an intellectual process but a cognitive mental state. In that STATE there really is no reasoning or any form of intellectual structuring but a sustained developed and expanded form of cognition (this is said in technical and current language in terms of neuroscience). Now, where is that cognitive state steadily directed? Well, that is what can't be described in a simple and clear way if the entire path prior to said state is ignored and if the individual has not worked on himself correctly to know how to identify perfectly well what he is doing, having truly set out to do so: WAKE UP from the sleep

            The only advice I'll give here is the following so that there are no longer examples like this butthole

            For me real self-remembering would be categorized as a characteristic of being rather than knowledge.

            The truth of G's teachings became even more apparent to me over the past few years. The world is filled with 'experts' so called. With immense knowledge in one pigeon-holed subject. They lack understanding (the ability to connect information) and they certainly have not crystalized in their being what they 'know'.

            who is lost in his nonsense believing he knows and understands something but DOESN'T.

            Everyone NEEDS TO LEARN how to eat, how to drink water, how to speak, how to wash their hands, how to brush their teeth, how to tie their shoes, how to cook soup, how to do an addition or a multiplication, how to write with a pencil, and even how to wipe his butt. Even you NEED TO LEARN TO CLEAN YOUR BUTT! But for some reason people believe that they don't need to learn to do, CORRECTLY, the most complex and elevated activity of the human being, which is THINK!

            (to be continue)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/ESMqDBI.jpg

            No, self-remembering isn't an intellectual process but a cognitive mental state. In that STATE there really is no reasoning or any form of intellectual structuring but a sustained developed and expanded form of cognition (this is said in technical and current language in terms of neuroscience). Now, where is that cognitive state steadily directed? Well, that is what can't be described in a simple and clear way if the entire path prior to said state is ignored and if the individual has not worked on himself correctly to know how to identify perfectly well what he is doing, having truly set out to do so: WAKE UP from the sleep

            The only advice I'll give here is the following so that there are no longer examples like this butthole [...] who is lost in his nonsense believing he knows and understands something but DOESN'T.

            Everyone NEEDS TO LEARN how to eat, how to drink water, how to speak, how to wash their hands, how to brush their teeth, how to tie their shoes, how to cook soup, how to do an addition or a multiplication, how to write with a pencil, and even how to wipe his butt. Even you NEED TO LEARN TO CLEAN YOUR BUTT! But for some reason people believe that they don't need to learn to do, CORRECTLY, the most complex and elevated activity of the human being, which is THINK!

            (to be continue)

            People are so lost in their illusion that they believe that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and also USE IT CORRECTLY. But that is as stupid as believing that because you were born with hands and fingers you are already capable of playing a good melody on the guitar or piano, or painting a good painting. JUST FOR BEING BORN WITH HANDS AND FINGERS. Without instruction, study, and training, you will only be able to make an unpleasant fuss with the piano, or smear paint stains on the canvas. That's why people's heads are full of stupidity and nonsense, because they have NEVER been instructed or studied about how to think and compile information correctly. That's why they are people who assume that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and that they already know how to think, CORRECTLY, by default.

            The brain constantly makes mistakes and makes mistakes. Mistakes and errors that you are NOT aware of. The brain edits and modifies the information it receives and processes. And you have no way to defend yourself from that, causing you to live in a world that IS NOT where you are seeing things WRONG. That is why there are tools like LOGIC, which guide the intellect and reason to avoid making mistakes. If a person doesn't know logic, he doesn't know how to think and it's very likely that his head is full of nonsense and idiocy. He is a person who lives dreaming and who is very, VERY FAR FROM WAKENING UP FROM THE DREAM.

            Before wanting to study true esoteric and mystical teachings, it's best that you learn to eradicate the errors that your brain makes all the time because otherwise all that effort will be useless and you will only keep dreaming about stupid things without ever achieving anything. In order to correctly carry out self-observation, you need to know how to think correctly and for that you first need to be trained in logic and conceptual philosophy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >when I opened a thread about the law of octaves,
          I'm going to search on the archives, very interesting, thanks

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/s58Myud.jpg

          >For me
          >For ME
          >understanding (the ability to connect information)
          >all that subjectivity

