Talk:Fourth Way

Thank you 203.118.120.247

Thank you 203.118.120.247 whoever you are. Division of attention section has the best description of self-remembering I've read so far and I've studied this teaching for 11 years. DyslexicEditor 06:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point-of-view?

This article is really well written, however some work does need to be done to ensure that NPOV is maintained.

For example, the statement "This is not to take away from the remarkable process by which Gurdjieff amalgamated these teachings into a form at once coherent and cohesive unto itself." is laden with implicit evalutations.

--Belfry 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrow view of Fourth Way

This is the only source I've seen that refuses to acknowledge the evolution of the Fourth Way through Gurdjieff's students. He gave Ouspensky permission to write about and teach the system.

You can quote Ouspensky. Ouspensky's fine, someone who read one of Ouspensky's books and then wrote his own book is not fine. Aeuio 12:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

G brought the system to the West from combining collection of sources in the East - Sufi, Hindu, etc. Who is to say that he brought it purely as he found it? I have great respect for the man and his works. Any while I've read the All and Everything series only twice, instead of the recommended three times, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the man and his teachings. Since the author of the page objects so strongly to any other point of view than his own, it seems a waste of time to try to edit his page.

By "his" you mean "Gurdjieff's" - it's getting rather stupid how you guys keep saying that it's mine interpretation when in fact it's what Gurdjieff said. Aeuio 12:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But I just can't be silent about the obvious bias of the author. The entire article is not NPOV in that it rejects other followers of the fourth way system. --Moon Rising 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a section under the title "Interpretations by Gurdjieff's direct followers" then I am fine with that. Throwing in every possible confusing theory on the Fourth Way is unreasonable. You fof guys obviously don't get the word confusing. You wrote that fof article so that it is only readable to already really interested in fof people. Even Coren told you that he got a headache trying to read that stuff - which I can guarantee that an average reader would simply skip. If you are trying to make the Fourth Way article also really long by throwing in there all kinds of complex theories, then I will probably object. Aeuio 12:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aeuio, while I respect your point of view, may I remind you of Wikipedia's request that editors not make personal attacks and also be polite. Thank you.--Moon Rising 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to expand this article using info from Gurdjieff and Ouspensky then go ahead. Aeuio 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding NPOV and citation tags without an explanation or signature (which I did yesterday) is no doubt due to a senior moment combined with fatigue. I evidently made this edit after I logged out, which I did knowing it was time for bed. Mea culpa. I think these tags are important because the article specifically states that "This is an article about the 'system' of G.I. Gurdjieff. For P.D. Ouspensky's book on the subject, see Fourth Way (book)." It appears you have added some material from Ouspensky, but it's hard to tell which is which -- G or O, particularly for someone who has not studied both, which is why I asked for citations.

I've asked someone to comment on this statement because I already tried to explain this. (If it comes to it we can remove it). But you mind expanding the "particularly for someone who has not studied both".

Also, using "All and Everything", without reference to which book in the series and page numbers is a bit daunting for anyone wanting to verify source material. My copy of "Beelzebub" is 1238 pages long with no index, not to mention the other two boooks. If having a bibliography at the end is acceptable to WP for this article, then remove the tag - if you are absolutely certain it is sufficient.

You think I want to go back and verify everything? I am certain that I could reference everything, so if you wish something to be referenced ask. That tag is there to tell readers that the info is made up...If you think that something is made up then freely ask me about it Aeuio 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to review WP's info on "citing sources" which states, in part "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. They may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Page numbers are essential whenever possible. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional. Limiting this article to Gurdjieff and Ouspensky as the only sources of 4th Way knowledge also shows a bias. Though Gurdjieff brought the system to the West, many people accept other authors/reliable sources on the subject.

Then that can be added as long as it addresses who said it, and not as if the Fourth Way teaches that. If I wrote a book on the FOF, and I am not Burton or an appointed by Burton teacher, then you wouldn't see my theories in the fof article saying "FOF teaching says that" Aeuio 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From your past comments here and in other Fourth Way related article discussions, you have made it clear that your opinion is different. Note: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ." Also, please refrain from personal attacks against me or other editors that imply current or former membership in any Fourth Way group. Unless you know me personally, which I don't think you do, you can only make assumptions. I don't appreciate your characterizations. Thank you for your consideration. Let us try to be the words we write about here, and try not to express negative emotions.--Moon Rising 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called being aggressive, and not giving personal attacks. Let's not be like old polite women giving each other compliments everywhere.

One more thought - I appreciate your offer for others to expand this article using G&O, and I plan to do that, when time allows, which I hope will be soon. I may also use some other published authors. Gurdjieff does not own the Fourth Way system nor the rights to use the name "Fourth Way".

Really? He doesn't have the right to be right in the teaching he introduced. And some writers opinion on what Gurdjieff really meant counts as Gurdjieff's teaching. Keep this in mind:"...which is known by the name of "solar plexus" and the whole totality of which functioning, in the terminology long ago established by me, is called the feeling center. (pg 114 Life is Real Only Then When 'I Am') That's Gurdjieff personally quoting himself Aeuio 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS your comment was made of many points so I separated them and responded to each one specifically. Aeuio 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that your bibliography links to more detailed information on in separate book articles. As a casual reader of this article, I would like to see all book titles and authors' names right on this page for ease of reference. I have a lap full of all 4 books (In Search and the 3 in the All and Everything series) and was about to edit the information, but, since you seem to have a special attachment to this article, I thought we could both think about what's best for the reader first, and edit later.--Moon Rising 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The bibliography can/will be changed as you have a good point. Aeuio 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio - I'm not sure why you reverted to an earlier description of the system. You agreed 2 months ago - see the beginning of this section - that it was okay to broaden the subject to fourth way system and not gurdjieff's system. I don't want to argue the whole thing again, just read the above.

