No personal remarks The major difference between the Gurdjieff work and other Ways The Gurdjieff work has the distinct difference from the other ways in that it takes into consideration the general degenerated condition of modern man. That condition is distinguished by the lack of self/subjective awareness. Although the causes of this general degeneration (such as the ease of modern life even arising in the early part of the 20th century) might be studied that offers little help in changing it. What becomes clear is that man is not even conscious of the functions of the subjective self. All the parts can function more independently undeveloped because there is no need to get it together so to speak. There isnt the friction (dissidence) that requires adaption and modification of the functions as in more difficult lifestyles. The various means of causing dissidence in the functioning are secondary to the need for the dissidence (friction) itself. One way Gurdjieff referred to it is as keeping stirring the pot. It may sound like simply semantics but there is no separating of the functions done. The functioning of and the fact that our functions are separated is observed. That is enough to cause dissidence. Another way to view this is that present man is not even aware of his sense of self. That lack of awareness allows the sense of self to unknowingly attach/identify with passive functions. One identifies with passing impressions without the greater core self (essence) that comes about through a life facing frictions. It is the work related to the freedom from this core essence where the usual other ways began. When one is teaching those that only know these identifications one has to speak in identifications for any understanding. Our language and concepts are based on functions and processes being treated as things. Gurdjieff seemed to take this approach more in the early part of his teachings to the western mind. Many of the present day interpretations of Gurdjieffs ideas actually emphasize this to the point of new identifications. Common terms that are made into things are terms such as witness, observing I, essence, steward, master, and so many more it would be hard to list. Seldom offering a personal opinion but my suspicion is that objective experience such as that related of Jeanne De Salzmanns below may not be as readily available with this being the method. Here we discover the source of thinking. We see that the division between the observer and the observed is at the origin of our thought. The observer is grounded in memory, that which knows from past experience. It looks, thinks and acts from memory. This separation into observer and observed does not touch reality, it consolidates the ego. But when the observer is the observed— when the thinking is the experience— then there is no more thought. There is a state o f tranquility in which an impression can be received as new, as with little children. The eyes clearly receive the image from outside, but there is no observer perceiving, no mental processing. *The Reality of Being* page 60
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:58:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015