We have cited a book on surrender by a follower of Lee Lozowick and we have called the bluff on the whole issue: surrender or be murdered by the guru in retaliation. We have been describing a disguised version of the murder in question, which has to be hidden because everyone knows the reality of surrender cannot be absolute, and therefore is a dead letter.
The other issue here is Gurdjieff’s obsession with Ouspensky and the attempt to track him down in a future life to punish, finally destroy him. It is hard to see how this came about. The results are ugly and have preposterously fallen on me several times after being at one point wrongly taken as the reincarnation of Ouspensky. That’s nuts. There is no spiritual law that allows gurus to murder disciples they find too independent. The confusion also arises that ‘ego should be destroyed’ and thus that any expression of individuality is contrary to the path.
These are ideas of a social form in decadence and we might ironically point to a new age indeed, the one that created modernity before archaic gurus tried to undermine it.
This situation thus points to the way that so many new age gurus have attempt to force the future to the past, and it won’t work.
The question of Ouspensky was unfortunately taken up by Osho and in one of his books (Glimpses of …., or else his Books I have loved) he seems to take up Gurdjieff’s hatred of Ouspensky with a remark about his betrayal. This leaves the question as to whether Rajneesh took up the persecution game of Ouspensky in a kind of rascal game including Gurdjieff, all these now ghosts from beyond. That scenario seems to make some sense.
But I think Rajneesh understood that Gurdjieff’s waste of a resource like Ouspensky was wrong and wished after beating him up, a superthrashing, to let him contribute to his own work. But this in turn has backfired. So the scored is still Ouspensky 2, Gurdjieff, Rajneesh 0.
Gurdjieff’s obsession with Ouspensky sprang from an anxiety he had that without a competent scholar, and Ouspensky was fairly adept, he would blunder on points of his teaching. He was surely right, and the case of the enneagram was surely an example. But neither Ouspensky nor Bennett even managed to see through the enneagram, although I suspect that Bennett did so but disguised his view of the matter. With time the issue has turned to negative verdict, like that of Oscar Ichazo. Ouspensky has been subjected to so much scorn by groupies that the key point has been lost that he was right to be nervous about Gurdjeff. We can see an example with the enneagram delusion: Gurdjieff planted the seeds of a religious delusion in world culture. I think Ouspensky smart rat that he was scurried down the ship’s tether looking over his shoulder.
Gurdjieff is puzzling: why would someone propose an idea as dumb as the enneagram and makes its belief a standard of normative esotericism? Answer 1 is that he was a retard with a few tricks of consciousness and couldn’t see where he was going wrong…There should be obvious, but maybe not…I think Rajneesh clearly saw all this and tried a more sensible second chance approach for Ouspensky. But Ouspensky was too nettled at that point and end up antagonism still another guru.
I think that something/someone intervened somewhen with Ouspensky and directed him off set to world of scholarly work where he has performed, I am told, superbly. He will no doubt resume his battle to sink the stupid ideas of Gurdjieff, and who knows invade the Osho field with some scheme of constructive mischief.
The Tibetans are supposed to experts on detecting reincarnated so and so’s. Why don’t they help out and relieve me of the vengeful wrath of dead gurus who have spotted the wrong man, by finding the real one?