1.3 A Falling Out
Last modified 06/28/2008
|
One of central incidents of the Gurdjieff movement, or the absence of one,
was the sudden parting of ways initiated by the suspicious Ouspensky. Here is an
irony: an immense if disorganized movement has come into existence after the
lifetimes of the principals, but at the crucial point of its emergence the chief
'discipline' baulked and found the whole thing a problem. At the end of his life
he renounced the work. And yet his posthumous publication has been operating
manual for a host of impostors claiming its authority. Is this situation not a
bit absurd? Ouspensky makes a good role model here. Make sure you renounce the
work before you die. One life wasted on all this is enough. In a second round
you may not realize until too late your prior agreements. guinea pigs!
A tremendous premium on spiritual authority and obedience has gotten currency from all this, again due to certain statements recorded by Ouspensky, and yet the whole drama seems to have been embroiled with the opposite. Trashing disciples seems to have a Gurdjieff specialty. It is important for those caught up by their own suggestibility in the proliferation of this mutating legacy to maintain their presence of mind and to see that the imputation of authority is spurious. It is in fact a blessing in disguise that Ouspensky had the ability to think critically about what was afoot, even if it might be that he ended up not fully aware of the full picture subsequently drawn by Gurdjieff. In fact Gurdjieff's behavior toward his students is puzzling, as he proceeded to sabotage each relationship and institution that arose in his hope to carry out his mission. There is something unexplained in all this (J.G. Bennett's books provide some insights) but the outcome, despite the denunciation of a generation of groupies shows courage on Ouspensky's part, for he saw at once that an arising institutional basis for the 'Gurdjieff work' would be a very dangerous affair in which honest men did the promotional work while dishonest men would be in control, and yet reap the benefit.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||