Toward the end of In Search of the Miraculous Ouspensky reproduces a newspaper article written by a well known Russian journalist. The article describes the reporter’s impression of Gurdjieff, who he took to be an ‘oil king.’ Ouspensky was interested in the story because he felt that it demonstrated Gurdjieff’s ability to ‘completely alter his appearance.’
If the article is to be believed, Gurdjieff started a conversation with the man, and, after making a number of enigmatic statements about business and about the Russian Revolution, was asked by the reporter: ‘Don’t you make profits too?’
He [Gurdjieff] smiled… and said with gravity: ‘We always make a profit. War or no war, it is all the same to us. We always make a profit.’
Ouspensky suggested that the ‘esoteric’ meaning behind the words ‘we always make a profit,’ referred to the ‘collecting of knowledge and the collecting of people.’ And though I think Ouspensky’s interpretation of Gurdjieff’s words is correct, I can’t help thinking that it is more likely that Gurdjieff was referring to the possibility of transforming any event, no matter how troubling or negative, for the benefit of inner work. We always make a profit because it’s possible for us to be present to positive or pleasurable moments and to not identify with difficult moments. It’s possible for us to transform any event by concentrating our attention on one of the many exercises of conscious evolution. Our relationship to the world is one of trying to find ways to consistently use what is before us to prolong self-remembering and increase understanding
Totally concise and simple! Well written and informative. Goal oriented and a path to follow for life!
This is an excellent writing on the fourth way. It is very informative on complicated issues written out in a way that is easy for most anyone to grasp.
Carol and Ryan: thanks for the comments.
Ouspensky wrote in Consciousness about negative emotions, and he was very harsh on them in my opinion. I’m glad you wrote what you did about defaulting to self-remembering in negative circumstances. Ouspensky’s harshness about negative emotions never really resonated with me because I always felt like it was “off.” It seems that a horse that is controlled by the driver can be focused purposefully in whatever direction the carriage can go, and focusing negative emotion – such as anger about homelessness – can bring a positive outcome – such as programs or shelters to help the homeless.
Jenny, Ouspensky also said that if we didn’t have negative emotions they would have to be invented. We’re not trying to eliminate negative emotions, we’re trying to transform them. Anger contains an enormous amount of energy. It can, as you suggest, be directed to do some good for others. And it can also be used to focus self-remembering. Or, in the best of situations, it can be used for both. But we must start with self-remembering and non-expression. It must be understood clearly that when we express our negative emotions we burn the energy we need to function from higher centers.
Very good information on the fourth way.
This is well-written and helpful. The one reservation I have about it is that I do not believe the analogy drawn between the individual and the state is particularly accurate – I mean that the various aspects of the body politic are not very exact in their correspondence to the centers in the human being as an individual. I would suggest that you read and consider what Rudolf Steiner has to say about these things in his books/lectures on World Economy and on the “Threefold Social Order”. I find his ideas very helpful, and think you might as well. Blending Steiner and Gurdjieff is difficult (mainly because their followers make judgments about each other without really getting to know each other), but it can be very fruitful. Anthroposophical work in the world (“Waldorf” education, biodynamic agriculture, Camphill, etc. etc.) is extraordinarily fruitful and inspiring.
Michael, thanks for your comment. Of course the ‘body politic’ is much more complex than what is discussed in this article, but then so is the human machine. For instance I hardly speak about higher centers or the sex center and their needs in a society. But that also stems from an understanding of Gurdjieff’s ideas. In this system, higher centers are said to be unable to function until lower centers are relatively balanced, and I feel the same is true for a culture. There has to be some kind of basic balance before spiritual ideas can be accepted and affect the way a society is organized. This doesn’t mean that individuals won’t find a way to make inner effort and change themselves. They will, only they will have to do it in a society that is hostile or at least indifferent to real spiritual work. I know, for instance, that education is an important aspect of Steiner’s ideas, but look at the state of general education in the present day United States. As much as people talk about how good Steiner’s ideas are on education here, the main thrust of education is on testing and making money for a few people. Teachers are underpaid and overworked, schools are falling apart, and text books are overpriced, and it is largely because the business people are taking over education in America. Balance, as a ruling principle, is not a popular idea. People these days want simple solutions, and balance requires thinking and compromise, two things you see very little of in America.
In general, the nations with good public scholastic model (formed to stand out essentially from inexpensive ), indirectly structured to fully develop parts of personality is the best way to develop nation …