Gurdjieff's 4th way

[pueblo]

Reading In Search of the Miraculous Ouspensky quotes Gurdjieff as saying (paraphrasing here) that laughter is the result of an instant and simultaneous 'yes' and 'no'..and the more I thought about it the more it seemed to resonate with me.

The simultaneous 'yes and no' reminded me of a quote by F Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

The inability to function when faced with two opposing views produces cognitive dissonance.

Is laughter then just a type of physical cognitive dissonance?

Also, Gurdjieff's 'yes and no' theory of laughter mirrors the action of modern quantum computers that have the ability to go beyond binary law and now a qubit (a bit of quantum data) can be both a 1 and a 0 at the same time.

Perhaps there is a quantum/laughter connection?

[sms]

Posted by pueblo (here)
(...)Also, Gurdjieff's 'yes and no' theory of laughter mirrors the action of modern quantum computers that have the ability to go beyond binary law and now a qubit (a bit of quantum data) can be both a 1 and a 0 at the same time.(...)

Or, we could talk about a virtual reality simulation, where we would be just characters “externally influenced” by somebody/something, while having an impression of an independence, as expressed in the conversation between Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, somewhere during the WW1 from the book - In the Search of the Miraculous

“Have you ever thought about the fact that all peoples themselves are machines?”

“Yes,” I said, “from the strictly scientific point of view all people are machines governed by external influences. But the question is, can the scientific point of view be wholly accepted?”

“Scientific or not scientific is all the same to me,” said G. “I want you to understand what I am saying. Look, all those people you see,” he pointed along the street, “are simply machines—nothing more.”

“I think I understand what you mean,” I said. “And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path.”

“This is just where you make your greatest mistake,” said G. “You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical.”

“Why, of course not!” I said. “Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order.”
“Of exactly the same order,” said G. “These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines.”

“Very well,” I said. “But are there no people who are not machines?”

“It may be that there are,” said G., “only not those people you see. And you do not know them. That is what I want you to understand.”

I thought it rather strange that he should be so insistent on this point. What he said seemed to me obvious and incontestable. At the same time, I had never liked such short and all-embracing metaphors. They always omitted points of difference. I, on the other hand, had always maintained differences were the most important thing and that in order to understand things it was first necessary to see the points in which they differed. So I felt that it was odd that G. insisted on an idea which seemed to be obvious provided it were not made too absolute and exceptions were admitted.

“People are so unlike one another,” I said. “I do not think it would be possible to bring them all under the same heading. There are savages, there are mechanized people, there are intellectual people, there are geniuses.”

“Quite right,” said G., “people are very unlike one another, but the real difference between people you do not know and cannot see. The difference of which you speak simply does not exist. This must be understood. All the people you see, all the people you know, all the people you may get to know, are machines, actual machines working solely under the power of external influences, as you yourself said. Machines they are born and machines they die. How do savages and intellectuals come into this? Even now, at this very moment, while we are talking, several millions of machines are trying to annihilate one another. What is the difference between them? Where are the savages and where are the intellectuals? They are all alike . . .

“But there is a possibility of ceasing to be a machine. It is of this we must think …”

What was said above may sound a bit offensive to the machines, however, allegedly, if a machine contemplates the issue and works on itself for a while, it may realise that it was true!?

[greybeard]

Hi sms
Whilst I dont like the word machines--its different language for what mystics say--ie "You are not the doer--events happen deeds are done but there is no individual doer there of"
Jesus said it clearly " Of my self I do nothing it is the Father within"

It would seem that is the play of the One consciousness and you/we are that.
Consciousness takes on a condensed restricted role,-- the un-manifest becomes manifest.
Then seeming life times to discover its true identity---ie Self realization.
The intellect does not want to get this--an insult to the seeming individual persons--the ego.
The ego creates the war--friction--specialness --to prove and strengthen its seeming separation from the Truth which is One without a second. As in Advaita teachings of old.

