[Opinion] Gurdjieff LHP?

[Xenophon]

Stephen Flowers has a chapter on Gurdjieff in his "Lords of the Left Hand Path." Does G. belong there? True he makes some LHP noises. But this is all with an eye to eventually reintegrating the now-harmonized Man (sans scare quotes) into what is a recognizably RHP cosmos. The "perfect egoist" finally becomes a "helper to God." Nimrod de Rosario ("Secret History of the Thule Gesellschaft") hints that Gurdjieff was indeed in on what's afoot in the cosmos, but as a "black siddha"---i.e., one serving the dark purposes of an ultimately dystopic RHP. In other words that his Fourth Way was a false flag op subverting the real LHP.

Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[voidcat]

It's been a while since I read that book I have a copy of it. I don't know much about Gurdjieff but I remember in the book Flowers writes a bunch of people as lhp that were controversial to label as such. He for example labels Jesus Christ as lhp.

 

[Xenophon]

It's been a while since I read that book I have a copy of it. I don't know much about Gurdjieff but I remember in the book Flowers writes a bunch of people as lhp that were controversial to label as such. He for example labels Jesus Christ as lhp.

Good point about Jesus. Gurdjieff gets pigeonholed everywhere about as often as the Nazarene. I recall an essay identifying him as the eminence grise behind Stalin. Another that proves G. played Hitler like a pawn from day one.

 

[Wintruz]

Stephen Flowers has a chapter on Gurdjieff in his "Lords of the Left Hand Path." Does G. belong there? True he makes some LHP noises. But this is all with an eye to eventually reintegrating the now-harmonized Man (sans scare quotes) into what is a recognizably RHP cosmos. The "perfect egoist" finally becomes a "helper to God." Nimrod de Rosario ("Secret History of the Thule Gesellschaft") hints that Gurdjieff was indeed in on what's afoot in the cosmos, but as a "black siddha"---i.e., one serving the dark purposes of an ultimately dystopic RHP. In other words that his Fourth Way was a false flag op subverting the real LHP.

Any thoughts on the matter?

I'm generally resistant to the kinds of categorisation that says "this is Left Hand Path", "this is Right Hand Path". Sometimes things can be complicated and actions which may appear one way, may serve an entirely different purpose in the magician's psyche. For example, the many Satanists who are dogmatically committed to socially (even government) approved programming are, according to my definition, entirely Right Hand Path. A magician invoking Jesus as a way of rising from their own death... that's a rather different matter.

A better categorisation and one which doesn't risk either lazy, surface-level readings or entering metaphysical terrain which can only make sense once you're there (that is, the Bodhisattva question of "do I remain or do I dissolve?2) is "awake" and "asleep".

In the past I've tended to suggest that the Right Hand Path is synonymous with sleep, the idea that either mankind will be collectively or arbitrarily "saved" and, therefore, doesn't need to do anything. Awake is for those who need to do something, ideally not because they're looking to find salvation but because something within them is sufficiently noble as to make sleep unacceptable. If that is the LHP (I cannot comment on the - rather odd - reading of Rosario's) then, without a shadow of a doubt, in my opinion, Gurdjieff belongs on the LHP.

This is not just an intellectual reading of his system (which I'd characterise as Left Hand Path Sufism with strong Neoplatonic and some Buddhist influences) but it's also rooted in my direct experience with those a long way down the Fourth Way. The qualities which can be apprehended in those initiates are identical to those who are a long way down the conscious Left Hand Path (these two groups also recognise each other as the same). These qualities include Presence so strong as to be disruptive, empowering awakening in those with the potential for it and baffling those without that potential, and the ability to change the world in complex, anti-mechanical ways. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in the terrain finds a Fourth Way group and judges its graduates for themselves.

 

[Xenophon]

Actually your question, "Do I remain or dissolve?" has been the litmus test I've sort of wandered into using.

DeRosario's reading is not all that clear, I admit to some exegesis. (It's no clearer in the original Spanish.) He mentions Gurdjieff in a short paragraph that forms part of a longer discussion addressing other matters. One could also take DeR as hinting that Gurdjieff was deliberately playing with Pasu pupils he had no intention of advancing. (Part of a winnowing out process, maybe.) This latter reading would harmonize well with Fritz Peters' ambivalent take on Gurdjieff in "Boyhood With Gurdjieff." The one difficulty here is that DeR has Gurdjieff, in effect, telling peoples in all seriousness that "the Work" is a dead end. (A conclusion Ouspensky came to in his final months.) Whether one is to imagine that there is a teaching---or at least a learning---back of the Work is the key issue, I guess.

 

[Wintruz]

The one difficulty here is that DeR has Gurdjieff, in effect, telling peoples in all seriousness that "the Work" is a dead end. (A conclusion Ouspensky came to in his final months.) Whether one is to imagine that there is a teaching---or at least a learning---back of the Work is the key issue, I guess.

Though I'm interested, I'm unfamiliar with what Rosario is saying here.

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that once something had been systematised, it was useless to Gurdjieff (this is at the root of his rejection of religion - it had all become mere recitation). The Work could risk simply becoming another form of sleep where the practices lack the jolting, unmoored quality which keeps initiates awake. This is why Gurdjieff can be hard to get a handle on sometimes. Once you think "I've nailed it", you've only intellectualised it and lost the discomfort from which awakening emerges.

In addition to this, he would do and say odd things which prompted discomfort in people. Buying a postcard and immediately ripping it up in front of the man he'd bought it from ... steam-rolling into his centre at Fontainebleau and telling his most committed disciples "it's all rubbish" while hitting them with a brush... deliberately being kind to those who he knew had no potential and being cruel to those who he knew did...

The point was to create an endless atmosphere of unrest, of constant questioning, of unpredictability. That unrest would be the foundation for transformation.

 

[Xenophon]

Though I'm interested, I'm unfamiliar with what Rosario is saying here.

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that once something had been systematised, it was useless to Gurdjieff (this is at the root of his rejection of religion - it had all become mere recitation). The Work could risk simply becoming another form of sleep where the practices lack the jolting, unmoored quality which keeps initiates awake. This is why Gurdjieff can be hard to get a handle on sometimes. Once you think "I've nailed it", you've only intellectualised it and lost the discomfort from which awakening emerges.

In addition to this, he would do and say odd things which prompted discomfort in people. Buying a postcard and immediately ripping it up in front of the man he'd bought it from ... steam-rolling into his centre at Fontainebleau and telling his most committed disciples "it's all rubbish" while hitting them with a brush... deliberately being kind to those who he knew had no potential and being cruel to those who he knew did...

The point was to create an endless atmosphere of unrest, of constant questioning, of unpredictability. That unrest would be the foundation for transformation.

That is the direction my understanding is going of him. He was not writing one more cookbook. Consider this thread to be thinking aloud. My initial post was off base as to where DeRosario is going. Having read on, I see he pretty clearly sees G. as perpetrating a mind-f*** on pupils who could not get the point. Interestingly, De Rosario himself echoes G., writing, "Looking for a school reinforces your slavery."