          Why don't you just be honest and say that you've never seriously studied anything and that you're just another butthole talking about what you assume about how things are as if it were certain knowledge? All wrong with this bunch of mistaken, senseless nonsense from a guy who thinks he knows and understands what he doesn't know or understand but about which he doesn't intend to inform or educate himself either since he lives in his own illusion where he's not an butthole...

          https://i.imgur.com/ESMqDBI.jpg

          No, self-remembering isn't an intellectual process but a cognitive mental state. In that STATE there really is no reasoning or any form of intellectual structuring but a sustained developed and expanded form of cognition (this is said in technical and current language in terms of neuroscience). Now, where is that cognitive state steadily directed? Well, that is what can't be described in a simple and clear way if the entire path prior to said state is ignored and if the individual has not worked on himself correctly to know how to identify perfectly well what he is doing, having truly set out to do so: WAKE UP from the sleep

          The only advice I'll give here is the following so that there are no longer examples like this butthole [...] who is lost in his nonsense believing he knows and understands something but DOESN'T.

          Everyone NEEDS TO LEARN how to eat, how to drink water, how to speak, how to wash their hands, how to brush their teeth, how to tie their shoes, how to cook soup, how to do an addition or a multiplication, how to write with a pencil, and even how to wipe his butt. Even you NEED TO LEARN TO CLEAN YOUR BUTT! But for some reason people believe that they don't need to learn to do, CORRECTLY, the most complex and elevated activity of the human being, which is THINK!

          (to be continue)

          https://i.imgur.com/0JoZF5M.gif

          [...]
          People are so lost in their illusion that they believe that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and also USE IT CORRECTLY. But that is as stupid as believing that because you were born with hands and fingers you are already capable of playing a good melody on the guitar or piano, or painting a good painting. JUST FOR BEING BORN WITH HANDS AND FINGERS. Without instruction, study, and training, you will only be able to make an unpleasant fuss with the piano, or smear paint stains on the canvas. That's why people's heads are full of stupidity and nonsense, because they have NEVER been instructed or studied about how to think and compile information correctly. That's why they are people who assume that because they are born with a brain they already know how to use it and that they already know how to think, CORRECTLY, by default.

          The brain constantly makes mistakes and makes mistakes. Mistakes and errors that you are NOT aware of. The brain edits and modifies the information it receives and processes. And you have no way to defend yourself from that, causing you to live in a world that IS NOT where you are seeing things WRONG. That is why there are tools like LOGIC, which guide the intellect and reason to avoid making mistakes. If a person doesn't know logic, he doesn't know how to think and it's very likely that his head is full of nonsense and idiocy. He is a person who lives dreaming and who is very, VERY FAR FROM WAKENING UP FROM THE DREAM.

          Before wanting to study true esoteric and mystical teachings, it's best that you learn to eradicate the errors that your brain makes all the time because otherwise all that effort will be useless and you will only keep dreaming about stupid things without ever achieving anything. In order to correctly carry out self-observation, you need to know how to think correctly and for that you first need to be trained in logic and conceptual philosophy.

          This is really good stuff. Great stuff. Take notes from this guy if you’re interested, is my half-joking advice to interested bystanders. But even better is to cut to the chase and skip Internet forum drama (an EXTREMELY limited medium for getting some of these ideas out, and also often even toxic, a cesspool, as this man rightly notes). I came to the same or similar conclusions from Gurdjieff’s work and other Fourth Way literature: part of the key process is LEARNING HOW TO THINK. We “think” (in an automatic, hypnotized, semi-conscious way) that we already know how to THINK. One of Gurdjieff’s core insights was, no, we don’t. We have to learn how to think, learn how to learn even.

          In various talks and translated versions of G.’s status, this has a high status he gives it under the names “active mentation”, sometimes simply “contemplation”. It is one of the highest things we can do. But there is also a non-intellectual component to self-remembering and self-observation. It requires one to wake up the intellectual mind, train it with proper teachings, and get it used to helping one remember oneself and watch oneself, but the emotions and body also have to be brought into it. Then we approach becoming a person with our three centers balanced, and not a lopsided “psychopath” centered exclusively in one of these centers, as G. would have it. We even have to learn how to feel, and how to sense things and work with our body. The whole package. Then we are a truly complete human, a three-centered being, working up to our true potential and not just a donkey.