Thanks for your post sms

Chris

[sms]

Hi greaybeard,

of course, we need to consider the time when something was expressed, as the terminology was diferrent. Gurdjieff was using the term “machine”, while some non-gnostic sources, like the investigator of paranormal phenomena, John Keel, was using a more contemporary term: “bio-chemical robot”.

”You and I are biochemical robots controlled by the powerful radiations being broadcast from the Eighth Tower [supercomputer]. Our brains are programmed like computers, and many of us are suddenly and completely reprogrammed at some point in our adult life. At birth our entire lives are planned for us, and as we weave and totter through our allotted three score and ten, we find ourselves manipulated by ‘luck’, by strange coincidences, and by sudden changes in ourselves and our environment.

Visualize a mad scientist who needs someone to clean out his secret laboratory in his castle on a forbidding mountaintop.

He constructs a mechanical robot for the job and programs it so it can move freely within the lab, but if it should open the door and try to move out of the laboratory, it is programmed to self-destruct.

The robot calls it slavery. We call it free will. We are free to pursue our life in our own way so long as we conform to the hidden master plan. If we try to circumvent that plan by zigging instead of zagging, we self-destruct.”

We are biochemical robots helplessly controlled by forces that can scramble our brains, destroy our memories and use us in any way they see fit. They have been doing it to us forever. We are caught up in a poker game being played with marked cards. Yet, in the closing years of this century, we are like the inveterate gambler who, when informed that the game is crooked, shrugs and says, “I know… but it’s the only game in town”!

(…)

All of our beads are wired to a central switchboard [supercomputer]. That switchboard is the only God and the only reality. Illusions and delusions are piped down from it to further confound our perception of reality.”

(…)

We are now nearing the end of a cosmic cycle, however, and our ultimate fate is becoming more and more obvious. We have been programmed well, but the Eighth Tower is dying of old age. The manifestations around us are not the work of the gods but of a senile machine playing out the end game.”

Source: The Cosmic Questin of the Eighth Tower

Carlos Castenda used the term – “foreign installations” (book: Active Side of Infinity)

Charles Forte called us – “puppets, externally controlled by a puppet master.”

In some stories, we were simply called – Pinocchios (of course, it would never come to a mind of a reader, that he was the one who was “pinocchio”).

Furthermore, what was called in the Eastern Gnosis: “The General Law” (“which controls everything and everybody”), has all the features of an AI.

The following pictures describes the situation in the field, as per the Fourth Way Teaching (Ouspensky and Gurdjieff) and the Fifth Way Teaching (Boris Mouravieff), which both belong to the Eastern Gnosis and the only difference between them was in the approach (a group vs individual).







In the “reality below the line”, everything would be false, including us, as personalities with our names, surnames (and user names), inhabiting human bodies. Would we call us as the entities who reside in the reality below the line: the “machines”, “bio-chemical robots”, “puppets”, “computer simulation characters” etc., it would not matter.

The only real thing in this reality, would be, so called, “B-influences”, which are coming from the Real I, a component of adamic human beings, which is connected to the True Consciousness. The Eastern gnostics were saying that it was possible to turn our illusory and controlled existence into an objective one, through our connection with the Real I.

The enlightenment as a spiritual achievement and the awakening in the eastern gnostic sense, would not have anything in common. One could even say that the eastern gnosis would be something opposite of what we call the spirituality. The gnostic awakening is about coming out of the illusion, while the spirituality is about advancing towards higher levels of the illusion/maya/stereoma/matrix/virtual reality...

..

[pueblo]

^^^ I agree and it's interesting that the General Law has so many characteristics in common with A.I.

[petra]

Posted by TomKat (here)

Posted by pueblo (here)

Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
Divine grace is the ultimate arbiter of whether one receives this knowledge or not. No amount of learning by rote will achieve this state. It's a lifelong process and as far as I know, it is innate and happens naturally. It can't be forced. That's my experience.

