Hey! A fantastic article by Lepage on the possible origins of Gurdjieff's Teaching and philosophy. Shang-ri-la, the remote shamanic regions et al! The stuff of Hollywood film genre in the 30's in many respects.....

One of the reasons for the "veil of secrecy and ambiguity" mentioned in the Dawn excerpt was because fact checking (if indeed possible) could have been inconvenient. Fiction was woven into G's biographical accounts on many different levels. Tall-tale-telling came very easily to the author of Beelzebub's Tales. At various times G admitted to embroidery, even to outright invention. It seemed to amuse him to pull the leg of sleepers and see how much he could get away with - whether it involved selling dyed sparrows as 'rare birds', passing off cheap wines as rare vintages or conning Parisienne merchants into giving him credit with stories of Texan oil wells (when in fact he was getting his funding during the Nazi occupation from French millionaire, Francois Dupre - courtesy of Dupre's wife Anci).

On one level this roguish behavior is amusing, but on another it raises legitimate ethical and moral questions.

As the tone of the Dawn article unfortunately illustrates, there is too much reverence accorded to Gurdjieff, who should have been called for a number of his imperial presumptions. Ouspensky was offended by Gurdjieff on the level of conscience, as were others who discerned inconsistencies that can't simply be passed off as the prerogative of the master - unless you're one of those slavish guru-worshiping types, so identified with the teacher that objective assessment is all but impossible. Saying that students are too "asleep" to make a judgment call of that type is a convenient loophole... kind of like mad L Ron claiming that he couldn't be judged ny non-Thetans.

Gurdjieff was renegade in more ways than one - a view some of his alleged "masters" would likely have underwritten. Being a heavyweight on the level of 'being' and an initiate of the highest order, doesn't give anyone the right to fuck with others - or their wives for that matter - as though it is their divine right (there was something rather pathetic about the cuckolds in the Prieure - a few of which even viewed their wives' infidelities as a badge of honor). Gurdjieff played his position to advantage in a fashion that raises questions about the ways in which he employed the extraordinary powers he had come into possession of.

The idea that his esoteric 'wire' to hidden masters was all positive with respect to "help and support" as stated in the Dawn excerpt is naive thinking. At times he himself seemed conflicted about his aim and the car crash led to a radical reassessment. He certainly wasn't above the law of accident.

His treatment of loyal followers was particularly shoddy. Of course the blindly partisan will see ulterior motivations that cast him in a good light i.e. a way to force others to become independent etc. but his motives weren't always so high minded. In particular his treatment of Orage smacks of resentment. Orage did a brilliant job setting up American connections and soliciting coin to promote G's work. He was also a first rate editor, and returned a chapter of G's early Beelzebub efforts as "unintelligible". As in Ouspensky's case, you have to wonder to what extent G felt threatened by 'satellite authority'. His rather spiteful attack on Orage seems petty. In 1930 in New York he defamed Orage and belittled his efforts in teaching the system. He also accused him of only wanting to stay in New York because he was having "a romance" with a bookstore clerk. He went so far as to have students sign a paper declaring they would have nothing more to do with Orage. In a brilliant stroke of irony, Orage pulled the rug out from under G by adding his own signature to the document.

The Dawn article is an interesting read, but it would be great to see more challenging material on Gurdjieff the man rather than another take on the legend. The system is gradually moving beyond the messenger and that's a good thing. Too much identification with Gurdjieff the man and his personal mythos leads to the creation of a whole new category of idiot - that Gurdjieff himself might even toast with thinly disguised irony.

The ethical and moral reservations mentioned in my earlier post reference the mores of society in general - not mine necessarily. The old "when in Rome..." adage carries weight whether or not you agree with the moral codes. So it's more about judgment actually. Reputation also given that G's rep has in fact suffered in certain quarters as a result of his... as you put it "shenanigans".

Gurdjieff had the goods, no doubt about it. And there is nothing wrong with paying a price. But he was a bit like a clever rogue who picked the lock of an Alladin's cave of knowledge and couldn't resist having fun with the powers that came along with it. Kid-in-a-candy-shop scenario on an upper tier level. This can be a dangerous game - mostly for the people who volunteer to be "derailed" as you put it and who end up in an existential cul-de-sac... cut off from their life as they knew it, and yet incapable of moving to the next level. That's the type of damage that is hard to assess and impossible to sue for, but it wasn't as though G gave a rat's ass about any potential casualities (that I'm sure he saw coming) - especially if the 'victim' involved happened to be a well-heeled American, a bringer of needed coin and the possessor of a plump ego ready for the knife.

The interactions of students with Gurdjieff and the reports of the goings on in the Prieure say a lot about the strange blind area that exists in the teacher/student relationship. Gurdjieff's anger and sometimes outrageous behavior always came with a caveat in the student's telling of the incident. There was always a deeper level of meaning. He was trying to stop students worshiping him... he was trying to 'shock' them into awareness... it was a lesson of some sort that needed to be assimilated and understood. In some cases these explanations may have been true, but I've no doubt that in other instances he was simply doing what came naturally.