          As G. would say, yes, learning to think is important too. In his conception, one of the very reasons we are put here — a way we fulfill our divine purpose and truly become worthy of being called children of God, or made in the image of God — is to actively mentate on important topics having to do with Being. Being-mentation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Does trivium help with this? What about learning languages? G seemed to enjoy languages.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            First thing you should consider asking yourself is, why should you give a shit about what I say on this, or what anyone else says about this (or about anything else on the Internet, in fact), and maybe even why you should trust or look up to Gurdjieff, assuming you do?

            This is nowhere near a straightforward answer, and I see it definitely might sound like I’m a sudden troll, an interloper, or a hostile poster coming in to stir shit up … but that’s not the case, fortunately. I’m just trying to point to some of key matters here, even if it’s seemingly in a way that’s digressing, or even if it sounds like it’s outright combative and hostile.

            Now, to be completely earnest, and less combative, the reason I gave that roundabout answer is because there’s no explicit clear mention that I know of from Gurdjieff (or from other well-known major Fourth Way disciples and/or teachers and their literature) that EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY answers that question. (In terms of the usefulness of learning “trivium” or “languages” especially). However, there is enough in the Fourth Way lit I’ve read that’s at least close enough. If you were to ask me (again, a random stranger whom you in all honesty shouldn’t have reason to 100% unblinkingly without-any-doubt trust), the “4th Way” (inasmuch as that’s a coherent thing) answer would be, it practically doesn’t matter WHAT you study, it only matters HOW you study it. One man is devoted to studying Shakespeare and poetry and novels, another to nuclear physics and the physics and chemistry related to it, another is even devoted to farming, or to learning how to plumb, to unclog drains and fix people’s toilets.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you imagine there’s a God, or a supremely existentially-fulfilled state that’s possible of a human being, or some supreme transcendental overriding principle that so much as implies or overlaps with these (the Tao, the Buddha-nature, Nirvana, Liberation/Salvation, etc.), it probably sounds a little insane and arbitrary to claim that JUST the plumber, JUST the Shakespeare scholar, or JUST the merchant on the street, or JUST the nuclear physicist is going to have access to this, to be fulfilled by this supreme state of being.

            So, again, the likely “Fourth Way teaching answer” (again, inasmuch as that’s actually a coherent thing at all , and all just according to little old me), would be, it doesn’t matter WHAT you learn; just HOW you learn it, and what effect it has on your own “being”. Gurdjieff himself is on record many times saying that the mainstream form of education, as we typically conceive of it, often does more towards DESTROYING or covering up, obscuring, even damaging people’s own innate “essence” or “being” than it does towards helping it truly grow in a “spiritual” sense.

            Gurdjieff did know perhaps some dozen languages, that is true. And one real saying from him, so far as I know, is, “Philology a better route to truth than philosophy” (recorded so literally and faithfully it also preserves his broken English, because (you’re right on this one) he did know very many languages, but his accent/language in many of these was also rather broken and heavily accented, which led to a ‘mindfrick’ experience for many figures, like Ouspensky when he heard it first, for his recounting complex philosophical, religious, and scientific ideas in this broken accent of an obscure immigrant from an obscure region of the Caucasus).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now, if you want to know what I MYSELF think you should think about this whole thing, here’s my sincere suggestion: imagine a monk of the Sōtō Zen sect sitting in a monastery in Japan cross-legged in the lotus position, staring at a blank white or offwhite wall, or sitting facing it with his eyes closed, his mind bombed out on this one specific kōan (or teaching-story, lit. “public-case/record’ in its original Chinese etymology as gung-an) he’s been instructed to meditate on. He’s here in this position with his mind bombed out having gone over this specific kōan hundreds or maybe even thousands of times.

            He may not be the greatest expert on the Japanese language … in all honesty, he knows more than enough just for fluent conversation in it, and more or less just enough as he needs to know so he can hear and understand such kōans, translations of Buddhist sutras in Japanese that are read, chanted, and recited by Buddhists in his country, and just enough examples of possibly somewhat literary or obscure uses of the Japanese language as he might occasionally have to come across. He’s certainly not a polyglot, multilingual, or even bilingual — Japanese is the only language he knows, and it’s the only one he thinks and speaks in except for when he’s not thinking or speaking.

            It’s not entirely likely you could bring him to a European university or a college in the United States and have him successfully graduate from there with a bachelor’s degree, a master’s, or a PhD, just as he is. But Gurdjieff, if he were here in such a hypothetical situation, would likely point respectfully at the sitting Sōtō Zen monk and whisper to you, “Look, he have Being! Is an individual with Being. You not close to having such being. He is far superior to you.”