I know what you mean about things happening naturally and there is truth in this to a certain extent only imo... Gurdjieff would say that it is impossible (or next to impossible) for man to awaken by himself... he states that a man is unable to do anything, to know anything or be anything until he realises first he can do nothing, know nothing nor be anything by his own volition.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by TomKat (here)
My takeaway on G is that one's life should be an exercise in becoming spiritually complete and whole to the core, without inner contradiction or self-delusion.

Therein lies the rub. How to proceed without self delusion?

Fake it till you make it?

Posted by TomKat (here)
Here's something Jesus said that sounds fairly Gurdjieffian: "If thine eye be single, thy body will be full of light"
Note that both of these masters preached self-knowledge as the answer -- as opposed to the Buddha, who taught personal oblivion as the answer. A rather large difference, don'tcha think?

TomKat you're really making me laugh, it's hard to see the words! *pause*

BIG difference, yes! I feel bad for Jesus. When I try to imagine 'what would Jesus do' and the answer is always 'probably suffer...' it gets kind of depressing! I'm not trying to be like Jesus - I'm trying to "Be Myself". "Personal Oblivion" sounds more humble to me, and I guess I prefer my way to be "the humble way".

Here comes a movie reference.... I guess I just find it easier to communicate my thoughts this way. In the "See No Evil - Hear No Evil" movie, one guy is blind, and one guy is deaf. "Deaf guy" misses out on things because he's deaf, and likewise with "blind guy". Neither of them is getting the full picture. That's relevant because I can use it like a metaphor. Maybe we're all a bit blind, or a bit deaf, figuratively speaking.

[greybeard]

Yes but self knowledge is not about the personal "me" its about the true Self as in Self Realization
The mystics of to day are speaking about coming out of the illusion --that no improvement of the eternal Self is necessary or even possible.
You are perfect now in your true Self.
improving the little self the me will in no way change the fact that your are part of the illusion whilst in the belief that you are a separate individual.

"Spiritual" teaching are miss-leading--Ive spent years daily reading, watching videos, meditating etc.
No enlightened master claims that they became enlightened through their own efforts.
The end result is egoless--the ego being a separation device.
Ramesh Balsekar said " God gave you an ego--let Him remove it"
You cant earn enlightenment which just means removal of ignorance--the ignorance being that you are separate--
People think being spiritual is being kind to others and a host of other positive thing.
All part of the illusion
Kindness happens, everything just happens, consciousness at play. --its not down to the choice of the seeming individual--everything just happens--which is what I think Gurdjieff was pointing to.

Chris

[Bo Atkinson]

Mystics are also described as biasing towards imaginative speculation, whereas whole selves would also be objective mental selves, who have actually verified what they know and also this would imply objective emotionality and objective physicality, all to comprise a whole, balanced self. Going beyond a latent make believe state like the astral. This goes beyond Gurdjieff's way, but retains a practicality, which I believe I read in it, (as of 1976 or so for me).

From reading his stuff, Gurdjieff seemed to balance more with his objectivity and self work. Herein lies the essentiality of east-west eclecticism, (the importance of balancing the best of both worlds).

[greybeard]

Who ever describes the mystics as being biased has not a clue what enlightenment is.
Being biased or imaginative is a function of the unenlightened.
Thoughtless awareness come close as a description.
One without a second--no subject nor object --nothing to speculate about .
Just an awareness of what is without any judgment.

People will be fed up with me saying this but Tim's thread gives a very clear pointer to what enlightenment is.

There is no one left to claim enlightenment.

A joke.
At the annual get together of the enlightened no one turned up.

Chris

[shijo]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Who ever describes the mystics as being biased has not a clue what enlightenment is.
Being biased or imaginative is a function of the unenlightened.
Thoughtless awareness come close as a description.
One without a second--no subject nor object --nothing to speculate about .
Just an awareness of what is without any judgment.