This blind area in the psyche of those who exalt a teacher can lead to unbelievable self-deception. L Ron Hubbard is a case in point (although Hubbard was a midget compared to G). When he was coming unhinged and screaming abuse at his messengers he would make outrageous demands. They had to hold his pants so he could get into them without the material touching the floor... wipe sweat from his brow... put a Kool in his mouth and light it when required... wait on him hand and foot while he called them assholes and fuckers... but despite all this and more they still viewed it as an honored duty, a higher calling.

It's a curious thing but people often ascribe a sort of disinterested objectivity to those who have accessed higher states of being and can't imagine that they could have imported less desirable 'traits' from their formative years. This is actually a fallacy. Even samadhi doesn't clean the slate. A number of Indian gurus - especially in the tantric area - who were undoubtedly highly evolved also evidenced fairly base sexual behavior with students. Their deception in the face of accusations may not have been unconscious and automatic, but trickery and deception however conscious and deliberate is nonetheless still dishonesty - even if there are any number of devotees willing to ascribe 'higher motivations' to such indiscretions.

A defense along the lines of 'I had sex with X and Y because it was my prerogative as teacher or because they needed it to move to another level' or some such rationalization overlooks the enormous power differentials. A highly suggestible and easily manipulated devotee is there for the taking on the part of a teacher who wields enormous influence. It is precisely because of the vast power differential and the vulnerability of the student that the teacher should refrain from taking sexual advantage of the situation - even if the student says "please fuck me". Quite aside from the personal dynamics involved, perceptions do matter.

There are of course situations where sex between initiates of different levels is entirely appropriate - especially in a ritual context - but I'm not convinced for example that a pairing between say G and Edith Taylor reflected anything like that sort of arrangement. I think a number of women he was with simply happened to be available, and perhaps for reasons of 'chemistry' or other subjective factors (such as god forbid... feeling horny) he availed himself of the opportunities - minus contraception apparently because a number ended up with children. G's daughter with Edith Taylor - Eve - went on to marry Jean Chevalier a fairly well know photographer and co-founder of Elle magazine. Their son Remy Chevalier - grandson of his greatness - went through hell as a result of expectations of him. He actually wrote a book about it titled Elle On Earth. Did G consider the consequences... did he care? According to reports he was rather distant from the children of his partners.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between being true to one's aim and being ruthless about it. Does being ruthless, boorish, even outright offensive help people to develop? Yes in some cases it might... but it can also injure and alienate others who may have progressed further and faster with a different approach. And indeed with certain people Gurdjieff could show great sensitivity and kindness. Pointing that out that he could also be ruthless and take advantage of people doesn't mean invoking small minded morality - merely worthy precedent. There have been teachers of G's stature who were extremely meticulous about these fine lines and distinctions, because at the end of the day they do in fact matter.

"I don’t think G was too concerned whether his reputation suffered in some quarters because of his actions."

I'm sure he wasn't. But the concept of a "stumbling block" is a very real one. There are people who are attracted by the ideas but repelled by the man. His behavior has also led to a lot of misunderstandings and disinformation. He provided a lot of ammunition for his detractors. That's just stating facts. Did he do it his way and then some and attract those who liked what he had on offer in his day - no doubt.

"But I’ll say I’ve never seen anyone enter a Gurdjieff school or the like and get messed up more than they were when they entered..."

Well, we're not talking about Gurdjieff for starters. A lot of the actors out there who claim to be fourth way teachers couldn't make a dint in a brown paper bag. Getting it on with G as opposed to some imitator is a bit like comparing dynamite with squibs. And yes there were many who trafficked with G who were burnt or got into psychological difficulties - there were a number of suicides.

"...to think that some person is anyway responsible for your flight to secret and mystical realms – well, that is laughable, but people want to believe it and that’s what they do."

Agreed. The guru-identification thing is actually one of the biggest obstacles to genuine progress.

"But to judge a person on their sexual appetite is applying your morals to someone else. Moral codes are after the fact judgments related to your personal *beliefs* - and I’m not referring to you specifically."

It's not a question of applying "moral judgments" per se. It's a question of justice and maintenance within a group environment. I actually think there is way too much morality associated with sex which is after all a necessary function. Nobody should fault a teacher for a "healthy sexual appetite". However issues related to power, justice and yes perceptions (i.e. the social mores of the society in which you live) can't simply be ignored. Issues related to the random procreation of children can't be ignored either. More great work has been ruined by teachers who began fucking with students (literally and metaphorically) - than anything other single factor. It is behavior that has repercussions. I'm sure you're right when you say that G probably turned down some offers. However in today's social and legal environment he would likely have run into vilification in the press, lawsuits, patrimony claims and more blowback than most movements could survive. There is also the patriarch-and-his-harem perception that played badly even back in the day... even though such a caricature wasn't really accurate in G's case. Sure, a teacher can do his thing with apparent scorn for perceptions, legal repercussions and legacy but there are many who might argue that that is path of the asshole... even though we may be talking a very impressive asshole indeed.

"Gurdjieff played it by ear; that was his gift. Why are you second guessing him?"

I think it's healthy to second guess teachers. In fact I would say that students who took G on, as Orage did on occasion, got more sly man cred than those who slavishly cowered under the lash. G might have roared, but I'm sure he gave some credit to wily challengers who had at least some solid ground under their feet and weren't simply being reactive.