Gurdjieff once said that to go around being absolutely honest with everyone was a form of insanity! And so it is. Imagine saying to your boss that she's a stuck-up egomaniac, or that your friend's bum does look big because she's too fat. Obviously, common sense would prevent the first, and affection the second.
But our society is founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, and without honesty in most of our dealings we would not be able to function. A counseling adage says: Honesty without compassion is brutality - but compassion without honesty is sentimentality. We want to avoid both extremes in our dealings with others and with the wider world.
Individual choices aside, however, the Work does demand absolute honesty with ourselves. Without it we can't grow. We have to observe ourselves, unflinchingly, without criticism or judgement, so that we can see what we're really like. We learn to see which I's constantly take centre stage, which centres we prefer to use at the expense of others, and where we so easily fall asleep.
We don't judge, because that immediately shuts down observation. We would then fall asleep, pitting one group of I's (the inner critic) against the others, the I's we've observed and dislike. If we do this, we become trapped in an endless war, the various groups of I's all demanding victory. Here's where we need to bring in the Third Force of the Work: We simply look, and don't turn away our gaze from the truth we don't like. This is how we are.
A good Work teacher will show the student how to do this.
Very early in my own Work life, I was invited to supper with a well-known Work teacher in London. I dressed up in my smartest clothes and made sure my hair was looking its best. (Yes, I was very vain. This is one of the occasions that showed me just how vain I was!).
The teacher's wife, herself a high-up Work leader, opened the door to me, and as I passed through to the hallway I checked my reflection in the glass panel of the door.
Mrs C-M looked at me and smiled. She said, in her charming French accent, "You haven't been in the Work very long, I think?"
And immediately I woke up and saw my state. I blushed and felt thoroughly ashamed. Yet, at the same time, this shame was cleansing and liberating. For a few hours, at least, I was set free from a troublesome group of I's, and it felt very energizing.
This is how the Work works - gradually and gently, but very thoroughly. My own observations grew deeper the longer I worked, and I saw more and more how the various I's within me spoke in my name, occupied my thoughts, spoiled my life.
We're shown only as much as we can bear to see at the time. But again, a good Work teacher will ensure that we look at all centres, at all the aspects of our various I's, so that we get a complete picture and really understand what it is that we need to separate from. And then, we learn to let go of the identification that keeps us asleep, and we stay awake for longer and longer periods. Until the next time.
But seeing ourselves as we are is very painful. We have to put up with the knowledge that we're not enlightened, not perfect, not following Work teachings at anything like the depth we wish. We see that this is our state, for most of the time. And that is the Necessary Suffering of which the Work speaks - just that honesty, that unflinching acceptance of our nothingness, that admission that we cannot "do".
Only through this type of suffering can we make any progress at all. Yet there were always many I's in me that sought to deny what I'd seen because the sight was so unpleasant.
Marian, my Work teacher, had to remind me more than once that I mustn't exaggerate, either. Yes, I was powerless over these I's; yes, it was a low state to be in; but I was no worse than anyone else. And my pride, my vanity, certainly didn't like that remark!
It was similar to when my AA sponsor called me a "common or garden drunk"! Me? Common anything? How dare they! I was special, different, worse than other people. I was not like others. If I was a drunk, if I was vain, I was going to be the worst there was!
And each time, thankfully, the Work showed me the absurdity of this attitude and I could let go. But the need for self-observation and for complete honesty never abates. We have to see ourselves as we are, whatever it may cost us, and then accept it, and offer to God our remorse.
We see our own mediocrity, our evasions, our addictions. We see how many chances we have been given, and how we ignore them. We see that this fallen state is our own, and the state of most of humanity, and we know that wishing to be different won't make it so; only suffering can help release us from this cage of self-defeating I's that stop the light from getting in.
As Hildegarde of Bingen says, "I shall live forever through the true, pure attitude of remorse that I feel toward God".
This is the suffering that cleanses and heals, cutting through our lies, self-deceptions and muddles like a keen sword. Thank God for it.
Wednesday 25 February 2015
Tuesday 24 February 2015
Honesty and the Twelve Steps
Honesty - especially with ourselves - is the condition of all spiritual work. In the context of the Twelve Steps, it's essential right from Step One: how can we admit we're powerless, and that our life has become unmanageable, unless we're able to be honest?
But our natural reaction is to deny both these facts. Me - powerless? Perish the thought! Why, I sold six widgets today/swept the floor/took the dog to the vet (delete or add as necessary). And as for my life being unmanageable, it's doing very nicely, thank you. OK, my kids barely speak to me, my spouse has gone AWOL and my boss is threatening to fire me, true, but I can cope. Another glass of wine, please, barman.
The AA Big Book stresses the need for honesty. It tells us that the only men and women who don't stand a chance of recovery from alcoholism are those who, for whatever reason, can't be honest with themselves. And obviously, if we can't find the honesty to admit that our life is a mess and that we can't control events or people, we're going to blind ourselves to reality. And if we are to be healed from the life-threatening illness of addiction to alcohol or drugs, first of all we have to admit that we're ill.
Yet that admission is so painful that denial usually steps in and cuts us off from seeing our true state. Only when we've reached our rock bottom can we no longer deny the truth. Everyone who want to recover must reach this state sooner or later.
My own personal lowest point was on coming round on the floor of my bathroom, after physically passing out at a party I'd held that night. Everyone else had left. I had no memory of anything that had happened after I'd drunk my third glass of Chardonnay, but there I was, desperately trying to slit my wrists open with a rusty kitchen knife, tears pouring down my cheeks. If I'd had a sharper knife, or been less drunk, I would surely have succeeded.