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is a weird board. One part containment for bots and idiots. Other part place for kids to gather and tell camp fire stories over the internet. Other part legitimate occult discourse. Pearls before swine. Some of them will be ready for it but just not now. Some never.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Great book

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    G

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Smashed hundreds of women just with his mind. He's Andrew tate of occultism

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think very highly of him and adore his teaching.
    Maurice Nicoll one of his students said that in The Bible we have the What but not the How. He found that How in The Gurdjieff Work.

    The 4th Way is the most practical 'boots on the ground' form of spiritual development I have come across in my searching. I came across Ouspenky's In Search of The Miraculous in a used book shop in Cambridge MA about 7 years ago. I have been captivated since. I have read Ouspensky's Fourth Way, as well as Kenneth Walker's The Teachings of Gurdjieff. I am almost through my second time of Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson, which I consider a magical book. Gurdjieff being a master hypnotist himself, I believe wrote this book in such a manner to program the psyche of the sincere reader with the 'form of his mentation' as he says. For me this book set my life on fire. My subconscious mind began to be manifested in my external world, and I had to confront so much. Do heed his warning in the beginning of The Tales as this work is not for everyone. It has been said The Tales is an 'objective work of art' and I tend to agree.

    Anyway I plan on reading all 3 of his works 3x times as prescribed by the man himself. He has many influential students to draw from as well (Ouspensky, Nicoll, Orage and many more as referenced above). He also was a teacher of temple dance and of music. His music with Thomas De Hartmann is incredible and I recommend it. Gurdjieff's work is rare and remarkable.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like your style. And I agree with you on everything.
      That being said, I would appreciate your perspective on his explanation to Ouspensky when asked about the Indian fakir and the nail bed early on in the book (In Search of the Miraculous). I'm asking because that part in particular doesn't sit right with me. I was under the impression the feat is achieved through even distribution of weight.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thank you. I went looking in ISOTM, but I was unable to locate this exact passage? Do you have a page number? What about it did not sit right with you?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The end of Chapter 3. "Talks about a fakir on nails an Buddhist magic.", p61, although pages may vary between prints (I think).

        > What about it did not sit right with you?
        As mentioned, anyone can do the bed of nails trick with even distribution of weight. You don't need a magic word. Ouspensky even mentions to Gurdjieff that the fakir didn't make any quick movements.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ->

          Thank you. I went looking in ISOTM, but I was unable to locate this exact passage? Do you have a page number? What about it did not sit right with you?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a reading order for this guy? Where does one start?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Curiously you shouldn't start reading Gurdjieff. It's best that you start reading Maurice Nicoll and then Ouspensky. It's best to start reading Maurice Nicoll’s "Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky" but first maybe you should read "The New Man" with "The Mark" since these two books are an excellent introduction to true esoteric knowledge. Then you can go to Ouspensky and his books "In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching" and "The Fourth Way". Those are the books to start with. The rest of the materials, some are interesting and good complements, but there is also a lot of garbage that you must know how to discern and for that you need the core of the teaching.

      Now, reading Gurdjieff directly is the most complicated and the least advisable because one can easily get lost, so that should be the last thing you do. To read Gurdjieff it's in the following order: "Meetings with Remarkable Men", "Life is Real Only Then, When 'I Am", and "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" The reason for this is that he does not stop to explain anything and to understand these texts you must already have a good knowledge of the teaching of the Fourth Way (since his texts are full of allegories and symbols like all esoteric texts at the level of the parables of Christ).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for the recommendations

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Second perspective here, in my judgment, this poster gives very good advice until the second paragraph. Of Gurdjieff’s works, I think they should be read in the order Gurdjieff stated: in order. And if you want to go on the whole hog including postage, even three times each in the way he recommends, as an exercise to let it sink into your understanding.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In 2020 when I was collecting government pandemic gibs I passed many mornings at my kitchen table reading Gurdjieff or the Bhagavad Gita, incense drifting through the room, this music playing in the background. Highly recommended to all anons interested in G and his work. Listen with a spacious awareness - this music touches something beyond the addictive patterns we've all accumulated. A true blessing, shared with love.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All of his work was about Blue Eisenhower November

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *