Carl G wrote:
And certainly it has been interesting to see how the concept of inner work, so central to the Gurdjieff system, is derided here -- after all, if there is no self why would there be a need for inner work? And that seems to be another divergence; Philosophy, espoused by QRS (and seemingly based on Buddhist system) stress that there is no "I" to recognize, while Gurdjieff continually hammered home the need to create a foundational "I AM" (as opposed to the many "I's" which inhabit us.) It appears Jesus agreed: I AM (is) The Way.
Actually even Buddhism emphasizes a lot on inner work. In there the discovery of no self is inimately tied down being able to observe clearly inside and these observations will reveal the fact of no central point or self. It is the same as the Gurdjieffian concepts of many I's by which (I guess) he means various habital patterns which seize the mind. By making a central I, he means to create a mental process, which does not allow this seizing of the mind to occur. It is all very closely related to my own viewpoint.
Carl G wrote:
Another difference is the emphasis of QRS on the mental function, almost never mentioning the body, nor the emotions (except as something to supercede the need for their arising at all), while Gurdjieff speaks of a right functioning of each (the horse, the cart, and the driver).
Yes and that is why I am skeptical of their grand claims that the emotions do not arise in them at all. And of the claims of effortless living in reality. Such things do not seem to be possible without a harmony in the various centers. Which again seems to be tied to a process in the mind which is able to tackle the disharmony.
Carl G wrote:Another difference is the emphasis of QRS upon understanding of the outer world (the truth about reality) to the nearly complete exclusion of self examination (except for inference and indirect allusion to ridding oneself of delusion -- by understanding the greater reality), while Gurdjieff, while discoursing on reality -- a very different one than QRS speaks of -- stresses the changing of oneself by acting upon the fruits of self observation. And on it goes.
Indeed I highly doubt that by just reasoning with an axiomatic framework one can end the habits in the mind which are the causes of distortion and suffering. They have to be tackled head on.
Now, Gurdjieff speaks of all religions being the same at root, so I have kept an open mind about philosophy, the study of truth. But is philosophy a religion? It appears to be, in that it is, broadly, an organized thought system suggesting how to live. Certainly QRS claims it can lead to enlightenment, surely a religious (spiritual) term. But is philosophy tapped into the root? In some way, I would say, yes. It certainly worms around in the loam around the root, with its logic and Buddhist views of emptiness and the infinity of the Totality.
I would like to remind you that Buddhism is tied to eastern philosophy. The word for philosophy in Sanskrit is Darshan Shastra, which means the art of seeing. Thus eastern philosophy is closer in spirit to Gurdjieff's self observation and its fruits than QRS style definition based deductions.
Carl G wrote:that there is not a modicum of freewill anywhere in the universe, nor any possibility of anywhere where the law of cause and effect, depending on definition, is not in effect.
I also think there is no freewill, even the mental process which has clear observations of the inside and works actively to end habits, is not free (because it depends on its past), but it is surely intelligent and aware. One needs intelligence and awareness to pick a correct course rather than arbitrary freedom to act.
And of course I can see Gurdjieff propounding theories for which there seems to be no basis at all, such as the moon feeding on the biosphere, and the idea of heavy and dense matter. But I have no worries as I can now very easily separate the wheat from the chaff. And there seems to be a lot of wheat in his ideas.