And what had made me so unhappy that I would rather die than continue with my life? I literally had no idea. But, that night, I had reached my lowest ebb. And I cried out for Someone or Something to help me, calling for that Being to "Help me!" in the first truly sincere prayer I'd uttered in years.
I've described this incident and its consequence in my memoir, "A Raging Thirst", which you can download for free on Kindle. I didn't write it to make money or to reach fame, but to help other suffering alcoholics and those who care for them. And in it, I constantly make the point that only honesty can save us.
Not only the first Step but all the rest depend on the honesty we bring to them. It takes honesty to write a really truthful moral inventory in Step Four; honesty and courage, too, to share it with our sponsor in Step Five; and more honesty to accept without flinching all the defects of our character that will have been revealed to us in these Steps. Only with that knowledge can we be ready to have all those defects removed by the God of our understanding, and only with honesty and courage can we "humbly ask Him to remove them", as the Steps demand.
Mercifully, we're shown only as much as we can take in at one time. Gradually, over the months and years in recovery, those of us who persevere are shown more and more of those defects, and each time we need to remember our own powerlessness, so that we can again turn to God and ask for His help. He doesn't take them away at one fell swoop. He does so gradually, so that we can develop spiritual muscles.
Each day, we need to be thoroughly honest with ourselves and monitor our own mental state. We're told specifically to look out for dishonesty, fear, and all forms of selfishness. To do this each night, or at intervals through the day, takes not only honesty but willingness to bear the pain of seeing our own flaws and our seeming inability to be without them.
Only through having faith and confidence that a Power great than ourselves (whom we may think of as God, as Jesus, as Allah or as the AA movement as a whole if unable to accept the idea of a deity) will give us the strength to face our faults. And to go on facing them, with that same honesty and willingness, every day of our lives.
For us alcoholics, it's not just a question of being good, of being moral people. Desirable though that is, it's not our chief motivation. What we are doing is nothing short of saving our own lives. Without that honesty, we'll be sure sooner or later to fall into a state of depression, fear, despair or resentment that leads us to think of taking a drink. In the past, that's what we did - and it nearly killed us. We can't afford to let it happen again, so in the interests of survival we have to continue to work the Steps, one day at a time.
As the Big Book says, we are never cured of our alcoholism or drug addiction. All we have is a daily reprieve conditional on maintaining a fit spiritual condition. And the first task of that maintenance is the honesty we've begun to practice.
Yes, honesty hurts, but it cleanses too. Catholics have confession, which is a great blessing. But everyone can learn to be painfully, searingly honest before God, the God of their understanding. And the help and encouragement given by an AA or NA sponsor is a priceless treasure.
Now you've read this, I suggest taking a moment to observe yourself. Did any painful, fearful I's come up for you while you were reading? Is there anything you need to confess to God, or to another human being, that's holding you back from finding true spiritual peace?
But our natural reaction is to deny both these facts. Me - powerless? Perish the thought! Why, I sold six widgets today/swept the floor/took the dog to the vet (delete or add as necessary). And as for my life being unmanageable, it's doing very nicely, thank you. OK, my kids barely speak to me, my spouse has gone AWOL and my boss is threatening to fire me, true, but I can cope. Another glass of wine, please, barman.
The AA Big Book stresses the need for honesty. It tells us that the only men and women who don't stand a chance of recovery from alcoholism are those who, for whatever reason, can't be honest with themselves. And obviously, if we can't find the honesty to admit that our life is a mess and that we can't control events or people, we're going to blind ourselves to reality. And if we are to be healed from the life-threatening illness of addiction to alcohol or drugs, first of all we have to admit that we're ill.
Yet that admission is so painful that denial usually steps in and cuts us off from seeing our true state. Only when we've reached our rock bottom can we no longer deny the truth. Everyone who want to recover must reach this state sooner or later.
My own personal lowest point was on coming round on the floor of my bathroom, after physically passing out at a party I'd held that night. Everyone else had left. I had no memory of anything that had happened after I'd drunk my third glass of Chardonnay, but there I was, desperately trying to slit my wrists open with a rusty kitchen knife, tears pouring down my cheeks. If I'd had a sharper knife, or been less drunk, I would surely have succeeded.
And what had made me so unhappy that I would rather die than continue with my life? I literally had no idea. But, that night, I had reached my lowest ebb. And I cried out for Someone or Something to help me, calling for that Being to "Help me!" in the first truly sincere prayer I'd uttered in years.
I've described this incident and its consequence in my memoir, "A Raging Thirst", which you can download for free on Kindle. I didn't write it to make money or to reach fame, but to help other suffering alcoholics and those who care for them. And in it, I constantly make the point that only honesty can save us.
Not only the first Step but all the rest depend on the honesty we bring to them. It takes honesty to write a really truthful moral inventory in Step Four; honesty and courage, too, to share it with our sponsor in Step Five; and more honesty to accept without flinching all the defects of our character that will have been revealed to us in these Steps. Only with that knowledge can we be ready to have all those defects removed by the God of our understanding, and only with honesty and courage can we "humbly ask Him to remove them", as the Steps demand.
Mercifully, we're shown only as much as we can take in at one time. Gradually, over the months and years in recovery, those of us who persevere are shown more and more of those defects, and each time we need to remember our own powerlessness, so that we can again turn to God and ask for His help. He doesn't take them away at one fell swoop. He does so gradually, so that we can develop spiritual muscles.
Each day, we need to be thoroughly honest with ourselves and monitor our own mental state. We're told specifically to look out for dishonesty, fear, and all forms of selfishness. To do this each night, or at intervals through the day, takes not only honesty but willingness to bear the pain of seeing our own flaws and our seeming inability to be without them.
Only through having faith and confidence that a Power great than ourselves (whom we may think of as God, as Jesus, as Allah or as the AA movement as a whole if unable to accept the idea of a deity) will give us the strength to face our faults. And to go on facing them, with that same honesty and willingness, every day of our lives.
For us alcoholics, it's not just a question of being good, of being moral people. Desirable though that is, it's not our chief motivation. What we are doing is nothing short of saving our own lives. Without that honesty, we'll be sure sooner or later to fall into a state of depression, fear, despair or resentment that leads us to think of taking a drink. In the past, that's what we did - and it nearly killed us. We can't afford to let it happen again, so in the interests of survival we have to continue to work the Steps, one day at a time.
As the Big Book says, we are never cured of our alcoholism or drug addiction. All we have is a daily reprieve conditional on maintaining a fit spiritual condition. And the first task of that maintenance is the honesty we've begun to practice.
Yes, honesty hurts, but it cleanses too. Catholics have confession, which is a great blessing. But everyone can learn to be painfully, searingly honest before God, the God of their understanding. And the help and encouragement given by an AA or NA sponsor is a priceless treasure.
Now you've read this, I suggest taking a moment to observe yourself. Did any painful, fearful I's come up for you while you were reading? Is there anything you need to confess to God, or to another human being, that's holding you back from finding true spiritual peace?
Wednesday 18 February 2015
Finding a Work Teacher (Part 2)
Suppose you've met a Work teacher through a Gurdjieff Foundation or by personal recommendation, and been invited to take part in a group. How will you decide whether this group, this teacher, is right for you?
First of all, as we discussed in the previous post, check this teacher's lineage, their line of descent. If you met them through a Foundation, this aspect should be fine. If through a personal introduction, ask him or her how they came to hear about the Work, who taught them, and how long they've been in the Work.
But above all, "listen" with your gut feelings.
We all need to develop our intuitions, as opposed to our imagination. Intuition will often tell you whether someone is genuine, or whether they're simply trying to impress you. If the potential teacher seems to be doing the latter, flee them like the plague.
Negative imagination can cause you to believe all sorts of false things, however. Basically, you need to ask yourself whether you feel a particular teacher can help you, whether he or she knows more than you about the Work (almost certainly, yes!); whether you're comfortable enough in their presence and with the Group to be able to share your observations.
But don't confuse a Work group with a therapy group, or a Work teacher with a counsellor. A Work teacher can't show students the Rogerian condition of "unconditional positive regard" all the time. Many of our I's are a hindrance to our Work, and the role of a teacher includes pointing out the harmful I's and habits which we don't need and which we can advantageously discard. He or she will need sometimes to draw attention to our "buffers", the defence mechanisms and reaction formations our False Personalities have constructed in order to interpret the world. A Work teacher must know when "shocks" are needed to help students progress, and how to give such a "shock" without harming them. A Work teacher has to be active and directive, whereas this is usually not the case with counselling.
Seeing ourselves as we are is a form of suffering, but it is cleansing and healing. It is vitally necessary. A Work teacher must be compassionate and understanding, so that we don't flinch from speaking the truth, but also strong and detached enough to be able to help the student to reach this realization for themselves.
Although, as we've seen, the Work isn't identical with counselling, I once watched a video of the great therapist Fritz Perls in a session with a difficult client. He struck me as behaving like a gentle manifestation of Gurdjieff. I don't know what contact, if any, Perls has had with the Work, but I think he must have had some familiarity. He uses terms such as "octaves" and confronts clients just as G would do. In this particular situation, he was quite brilliant. He kept just ahead of the client's evasions and obfuscations, refusing to buy into her half-truths and manipulation. He challenged her, confronted her, empathized yet remained objective, while all the time showing great compassion. At the end of the session, the client tells the camera that it was the best therapy session she'd ever had, and that she'd been able to see truths about herself that no other therapist had been able to show her.
A Work teacher operates something like this. The basis of his or her teaching must be love for the Work, and he or she must use "skilful means" to create the conditions for students to learn. Never must there be any trace of False Personality in the teacher; such a person would not usually be authorized to teach, and could pose a real danger to students. Still, some dangerous teachers do slip through the net: I have met them. Again, intuition and instinctive reactions, observed with clear sight, can help a beginner to see when this is happening.
I've met teachers who were deliberately trying to copy Gurdjieff's methods, without his compassion. They shouted, lost their temper, emotionally abused their students, because after all they were not Gurdjieff, and just imitating his outward behaviour was stupid and cruel. G knew how and when to shock, who could stand such treatment and who would be crushed by it; these imitators did not. Again, run from such a person. And the passive, "compassionate idiot" teachers, who shrink from pointing out any unpleasant truth, are also to be avoided. You won't learn anything from them.
And you can look - cautiously and respectfully - at what you know of the teacher's personal life. Is he or she married? Marriage is not a condition for being a Work teacher, of course, but if married, what is that relationship like? Is the teacher a Good Householder? Do they have a job, and if so, is it ethical and responsible? These conditions alone aren't sufficient to guarantee a teacher's worth, but the lack of them should disqualify him or her.
When I was first asked to teach a group, I felt very diffident. I didn't feel I had progressed far enough in the Work, or had enough knowledge, and I asked my own teacher's advice.
"Are you hesitating because you don't think you're worthy?" she asked.
I nodded.
"Then you'll be fine!" my teacher said. "You won't be teaching from pride or vanity, from False Personality. As long as you remember that diffidence, you'll be a good teacher."
As the Talmud puts it, "It may not be given to you to finish the task, but nor are you free to refrain from doing it." Not many are authorized to teach the Work, and any teacher worth their salt will feel how daunting, yet how necessary, is the task they are called to carry out.
A good Work teacher will always feel somewhat inadequate to their role. They will remember never to identify with the role of teacher, and to observe themselves and to remember themselves even as they attempt to teach others, so that their response to students remains conscious and aware. They know how full of traps for the unwary the path of teaching and studying the Work can be, yet they must find the courage to go ahead anyway, each remembering his or her own littleness.
If you meet a teacher who you feel fulfills these conditions, you can be reasonably sure you're in good hands. If you have Magnetic Centre (and I assume that you do, since you are reading this), and if you are sincere in your quest, sooner or later you will meet your teacher. The rest is up to you.
First of all, as we discussed in the previous post, check this teacher's lineage, their line of descent. If you met them through a Foundation, this aspect should be fine. If through a personal introduction, ask him or her how they came to hear about the Work, who taught them, and how long they've been in the Work.
But above all, "listen" with your gut feelings.
We all need to develop our intuitions, as opposed to our imagination. Intuition will often tell you whether someone is genuine, or whether they're simply trying to impress you. If the potential teacher seems to be doing the latter, flee them like the plague.
Negative imagination can cause you to believe all sorts of false things, however. Basically, you need to ask yourself whether you feel a particular teacher can help you, whether he or she knows more than you about the Work (almost certainly, yes!); whether you're comfortable enough in their presence and with the Group to be able to share your observations.
But don't confuse a Work group with a therapy group, or a Work teacher with a counsellor. A Work teacher can't show students the Rogerian condition of "unconditional positive regard" all the time. Many of our I's are a hindrance to our Work, and the role of a teacher includes pointing out the harmful I's and habits which we don't need and which we can advantageously discard. He or she will need sometimes to draw attention to our "buffers", the defence mechanisms and reaction formations our False Personalities have constructed in order to interpret the world. A Work teacher must know when "shocks" are needed to help students progress, and how to give such a "shock" without harming them. A Work teacher has to be active and directive, whereas this is usually not the case with counselling.
Seeing ourselves as we are is a form of suffering, but it is cleansing and healing. It is vitally necessary. A Work teacher must be compassionate and understanding, so that we don't flinch from speaking the truth, but also strong and detached enough to be able to help the student to reach this realization for themselves.
Although, as we've seen, the Work isn't identical with counselling, I once watched a video of the great therapist Fritz Perls in a session with a difficult client. He struck me as behaving like a gentle manifestation of Gurdjieff. I don't know what contact, if any, Perls has had with the Work, but I think he must have had some familiarity. He uses terms such as "octaves" and confronts clients just as G would do. In this particular situation, he was quite brilliant. He kept just ahead of the client's evasions and obfuscations, refusing to buy into her half-truths and manipulation. He challenged her, confronted her, empathized yet remained objective, while all the time showing great compassion. At the end of the session, the client tells the camera that it was the best therapy session she'd ever had, and that she'd been able to see truths about herself that no other therapist had been able to show her.
A Work teacher operates something like this. The basis of his or her teaching must be love for the Work, and he or she must use "skilful means" to create the conditions for students to learn. Never must there be any trace of False Personality in the teacher; such a person would not usually be authorized to teach, and could pose a real danger to students. Still, some dangerous teachers do slip through the net: I have met them. Again, intuition and instinctive reactions, observed with clear sight, can help a beginner to see when this is happening.
I've met teachers who were deliberately trying to copy Gurdjieff's methods, without his compassion. They shouted, lost their temper, emotionally abused their students, because after all they were not Gurdjieff, and just imitating his outward behaviour was stupid and cruel. G knew how and when to shock, who could stand such treatment and who would be crushed by it; these imitators did not. Again, run from such a person. And the passive, "compassionate idiot" teachers, who shrink from pointing out any unpleasant truth, are also to be avoided. You won't learn anything from them.
And you can look - cautiously and respectfully - at what you know of the teacher's personal life. Is he or she married? Marriage is not a condition for being a Work teacher, of course, but if married, what is that relationship like? Is the teacher a Good Householder? Do they have a job, and if so, is it ethical and responsible? These conditions alone aren't sufficient to guarantee a teacher's worth, but the lack of them should disqualify him or her.
When I was first asked to teach a group, I felt very diffident. I didn't feel I had progressed far enough in the Work, or had enough knowledge, and I asked my own teacher's advice.
"Are you hesitating because you don't think you're worthy?" she asked.
I nodded.
"Then you'll be fine!" my teacher said. "You won't be teaching from pride or vanity, from False Personality. As long as you remember that diffidence, you'll be a good teacher."
As the Talmud puts it, "It may not be given to you to finish the task, but nor are you free to refrain from doing it." Not many are authorized to teach the Work, and any teacher worth their salt will feel how daunting, yet how necessary, is the task they are called to carry out.
A good Work teacher will always feel somewhat inadequate to their role. They will remember never to identify with the role of teacher, and to observe themselves and to remember themselves even as they attempt to teach others, so that their response to students remains conscious and aware. They know how full of traps for the unwary the path of teaching and studying the Work can be, yet they must find the courage to go ahead anyway, each remembering his or her own littleness.
If you meet a teacher who you feel fulfills these conditions, you can be reasonably sure you're in good hands. If you have Magnetic Centre (and I assume that you do, since you are reading this), and if you are sincere in your quest, sooner or later you will meet your teacher. The rest is up to you.
Tuesday 17 February 2015
Finding a Work teacher (Part 1)
Someone asked me why on Earth I'd said on my website that it can be surprisingly easy to find a Work teacher. And my answer is, because that's what happened to me.
I was seeking a Sufi teacher, and was introduced to Marian Davison, who turned out to be not only a Sheikh in the Sufi Order I wanted to join but also a Work teacher in the Nicoll line, authorized by Beryl Pogson to teach the Work. I'd been interested in the Work and had read "In Search of the Miraculous", but had not met anyone actually in it. I was very grateful that suddenly two previously closed doors had opened for me, and I've never looked back. And I've seen this type of meeting happen for several people. I think it illustrates the truth of the old saying that "When the student is ready, the teacher appears".
But it doesn't always happen that way, and sometimes the search for a teacher is part of a student's journey towards finding the Work. The search can strengthen one's determination and commitment, so that when a teacher is eventually found the student appreciates him or her all the more.
So how might someone set about finding a teacher today?
First of all, check the Gurdjieff Foundation websites for London, Paris or New York, depending on where they lived. The Foundation has a number of groups taught by people who've been properly authorized to teach by former students of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky or Maurice Nicoll. If you're sincerely seeking a teacher, you'd contact the relevant Foundation and ask for an interview. Eventually, if you're found suited to the Work - if you're a Good Householder, not merely curious and not mentally unstable - you may be provisionally admitted to a group.
Because I travelled a great deal in my life, I've been privileged to have been in groups affiliated with all three of the Foundations. I was able to take part in Work groups in the US, UK and Israel, and consequently met and studied with a number of teachers.
And the quality and ability of those teachers varied a great deal.
It's really important to have teachers who are themselves Good Householders, who have good will towards their students, and a great love of the Work. But sadly, this isn't always the case. I've seen a new student reduced to tears by the ranting of an insensitive, angry teacher who'd become completely identified with the role of "tyrant king". And I've seen the opposite extreme, too: a group taught by a weak, passive teacher who never called for any real efforts to be made, so that the students were never shown how to make observations, and learned nothing.
A new Work student, lacking the ability to judge the worth of a teacher, is vulnerable to spiritual and emotional abuse. We're told, rightly, that we can't judge the level of Being of our teacher because he or she is at a higher level than we are, and the lower can't assess the higher; it is possible only the other way around. How, then, can a beginner be sure the teacher won't turn out to be abusive?
Similar abuse can happen with counselling clients, but counsellors today are at least trained and certified and most belong to a professional body, so that some sort of reasonable standard may be expected. The same is true of teachers in other fields. But there is no such training for a Work teacher, nor can there be.
The qualification for becoming a teacher in the Work is that of having shown by one's own progress in Being and in Knowledge that one understands the Work well enough to teach it. That assessment is made by one's own teacher, based on his or her knowledge of us. That teacher can then authorize a student to teach the Work. If the teacher has been trained by someone in the line of the original teachers - Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicoll - there's a good chance of the assessment's being accurate. But today, the original successors are very elderly or have passed away, and we have to rely on the successors of the successors - if we're lucky.
So anyone looking for a Work teacher absolutely needs to make sure that the teacher to whom they're assigned is really in the direct line of succession from the original founders, and not simply someone who's decided they are qualified to teach! If the teacher is approached via the Foundations, that qualification will be met.
There are other organizations claiming the Gurdjieff inheritance, ranging from the Renaissance "People of the Bookmark" in California to independent, self-taught groups springing up around the world. None of them are genuine Work teachers, and studying with them could cause all sorts of problems, ranging from simply wasting one's time to being left confused and disoriented, not to mention out of pocket from unscrupulous teachers' demands for money.
The line of succession must be maintained, but on its own, it is not enough.
I'll continue this discussion in the next post.
I was seeking a Sufi teacher, and was introduced to Marian Davison, who turned out to be not only a Sheikh in the Sufi Order I wanted to join but also a Work teacher in the Nicoll line, authorized by Beryl Pogson to teach the Work. I'd been interested in the Work and had read "In Search of the Miraculous", but had not met anyone actually in it. I was very grateful that suddenly two previously closed doors had opened for me, and I've never looked back. And I've seen this type of meeting happen for several people. I think it illustrates the truth of the old saying that "When the student is ready, the teacher appears".
But it doesn't always happen that way, and sometimes the search for a teacher is part of a student's journey towards finding the Work. The search can strengthen one's determination and commitment, so that when a teacher is eventually found the student appreciates him or her all the more.
So how might someone set about finding a teacher today?
First of all, check the Gurdjieff Foundation websites for London, Paris or New York, depending on where they lived. The Foundation has a number of groups taught by people who've been properly authorized to teach by former students of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky or Maurice Nicoll. If you're sincerely seeking a teacher, you'd contact the relevant Foundation and ask for an interview. Eventually, if you're found suited to the Work - if you're a Good Householder, not merely curious and not mentally unstable - you may be provisionally admitted to a group.
Because I travelled a great deal in my life, I've been privileged to have been in groups affiliated with all three of the Foundations. I was able to take part in Work groups in the US, UK and Israel, and consequently met and studied with a number of teachers.
And the quality and ability of those teachers varied a great deal.
It's really important to have teachers who are themselves Good Householders, who have good will towards their students, and a great love of the Work. But sadly, this isn't always the case. I've seen a new student reduced to tears by the ranting of an insensitive, angry teacher who'd become completely identified with the role of "tyrant king". And I've seen the opposite extreme, too: a group taught by a weak, passive teacher who never called for any real efforts to be made, so that the students were never shown how to make observations, and learned nothing.
A new Work student, lacking the ability to judge the worth of a teacher, is vulnerable to spiritual and emotional abuse. We're told, rightly, that we can't judge the level of Being of our teacher because he or she is at a higher level than we are, and the lower can't assess the higher; it is possible only the other way around. How, then, can a beginner be sure the teacher won't turn out to be abusive?
Similar abuse can happen with counselling clients, but counsellors today are at least trained and certified and most belong to a professional body, so that some sort of reasonable standard may be expected. The same is true of teachers in other fields. But there is no such training for a Work teacher, nor can there be.
The qualification for becoming a teacher in the Work is that of having shown by one's own progress in Being and in Knowledge that one understands the Work well enough to teach it. That assessment is made by one's own teacher, based on his or her knowledge of us. That teacher can then authorize a student to teach the Work. If the teacher has been trained by someone in the line of the original teachers - Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicoll - there's a good chance of the assessment's being accurate. But today, the original successors are very elderly or have passed away, and we have to rely on the successors of the successors - if we're lucky.
So anyone looking for a Work teacher absolutely needs to make sure that the teacher to whom they're assigned is really in the direct line of succession from the original founders, and not simply someone who's decided they are qualified to teach! If the teacher is approached via the Foundations, that qualification will be met.
There are other organizations claiming the Gurdjieff inheritance, ranging from the Renaissance "People of the Bookmark" in California to independent, self-taught groups springing up around the world. None of them are genuine Work teachers, and studying with them could cause all sorts of problems, ranging from simply wasting one's time to being left confused and disoriented, not to mention out of pocket from unscrupulous teachers' demands for money.
The line of succession must be maintained, but on its own, it is not enough.
I'll continue this discussion in the next post.
Monday 9 February 2015
Warning: The Work and the 10 (or 11, 12 or 13) year itch - why some writers mislead their readers about the Work
In the past decade or so, a slew of authors have published books wholly or in part about the Work. A new book about the Work should be something to rejoice about, if it's accurately and honestly written. The trouble is, so many of them aren't.
One writer, for instance, urges his readers to set up their own Gurdjieff groups, even if they know very little about the Work. Another advises the regular, unsupervised practice of some fairly difficult Work exercises, which could cause problems for the psychologically vulnerable. A third writes of his decision to leave the Work and start up an "independent" group, in a chapter that's clearly one long piece of self-justifying.
What has got into them, I wondered. Why set yourself up as a Work teacher or adviser, when you're advising something very unwise? And then I clocked it. All of these writers, without exception, have left the Work after a period of 10-13 years. All of them gloss over their reasons for leaving. One states that after 12 years in the Work, he "found himself" running an unauthorized group in America! Found himself? How? Obviously, he took a decision to do so, but why? Another simply says she left the Work, but gives no reason why. And so on. The break occurs, but the reader is given no details.
In such cases, we can assume the parting was not amicable. No Work teacher in an authorized line, whether from the Gurdjieff Foundations, the Ouspensky school or the Nicoll groups, would consent to an unauthorized student's setting up a new group, let alone to writing about the Work as though they really understood it. If a student insisted on doing so, he or she would be asked to leave.
As we might expect, these books are full of errors, but unfortunately these errors are mixed in with some sound teaching, so it's really hard for the beginner to sift through what's of value and what isn't. I fear that many would-be students are being taken in by these deceptive writers and given very bad advice.
But why this approximately 10-year period? What's so special about that?
And then another penny dropped. It's after about 10 years that the Work student, if really working on themselves, will begin to be brought face to face with the deepest, darkest I's in their psyche: their Chief Feature.
And it's then that many flinch, turn away, and leave. At some level, they know that they can progress no further, but at the same they can't face the necessary suffering that continuing with the Work would bring. They may leave the group voluntarily, or the teacher may request that they leave, because they're distorting the Work teaching, arguing, distracting the other students, and simply failing to work on themselves at all.
Every Work teacher has had such a student, or students, in a group, and while we all want to further the progress of as many people as possible, we can't let one rebellious, defiant person spoil the Work for the others, especially as such students are harming themselves in the process.
What might the Chief Feature of such writers be? Obviously, it varies with each student. But one characteristic that recurs through many of these writings is that of Lying. Lying destroys Essence, and is extremely serious. Lying includes claiming knowledge you don't have, or denying the inner reality with which you're faced. Liars have to leave the Work.
As the dervish sheikh says in "Meetings With Remarkable Men", may God curse those who do not know and yet claim to show others the way. Or, as Jesus put it, if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit.
Another Chief Feature detectable in some of these books is that of vanity. The author wants to be seen as a teacher, an expert. He or she is out to make a name for themselves, and see no reason why they should not use the Work to further their aims.
For others, it may be codependence that prompts them to leave a group. They can see that the most prominent relationships in their lives are actually codependent, that they are addicted to this person or people, and can't face the thought of having to give up the relationships or change themselves.
So they leave, and they write in order to create a new type of relationship, one in which they can be the authority, the teacher, the wise one. This satisfies their ambitions and perpetuates the addictive I's, closing off all possibilities of personal growth.
At the end of roughly 10 years in the Work, if the student meets the Chief Feature successfully, struggles with it, and begins to overcome its influence, he or she may then go on to be a trusted and valued group member and eventually may be authorized to teach the Work.
So my advice is, when a new book on the Work appears, scrutinize carefully the writer's credentials. Is he or she in the Work? If not, why not? What seems to be the author's aim - their Third Force - in writing? Are they offering sound advice, or do they seem somewhat "off"? If you're in a Work group and you aren't sure, ask your teacher to evaluate the book.
And if you come across anyone - writer or simply acquaintance - who's left the Work after about 10 years, ask yourself why? You may glimpse that person's Chief Feature in the way he or she replies; and it may prompt you to speculate about your own.
One writer, for instance, urges his readers to set up their own Gurdjieff groups, even if they know very little about the Work. Another advises the regular, unsupervised practice of some fairly difficult Work exercises, which could cause problems for the psychologically vulnerable. A third writes of his decision to leave the Work and start up an "independent" group, in a chapter that's clearly one long piece of self-justifying.
What has got into them, I wondered. Why set yourself up as a Work teacher or adviser, when you're advising something very unwise? And then I clocked it. All of these writers, without exception, have left the Work after a period of 10-13 years. All of them gloss over their reasons for leaving. One states that after 12 years in the Work, he "found himself" running an unauthorized group in America! Found himself? How? Obviously, he took a decision to do so, but why? Another simply says she left the Work, but gives no reason why. And so on. The break occurs, but the reader is given no details.
In such cases, we can assume the parting was not amicable. No Work teacher in an authorized line, whether from the Gurdjieff Foundations, the Ouspensky school or the Nicoll groups, would consent to an unauthorized student's setting up a new group, let alone to writing about the Work as though they really understood it. If a student insisted on doing so, he or she would be asked to leave.
As we might expect, these books are full of errors, but unfortunately these errors are mixed in with some sound teaching, so it's really hard for the beginner to sift through what's of value and what isn't. I fear that many would-be students are being taken in by these deceptive writers and given very bad advice.
But why this approximately 10-year period? What's so special about that?
And then another penny dropped. It's after about 10 years that the Work student, if really working on themselves, will begin to be brought face to face with the deepest, darkest I's in their psyche: their Chief Feature.
And it's then that many flinch, turn away, and leave. At some level, they know that they can progress no further, but at the same they can't face the necessary suffering that continuing with the Work would bring. They may leave the group voluntarily, or the teacher may request that they leave, because they're distorting the Work teaching, arguing, distracting the other students, and simply failing to work on themselves at all.
Every Work teacher has had such a student, or students, in a group, and while we all want to further the progress of as many people as possible, we can't let one rebellious, defiant person spoil the Work for the others, especially as such students are harming themselves in the process.
What might the Chief Feature of such writers be? Obviously, it varies with each student. But one characteristic that recurs through many of these writings is that of Lying. Lying destroys Essence, and is extremely serious. Lying includes claiming knowledge you don't have, or denying the inner reality with which you're faced. Liars have to leave the Work.
As the dervish sheikh says in "Meetings With Remarkable Men", may God curse those who do not know and yet claim to show others the way. Or, as Jesus put it, if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit.
Another Chief Feature detectable in some of these books is that of vanity. The author wants to be seen as a teacher, an expert. He or she is out to make a name for themselves, and see no reason why they should not use the Work to further their aims.
For others, it may be codependence that prompts them to leave a group. They can see that the most prominent relationships in their lives are actually codependent, that they are addicted to this person or people, and can't face the thought of having to give up the relationships or change themselves.
So they leave, and they write in order to create a new type of relationship, one in which they can be the authority, the teacher, the wise one. This satisfies their ambitions and perpetuates the addictive I's, closing off all possibilities of personal growth.
At the end of roughly 10 years in the Work, if the student meets the Chief Feature successfully, struggles with it, and begins to overcome its influence, he or she may then go on to be a trusted and valued group member and eventually may be authorized to teach the Work.
So my advice is, when a new book on the Work appears, scrutinize carefully the writer's credentials. Is he or she in the Work? If not, why not? What seems to be the author's aim - their Third Force - in writing? Are they offering sound advice, or do they seem somewhat "off"? If you're in a Work group and you aren't sure, ask your teacher to evaluate the book.
And if you come across anyone - writer or simply acquaintance - who's left the Work after about 10 years, ask yourself why? You may glimpse that person's Chief Feature in the way he or she replies; and it may prompt you to speculate about your own.
Monday 2 February 2015
The Work idea of the Good Householder
Newcomers to the Gurdjieff Work are always told that they need to be living at the level of the "Good Householder" before beginning this path. But what exactly is a Good Householder? Do you need to own a house?
No.
The concept simply means that you're living a responsible, ethical life, managing your resources wisely, taking care of any dependents, earning your living (if necessary), yet without believing that life holds the key to happiness.
For most people, except for the retired, the independently wealthy, or those who are physically sick or disabled, this means having a job. You should be paying your way in life, not being dependent on others unless you have a real condition which prevents you from working, nor should you be in any way a psychological burden to other people. If you have dependents, you should be taking care of them in a responsible way and meeting your obligations as far as you are able to do so.
Clearly, this means that people who are too mentally ill or unstable to work can't be Good Householders. It's not their fault, but they would not be able to practice the Work and shouldn't be admitted as students. For one thing, the Work has deep and far-reaching effects on the student's psychology, and you need to be stable and mentally grounded before you begin. A Work teacher will refuse to take on a student who isn't living at this level, because the Work could harm them, while accepting an unsuitable student could harm the group.
Earning a living - paying your way - unless there are compelling reasons why you can't do so, is a very important principle in the Work, as it is in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the early days of the Work there were many wealthy students who didn't actually need jobs, but they paid their way in life and in the Work, and contributed from their resources to the spread of the Work when asked.
What might prevent you from working, in a life sense? In my case, my physical disabilities reached such a point that they affected my ability to work at a job. They didn't impinge on my mental health, but they made it impossible for me to commit to regular, paid work. Consequently, I was entitled to Severe Disability Benefit, and eventually to my State and work pension, and was therefore still able to live as a Good Householder.
But can you be a Good Householder whilst living on unemployment benefits? The answer would depend on why you were in this position. Perhaps there are simply no jobs at all in your area, or at least none for which you are qualified. Normally, this wouldn't be a lasting situation. And if you were offered any job at all, even something as mundane as stacking supermarket shelves or collecting parking fees, as a Good Householder in a Work sense you would be expected to take it.
Gurdjieff said, in effect, that if people were no good in life, they would be no use to the Work. And the need to pay one's way in life is a basic law of the universe, whatever form that payment takes.
