Taking Leave of Some Teachers

Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and Others

The last name of George Ivanovich Gurdjieff was a household word in my father’s family, along with that of Gurdjieff’s major disciple, Peter Demianovich Ouspensky. I remember hearing these two strange sounding names from the mid-1940s when I was around age seven. Ouspensky died in 1947 and Gurdjieff in 1949, but their teachings remain important to a significant number of seekers and much has been written by their students, and students of these students, about them, especially Gurdjieff.

During my twenties, when I was hungry for glimpses of deeper structure and meaning in life, I began reading Gurdjieff the philosopher and psychologist, and Ouspensky the cosmologist and major explainer of Gurdjieff. I may not have pursued these writings so early and diligently had not their names been imprinted in me. I later read other explainers and interpreters of both these men because their writing is dense and, in Gurdjieff’s case, his written English is almost impenetrable to most readers.

Left, P.D. Ouspensky; right, G.I. Gurdjieff

By the time I was in my forties I had collected a large number of books about Gurdjieff and “the work,” as his legacy is known to his students, and a few by Ouspensky who was less prolific and had less of a following. I also had, and still have some, books by Rafael Lefort, Olga Arkadievna de Hartmann, Kathleen Speeth, John G. Bennett and Robert de Ropp which are, at least in part, pertinent to “the work”. And, to make even more clear what these two teachers taught I have their biographies by Colin W. Wilson.

In recent weeks I have been rereading books I have had with me for many years, some of which I will now give away, having now read them a sufficient number of times. This is how I am ‘taking leave’ of these teachers.

The previous article in this journal was written as a result of such a rereading. More recently I have reread Making a Soul by John G. Bennett, adapted from a series of lectures, including extensive responses to questions from the audience, in London, 1954, expounding upon critical elements of the writing and teaching of Gurdjieff.

Sitting in the quiet early morning of a Swedish late spring, with the sun’s light about to stream into my window at 4:15 AM, I ask myself what I have learned from Gurdjieff and all his interpreters. The one thing I will remember is that we are, most of us, most of the time ‘asleep.’ The subtitle of Colin Wilson’s biography of Gurdjieff is The War Against Sleep. Another thing I will remember is that Gurdjieff and his followers asked good questions about the nature of man and his place in the universe. Finally, I am grateful for his having introduced me to ways of thinking and being in other parts of the world.

What I cannot now accept in his teachings is the metaphor of man as a machine. He and Ouspensky and all who followed them are steeped in the atmosphere of science and mathematics which bloomed in the first half of the 20th Century. The appeal to logic, reason and science in all these writings, no matter how much there may be an acknowledgment of a force ‘higher’ than man, is, in my view, like trying to put a previously living organism back to together after having dissected it.

John G. Bennett

Also, in Bennett’s Making of a Soul, he makes such, to me, unacceptable statements as “…the fundamental principle of all science, which is the continuity and self-consistency of the natural order”, and “…everything in the universe is built upon one common pattern.” I have an aversion to the use of the noun ‘science’ as if it were an independent agent causing things to happen or containing things that we try to discover. There is a scientific method that enables us to learn things about the universe and to make useful tools with this knowledge, but which is provisional and according to current theories, subject to revision.

Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Bennett, de Ropp and others often present linear and planar diagrams in the manner of organizational charts and systems analyses to buttress their arguments of how man and the rest of the universe are constructed and how they relate to each other. These are inevitably hierarchical in nature, where Man is higher than all other living things on earth and subordinate to unseen and variously named forces higher than him.

Bennett, however, asks a critical question: “Who am I that can say ‘my body?'” This is precisely a question asked by others whose perceptions are influenced by Zen Buddhism and by those who perceive man as part of a vibrant and dynamic whole, not separate, not ‘outside’ of himself looking at himself.

The Enneagram is part of an ancient method of describing personality types, not dissimilar from the modern Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based in Jungian psychology and widely used in organizations for team building and by others for self- and mutual understanding. Some scholars have asserted a relationship between the two methods.

Although fascinating and instructive, the adoption by Gurdjieff, then by others, of pieces of other cultures in The Caucasus, where Gurdjieff was born, and from parts of Western Asia such as Sufi dancing and The Enneagram, makes a kind of stew that requires endless interpretation for understanding.

I can now release many of the books in this realm of inquiry for others to read. I will keep some books because of their literary and historical value, and  to remind me of these former teachers who have now become friends with whom I have some respectful differences of opinion.

Books to be released:

I urge the reader to read the reviews underneath the links to these books for even more, and very interesting commentary.

As I retrieved and set aside these books for their proper distribution beyond my library, I came across this bookmark of unknown date, so I don’t know if the telephone numbers are current.

 

Posted in Books & Literature, Philosophy & Psychology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Shibumi

…(A)n ineffable quality…great refinement underlying commonplace appearances.

Thus, on page 74 of my paperback copy of the book Shibumi, does the author, Trevanian (1931-2003), through the character General Kishikawa Takashi, begin to describe to young Nicholai Alexandrovitch Hel the nature of this ‘quality.’

It is a statement so correct that it does not have to be bold, so poignant it does not have to be pretty, so true it does not have to be real. Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without pudency [prudishness]. In art where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi [celebration of that which is old and faded], it is elegant simplicity, articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi [cultivated simplicity and poverty], it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of man it is…how does one say it? Authority without domination? Something like that.

I have read this book at least a half-dozen times since its publication 30 years ago, and have given many copies away to friends and relatives. I feel now, after having just again read it, that I should memorialize it here so that it may not be necessary to read it again.

One cannot successfully characterize a book with so many historical references, vivid characters and deliberate stereotypes of nationalities, among its other, including ‘ineffable,’ facets and qualities. The author is man of strong opinions and may offend some who read the book, but one cannot be bored with it.

Trevanian dedicated the book to the four characters who helped shape the main player in this story, Nicholai Alexandrovitch Hel. The four are based on real people with, presumably, different names and identities:

    • General Kishikawa Takashi, trapped by culture, custom and circumstance into becoming the Governor of Japanese occupied Shanghai just prior to World War Two. Kishikawa-san becomes foster father to Nicholai Hel.
    • Otake-san, Seventh Dan Gô Master, mentor to Nicholas Hel in the board game of Gô, of which life is its shadow. As part of Otake-san’s instruction in life he tells Nicholas: “Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft while in fact he has had only one year of experience—twenty times.”
    • Maurice de Lhandes, “The Gnome,” an invaluable ally, and friend, to Nicholas in his years as a professional assassin. De Lhandes has access to the darkest secrets of governments which he sells to those whom he can trust not to reveal his identity and location.
    • Le Cagot, a Falstaffian character, a Basque, who is Nicholas’s companion and fellow spelunker, or caver, after retirement from his former profession. Le Cagot is, among other attributes, a hero of the Basque resistance to the Spanish government.

    The ‘retired’ Nicholas Hel has a female companion, as well, who is a gently compelling character. In the spirit of shibumi I will say little more here. I will now put away my old friend, having drunk from his pages sufficiently, and, without yearning, anticipate the day when it will seem as natural as the rain to deliver it into the hands of a young visitor to my home.

    kareeda ni
    karasu no tomari keri
    aki no kure

    [on dead branches
    crows remain perched
    at autumn’s end]

    —Matsuo Bashō (1644-1694)

    Shibumi is published by Ballantine Books, New York. Copyright © 1979 by Trevanian. ISBN 0-345-31180-9

Posted in Books & Literature, Philosophy & Psychology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment