Gurdjieff? / Гюрджи́ев? / Գյուրջիև?

Because there are learned people on here and because I've never had the chance to hear opinions about this from outside the US, I'd like to know a) if anyone is familiar with the works of writer GI Gurdjieff and b) what your thoughts on him might be.

I'm a little familiar with the writing myself. I've read one of his books, Meetings with Remarkable Men.

Frankly, I do have a very hard time giving a fair opinion - because at the time I had read this book, a good friend of mine was reading books by Ouspensky, and my friend's overly ready acceptance of the things in these books had made me doubtful of both writers. I have spoken to people on both sides of this, and I've drawn my conclusions, but I'm curious what others think.

Also there is a lot said about Gurdjieff as being a phony. I'm interested to know what the world' opinion is - if anyone's even heard of these two.

Гюрджиев арменин?

I did not read Гурджиев's works but I have some second-hand information and ideas about him. He is a philosopher who classify his ideas as "esoteric". It means that these ideas and "knowledge" don't have any value without some secret procedures. It is a kind of game or art: if you like this kind of stuff, you can enjoy it. Otherwise it has no use.

I think Gurdjiev is more popular in the US than he is in Russia. To the best of my knowledge, the flagships of Esotericism in Russia are Blavatskaya and Reurich. Unfortunately, I'm in no position to form my own opinion of Gurdjiev because I have no objective measures to evaluate his work. He had an interesting and productive life, for sure. And he probably wished for the good of the humanity. But other than that, I have no clue. :unknown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I did not read Гурджиев's works but I have some second-hand information and ideas about him. He is a philosopher who classify his ideas as "esoteric". It means that these ideas and "knowledge" don't have any value without some secret procedures. It is a kind of game or art: if you like this kind of stuff, you can enjoy it. Otherwise it has no use.

---

Yeah, that's close to my takeaway as well. Blavatsky has proven more interesting, though.. With her, I can understand where people of the time thought she was a nut.. Some of the things she talks about would make people in 1900 awful mad =)

I know of Blavatsky but not the others. I read a book by her together with a friend at (boarding) school, when we were about 15. We were interested in the occult. It was engaging, but there is something rather unlikeable and nutty about Blavatskaja that comes through in her writing, and more importantly, some rather disturbing things happened as a result of our experimentation and we dropped spiritual things altogether. I never read such books again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

Гюрджиев арменин?

---

То ли грек, то ли армянин. Похоже, никто не знает. Утверждается, что он получил суфийские знания и бывал в ашрамах и монастырях.

I have never read G's books, but I read one by his student Uspenskiy. G had a group of students in France (he fled Russia after Revolution). It looks like a universal system with the aim to achieve superstate, super-being through a carefully arranged system based on sufism, practical thinking, broadening spiritual horizons, and something like yoga practices. I heard G was a practical man, that is, he really wanted to understand how to make people become supernatural and use hidden energies. So the most important part was 'real action', clashes, when people clashed with unusual circumstances, he also wanted people to have unusual experiences to free their mind. There is also a book by a man who was in G's group in France when he was a boy. This book describes the system and somehow helps to understand basic ideas.