In this respect, contemporary attitudes to being "on benefits" in the UK often militate against this law. Instead of having a right to work, many people think they have a right not to work.
In the US, attitudes are quite different. Social Security benefits are short-term and hard to get. If you are a recovering addict or alcoholic, you're expected to find work as soon as possible, as part of your recovery. Sponsors and counselors will usually advise taking any job you can find, even one you don't enjoy, as a means of regaining self-respect and rejoining society. Working is good therapy.
When the Work was first brought to the West, unemployment was seen as a misfortune, a personal tragedy. Nobody envisaged that future generations might see living on benefits as an acceptable way of life; consequently, it was never mentioned as a possible barrier to working on oneself, although taking responsibility for oneself and one's dependents was always part of being a Good Householder and so was implicit in the conditions we need to fulfill in order to be in the Work.
But a Good Householder, although competent in life, doesn't believe that life holds the answers to happiness, and won't look for real satisfaction in anything material. He or she won't, for example, pursue wealth for its own sake, won't give up time with the family or friends in order to work ever longer and longer hours and accumulate more "stuff".
Nor does the Good Householder think that relationships alone are the key to fulfilment. Someone who's severely codependent, and thinks that the whole solution to life's problems lie in this or that relationship, is doomed to dissatisfaction. No merely human relationship can fulfil our spiritual needs. The Work shows us how to deepen our relationships and live them more fully, but we must not place the demands of life above those of the Work.
Finally, a Good Householder may follow any traditional, religious path, or none. He or she may be an agnostic, yet following the promptings of their own conscience and living ethically in society. On meeting the Work, if they have Magnetic Centre - that part of our psychological makeup which impels us to search for spiritual meaning and eventually leads us to the Work - they will recognize that this is their true path. And, because the Work is practiced in the midst of life and not in a monastery, they can immediately begin to follow it.
No.
The concept simply means that you're living a responsible, ethical life, managing your resources wisely, taking care of any dependents, earning your living (if necessary), yet without believing that life holds the key to happiness.
For most people, except for the retired, the independently wealthy, or those who are physically sick or disabled, this means having a job. You should be paying your way in life, not being dependent on others unless you have a real condition which prevents you from working, nor should you be in any way a psychological burden to other people. If you have dependents, you should be taking care of them in a responsible way and meeting your obligations as far as you are able to do so.
Clearly, this means that people who are too mentally ill or unstable to work can't be Good Householders. It's not their fault, but they would not be able to practice the Work and shouldn't be admitted as students. For one thing, the Work has deep and far-reaching effects on the student's psychology, and you need to be stable and mentally grounded before you begin. A Work teacher will refuse to take on a student who isn't living at this level, because the Work could harm them, while accepting an unsuitable student could harm the group.
Earning a living - paying your way - unless there are compelling reasons why you can't do so, is a very important principle in the Work, as it is in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the early days of the Work there were many wealthy students who didn't actually need jobs, but they paid their way in life and in the Work, and contributed from their resources to the spread of the Work when asked.
What might prevent you from working, in a life sense? In my case, my physical disabilities reached such a point that they affected my ability to work at a job. They didn't impinge on my mental health, but they made it impossible for me to commit to regular, paid work. Consequently, I was entitled to Severe Disability Benefit, and eventually to my State and work pension, and was therefore still able to live as a Good Householder.
But can you be a Good Householder whilst living on unemployment benefits? The answer would depend on why you were in this position. Perhaps there are simply no jobs at all in your area, or at least none for which you are qualified. Normally, this wouldn't be a lasting situation. And if you were offered any job at all, even something as mundane as stacking supermarket shelves or collecting parking fees, as a Good Householder in a Work sense you would be expected to take it.
Gurdjieff said, in effect, that if people were no good in life, they would be no use to the Work. And the need to pay one's way in life is a basic law of the universe, whatever form that payment takes.
In this respect, contemporary attitudes to being "on benefits" in the UK often militate against this law. Instead of having a right to work, many people think they have a right not to work.
In the US, attitudes are quite different. Social Security benefits are short-term and hard to get. If you are a recovering addict or alcoholic, you're expected to find work as soon as possible, as part of your recovery. Sponsors and counselors will usually advise taking any job you can find, even one you don't enjoy, as a means of regaining self-respect and rejoining society. Working is good therapy.
When the Work was first brought to the West, unemployment was seen as a misfortune, a personal tragedy. Nobody envisaged that future generations might see living on benefits as an acceptable way of life; consequently, it was never mentioned as a possible barrier to working on oneself, although taking responsibility for oneself and one's dependents was always part of being a Good Householder and so was implicit in the conditions we need to fulfill in order to be in the Work.
But a Good Householder, although competent in life, doesn't believe that life holds the answers to happiness, and won't look for real satisfaction in anything material. He or she won't, for example, pursue wealth for its own sake, won't give up time with the family or friends in order to work ever longer and longer hours and accumulate more "stuff".
Nor does the Good Householder think that relationships alone are the key to fulfilment. Someone who's severely codependent, and thinks that the whole solution to life's problems lie in this or that relationship, is doomed to dissatisfaction. No merely human relationship can fulfil our spiritual needs. The Work shows us how to deepen our relationships and live them more fully, but we must not place the demands of life above those of the Work.
Finally, a Good Householder may follow any traditional, religious path, or none. He or she may be an agnostic, yet following the promptings of their own conscience and living ethically in society. On meeting the Work, if they have Magnetic Centre - that part of our psychological makeup which impels us to search for spiritual meaning and eventually leads us to the Work - they will recognize that this is their true path. And, because the Work is practiced in the midst of life and not in a monastery, they can immediately begin to follow it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)