People will be fed up with me saying this but Tim's thread gives a very clear pointer to what enlightenment is.

There is no one left to claim enlightenment.

A joke.
At the annual get together of the enlightened no one turned up.

Chris

No one turned up Chris because there was no booze there.

[greybeard]

Posted by shijo (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
Who ever describes the mystics as being biased has not a clue what enlightenment is.
Being biased or imaginative is a function of the unenlightened.
Thoughtless awareness come close as a description.
One without a second--no subject nor object --nothing to speculate about .
Just an awareness of what is without any judgment.

People will be fed up with me saying this but Tim's thread gives a very clear pointer to what enlightenment is.

There is no one left to claim enlightenment.

A joke.
At the annual get together of the enlightened no one turned up.

Chris

No one turned up Chris because there was no booze there.

You noticed!!!
Smiling

[greybeard]

"Right" action happens--compassion and love flows.
There seems to be an acceleration of awakening.
Conscious TV and Buddha at the Gas interviews of which there are many, point to this

What applied yesterday no longer seems the case.
Without invalidating teachers of the past--it seems to be a new era.
There is the possibility of interacting communicating, have questions answered by the Self realized--here and now.
This is an amazing time.
No longer the need to spend time in a monastery --ashram --cave in the Himalayas--be of some order--to be Self realized.
The intellect does not get this.
There must be a complex way of getting there!!
There is no path--there is no distance- what you are is within.
There may have to be the process of neity neity --not this no this--or self inquiry--but there can also be spontaneous awakening.

Best wishes
Chris

[Bo Atkinson]

Chris

At least for my ear, coming through a rounded variety of ~isms, ~ologies, writers, practices, seeking and even the “new age merchants”, the words mystics and enlightenment bear notable variances of deeper meaning. The evidence is primarily due the phenomena of popularity, which soon is soon preyed upon by the human predicament of making money or accumulating popularity, whether a larger organization or as a humble one who gets the most ‘likes’.

Gurdjieff used word(s) something like “wise acre” even in the verb form, for his descriptions of human folly and to emphasize that this state must be recognized as a first step. As this thread is on the behalf of Gurdjieff, can we ask for Gurdjieff references, on the word mystic? I recall much more his effort to wake up people to work upon them selves, as a continued starting point.

Looking at contemporary examples, of this east-west melding… Theosophy took a nose dive with advocates favoring very diverse, interpretations and some broke away to find their own followings. The deeper we look, the more can be seen. Yet i see much stronger favor for the massaging of emotional-selves, for comforts which may not even be ‘unity’. Hence the concept of artistic-poetic imagination, can politely fit, the mystic enlightenment of an emotional nature. While the word unity can elsewhere mean consciousness as a development, to take us beyond the human stage, in contrast to widening the emotional-astral worlds, which include traditions and heavens of bliss, etc…

Yes there is much to explain here, by better writers, than am i. These would explain at great length, a use of a focal point, in exercises, including the example of Gurdjieff’s works, for balancing our way, out of the human zeitgeist or maya. The balance is important, so as not to remain stuck in emotionality, so that we may better develop the causal self. Where meanings do not necessarily flow out of words alone, but practice and physical-self balance are also engaged simultaneously.

~Bo

[greybeard]

Oh yes I agree that there are those who mistake an experience of enlightenment for the real thing and those who see a gravy train.
However as said there is the likes of Ramana Maharshi who at the tender age of fifteen had a spontaneous awakening.
Is the account by Tim to be ignored, dismissed?
Im not ignoring the work of Gurdjieff, nor discounting it, but a different era--I am only interested in Truth.
Not my thoughts on it--but as recounted by the Self Realized of today.
I appreciate this is a Gurdjieff thread but several time the original poster looked for an answer to post of mine.
We may not be on the same page but we are of the same heart wavydome.

