This follows the question in the previous post. Of course, the term ‘occultist’ is highly ambiguous, the creature’s existence mostly denied in modern scientific culture.
We assume anyone in a Gandalf suit like Gurdjieff is going to be a saintly guide for his devoted and uncritical fan club.
But the question stands. Delete from consideration the usual crimes of ‘criminal elements’ (although Gurdjieff was a somewhat shadowy character in that respect) and think in terms of the powers of suggestion.
The real issue in the question, requires another question? Can the occultist track the victim’s next birth cycle, and exploit the allegiance priorly given? Is the predator now a ghost or what?
There’s the trap for the innocent seeker. Sign on the dotted line, nothing bad happens til you are vulnerable in the next cycle.
A tremendous amount of nonsense is written about Gurdjieff by his ‘followers’ (in fact he had none).
It can be useful to induce a bit of skeptical analysis by asking a series of questions which require a kind of tacit response.
The first one is ‘silly’, but will induce the right frame of mind, but probably all sorts of wrong answers, or at least not very useful ones.
Note, in passing, the resemblance to the tale of Frodo the hobbit (and all that jazz).
For more material from rickross.com (a well known ‘deprogramming’ critic of cults) type
into Google. The site doesn’t always load (?), so click on the cache button on google.
An interesting article on Gurdjieff, rickross.com. I was going to merely link to it, but it seems to have gone offline, so I got this from the Google cache.
The Composer, The Cult and The Musical Guru
Washington Post, March 26, 2000
By Philip Kennicott
Continue reading The composer, the cult, and the musical guru
more on previous comment
Reading Gurdjieff’s book is generally a waste of time. I wince at your statement that this effort is ‘intentional suffering’, that phrase of the ‘work’. Don’t get started with all that. It is a very ill-considered thesis with many pitfalls, to sabotage your life.
You can read J. G. Bennett’s Making A New World for a rough estimate of what the book is about. And at that point I would say don’t trust Bennett, either.
To conceal in this way suggests the author has something to hide. He does!
As to ‘intentional suffering’ the idea is that humanity is asleep, a bunch of couch potatoes, Nature doesn’t like couch potatoes, so the ‘Work’ with a capital ‘W’ should be to track down these couch potatoes and torture them to death as a sacrifice to Gaian energy balance.
Real fruitcake this fellow. It doesn’t follow. Nature loves the hippopotamus, so I guess couch potatoes can’t be much worse.
Moral: masochism suggested by the ‘Work’ is a very dangerous tactic, life has enough rude shocks, and the question of creating more is not so clear, especially if the later followers of Gurdjieff turn out to be a bunch of sadists, like the notorious E. J. Gold, who has tried a take over bid of the G situation, and seems to enjoy ‘intentional sufferings’ a lot, his intentions, your suffering.
The whole thing is already corrupt, so don’t let any principles it proposes linger in your mind without examination, e.g. ‘intentional suffering’.
Comment from kirk krist
You are not alone in your puzzlement.
Why not go directly to the last page of the book, the section about continuous death will explain to you why the book is so obscure. The beast lures you into its lair, there to meet your fate as a ‘death drone’.
It resembles the ‘concentration camp’ idea, the Work, Arbeit Macht Freiheit.
They want to work you to death, but only in your second life in the work. Your first round as a groupie is pious submission and reverence for the ‘gangsters’.