Best wishes Chris

[greybeard]

Another thought.
There are books explaining what Gurdjieff meant no doubt.
There are books on what Ramana said and meant --all translated from a different language.
Here and now we have Mooji and many others on video answering questions from the audience.
No explanation necessary from others.
If a person does not understand what is said Mooji patiently clarify's as do others.
Now that suits me and is convincing, along with personal experiences in meditation.
Its up to the seeming individual to find truth through the mine field of miss-information and the new age stories.
That may well be through the teaching passed down attributed to, or written by Gurdjieff

Chris

[Bo Atkinson]

Thanks for the heartfelt bonding, herewith returned.

To dismiss or not to dismiss is not my stand,
but rather that we were both engaged
to reveal our widely differing findings,
on the deeper matters, involving us as beings.

Emotionality has been indicated
as man’s chief obstacle to higher consciousness,
because it is usually so perpetually unbalanced,
in what passes for civilization and human imagination,
in the latent realms of creation, (including the astral)
and apparently in all fields of human consciousness.

Objectivity applies well outside of ‘intellectuality’
and much more to the point of individuals
mastering the balanced human state,
to a full completion,
rather than perpetually reincarnating
or taking sabbaticals in the astral.

I experienced enough of this stuff, merely
to report to other people what i found.
I avoided beliefs from a young age
and learned to simply acknowledge
that a beliefs exists and without obligation.
Yes i did always hear of many advanced humans,
report many kinds of findings, we are free to choose,
but need not believe in the expressed meanings.

Just another wave from my dome

[TomKat]

Posted by petra (here)

Posted by TomKat (here)

Posted by pueblo (here)

Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
Divine grace is the ultimate arbiter of whether one receives this knowledge or not. No amount of learning by rote will achieve this state. It's a lifelong process and as far as I know, it is innate and happens naturally. It can't be forced. That's my experience.

I know what you mean about things happening naturally and there is truth in this to a certain extent only imo... Gurdjieff would say that it is impossible (or next to impossible) for man to awaken by himself... he states that a man is unable to do anything, to know anything or be anything until he realises first he can do nothing, know nothing nor be anything by his own volition.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by TomKat (here)
My takeaway on G is that one's life should be an exercise in becoming spiritually complete and whole to the core, without inner contradiction or self-delusion.

Therein lies the rub. How to proceed without self delusion?

Fake it till you make it?

Posted by TomKat (here)
Here's something Jesus said that sounds fairly Gurdjieffian: "If thine eye be single, thy body will be full of light"
Note that both of these masters preached self-knowledge as the answer -- as opposed to the Buddha, who taught personal oblivion as the answer. A rather large difference, don'tcha think?

TomKat you're really making me laugh, it's hard to see the words! *pause*

BIG difference, yes! I feel bad for Jesus. When I try to imagine 'what would Jesus do' and the answer is always 'probably suffer...' it gets kind of depressing! I'm not trying to be like Jesus - I'm trying to "Be Myself". "Personal Oblivion" sounds more humble to me, and I guess I prefer my way to be "the humble way".

Here comes a movie reference.... I guess I just find it easier to communicate my thoughts this way. In the "See No Evil - Hear No Evil" movie, one guy is blind, and one guy is deaf. "Deaf guy" misses out on things because he's deaf, and likewise with "blind guy". Neither of them is getting the full picture. That's relevant because I can use it like a metaphor. Maybe we're all a bit blind, or a bit deaf, figuratively speaking.

Well I'm not really aware that Siddhartha had much of a technique for achieving Nirvana, anyway. So perhaps it falls under the category of a mental construct?
I suspect Gurdjieff and Jesus were more interested in the actual energy structure of your etheric/soul body. Not what you THINK you are but what you actually are, energy-wise. For your body to be full of light something that is NOT light would have to be vacated from the body. That seems more like spiritual hygiene than enlightenment.
To do is to be, Nietzsche, To be is to do, Frohm, do be do be do, Sinatra

[sms]

I find the 4th Way (and the 5th Way) teaching or the Eastern gnosis as unique, because the concept expressed there implies that we, as personalities in human bodies, were artificial or non-objective, as well as the reality we inhabit, yet in this artificial reality, there was “something true”, which is hard to perceive for us, because of our non-objective perception. As such, we would be able to rationalise anything, but to understand nothing of true importance or essence. Now, where the problem is, if it was a true information, how its source would expect that artificial entities (“machines”, ”bio-chemical robots”) like us, could understand it appropriately?! It looks impossible!? What would be the point of presenting such an information to artificial or non-objective entities, like us?! If we would receive such an information in our illusory lives, we could only distort it or spin it, so that it could not jeopardise foundations of our illusory existence.

For an example, in his book Active Side of Infinity, Castaneda told us that we were “foreign installations in human bodies”. As, such, we were “extensions” of a “non-organic intelligence” (an AI?!; acting like its “proxy-servers” in charge of human physical bodies), which would mean, controlled entities existing in a controlled reality. Here, the question is, again, why Castenda has presented this information, if he knew that the readers of his book will be, nobody else, but – “foreign installations”?!?

There are other non-gnostic sources which were not “enlightened” in the sense of the matrix-spirituality, but which have made similar observations based on an ability to look at the reality without a bias (which is a pretty rare case). Most of those sources would be usually unknown to spiritually advanced persons, but the information coming from them are still available. One of the examples would be Barbara Bartholic, who made the following observations:

We are confronted and confounded by an intelligence that has the ability to:

• vacuum a car and its occupants right off the roadway and go unnoticed by all;
• enter human minds or habitats day or night;
• interfere with babies still in the womb;
• abduct young children right from their beds or playgrounds undetected;
• change the dynamics of relationships and love affairs;
• cause disease;
• create mental problems and drug addiction;
• create wars and mutate generations…

Source

Furthermore, she was also saying that we were living in a sort of a NINTENDO game (virtual reality or a computer simulation?!); and, that the same intelligence, was behind “Mothers Theresas” and the serial killers or that the same intelligence was moving the black and white pieces across the chess board, so the the outcome of the game was always under its control. (Source)

(Similar observation was made by J. Keel in his book Operation Trojan Horse, in terms that we take a part in a game which was crooked, and nobody wants to know that.)

So, in the false reality below the line where we exist (shown at the above picture), a false dualism would reign, where the good guys and the bad guys, the forces of light and the forces of darkness, would be under control of the same entity, which would play god and satan, simultaneously. And, it could not be otherwise.

At the end, another question remains, - is it really possible to get out of the “crooked game” (for those interested), as implied in the eastern gnosis, or not?!

...

[petra]

Posted by TomKat (here)
Well I'm not really aware that Siddhartha had much of a technique for achieving Nirvana, anyway. So perhaps it falls under the category of a mental construct?

I don't know about Nirvana... maybe. I'm thinking more towards enlightenment and understanding as opposed to bliss or whatever Nirvana is supposed to mean. I've never read or listened Gurdjieff, but if he's half as funny as some of his pupils (like Ouspensky), I imagine he was a great teacher. Learning should be fun, I really think so. I've always thought this "enlightenment business" seemed like an inordinate amount of work, but maybe that's just because I am so far behind!

Posted by TomKat (here)
To do is to be, Nietzsche, To be is to do, Frohm, do be do be do, Sinatra

Is it a coincidence he wrote "My Way" and we're here talking about the 4th way? EDIT: And 5th apparently!
That song has special deep meaning for me, I'd like that to be the last song I ever hear before I leave this earth.

[pueblo]

It seems we are currently in one of these periods of great decline (culture/civilization) which provides great opportunity for true learning.

Now, if I could only remember myself for more than a milisecond at a time...

“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.”

From In Search of the Miraculous (p.45)