Fourth way book

Here is the response: "I think I know what you're saying. Those italic words are kind of a quick 'disambiguation' for users. Its not there to draw a distinction between O's and G's teachings. Its just there because when you say 'Fourth way' it could mean two things, and its a quick way to get to the one you're looking for, if you arrive at another. It could be a book or it could be a teaching. Although the book is about the teaching, the teaching isn't necessarily about the book.Yeago" That's basically what I said, but nevertheless I'll go and change it a bit for clarity. Aeuio 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing is that The Fourth Way is two things. Its a book and its a teaching. If Pepsi were to release a drink with the same name, we'd have to add to those italics or create a disambiguation page. It isn't there as part of any debate or opinion, its just a technicality. Its not meant to imply any distinction or similarity between what's in the book and what came out of G's mouth.Yeago 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Fourth Way is more than 2 things: in addition to being a book and a teaching, it is a teaching with multiple branches or disciplines. The main editors of this page don't wish to accept that others feel this way and insist on keeping the purity of Gurdjieff's teaching with a little Ouspensky allowed. But WP readers, when looking for information on the fourth way might be interested in more. since we can argue back and forth on this subject forever, I'd like to propose a solution. Let's have 2 fourth way pages. The first, this one, will have your comment about it being the fourth way as taught by G. Let's call it GI Gurdjieff's foruth Way. Let's have a second article titles The Fourth Way as Followed by those who came after Gurjdieff. You may think anyone who studies the system under another teach should be locked away in an insane asylum, but believe me, there are lots of us out there. I like reading Nicoll, Collin, Bennet, and others. Please don't shoot me if I'm not a purist. Many religions have offshoots. If you don't like separate pages, then let's expand here. I'd really like to get involved in this, but my major WP commitment is elsewhere for at least a little while longer. I'd like to be able to cross reference this page, but I have trouble with the bias.

As I am tired of this, I accept your solution only on the the condition that this page stays named Fourth Way, while the new page is titled Fourth Way Transmission after Gurdjieff. Aeuio 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I have gone and created the page, and linked it to the appropriate section in this article...edit and "have fun" Aeuio 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the NOPV and Citation tags I've put on the article, that you keep removing....I think it's inappropriate to keep removing these. I'm not getting into a contest with you over who has more stamina to keep adding/deleting them. You win for now. Please try to have an open mind about this request. It's not personal. I really do see where you are coming from. Over the years, I've known many people who felt the way you do on the subject. I never agreed with them. There is just too much out there that further expands the study of the system and how to use it to awaken. I can't ignore those sources. --Moon Rising 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)--Moon Rising 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on one thing of the teaching is not called expanding, it's called giving negative results which lead no where - Life is Real Only Then When I am, where Gurdjieff comments on this exact thing. (But lets not discuss this here) Aeuio 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors say in whatever page they contribute in: "Let's not discuss this here." Then, they do what they want with other's contributions whenever they think the other one is tired. It is relatively "normal", so it does not really bother me. But, can they see that they are putting themselves so much above others, that they end up acting as judges?
Regards, Baby Dove 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors keep bending the other's comments, such as in this case when I stated that I don't want to have a personal discussion. This is constantly repeated, can these editors see that this might get annoying? These editors also claim a lot of imaginary things: such as that Gurdjieff never mentioned the Fourth Way, or that he stated that he (as in Gurdjieff) had a friend on Saturn. I would also say that I only want to discuss the Fourth Way page on this talk page - but you know what would happen then...And why are we talking in third person? Aeuio 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Aeuio, thank you for trying to fix the reference tags, but they still don't show up in a reference section, which is the problem I was having. You evidently deleted the section heading I put in for references. So the references don't show up. Unless you can fix this (I can't figure out how) we'll need to have the references appear in the text as they did originally. I think readers would like to see more reference tags throughout the article. I would.--Moon Rising 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed them. Aeuio 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Two Fourth Way Articles

Dear Aeuio, If there are going to be two articles on the Fourth Way - one for Gurdjieff's teaching and one for those who came later, the title of each article needs to reflect this in both articles. There should also be a link on this page to the new article you created. But really, don't you think this alternative is stupid? You need to let go of your identification that the Fourth Way teaching is static, and only Gurdjieff's views are valid. There is just too much written about the Fourth Way. And yes, any moron can write a book about any subject, but it's not up to you, or any other editor in WP to decide which authors are morons. If you want to champion Gurdjieff (and reluctantly Ouspensky) as the only people that can write about the Fourth Way, then start a web page or a blog. This is Wikipedia and all points of view are acceptable, actually, they are encourage. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying this is the wrong approach for a WP article. Thank you. --Moon Rising 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First: Would you read my comments to the end as I clearly indicated that there is a link to the other page. Second: This was your idea, and if you think that its stupid why did you suggest it. I don't see what's wrong with the titles, as the first sentence states what the article is about. Third: Like you said "There is just too much written about the Fourth Way" - very nice to hear that - if you consider what is written about the Fourth Way as Fourth Way, then you can write these interpretation somewhere else. Lastly: "but it's not up to you, or any other editor in WP to decide which authors are morons" unless you can provide their personal info on how they are connected to the Fourth Way, then they can be disregarded. "If you want to champion Gurdjieff (and reluctantly Ouspensky) as the only people that can write about the Fourth Way" This is the difference: They write what the Fourth Way is, others write about the Fourth Way. This is the same as saying "well Christ is not the only one who can write about Christianity, so I am going to write in the article what some author interpreted, and moreover I'll write that "Christianity teaches...(the authors theory)"" So would you give this up already Aeuio 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the titles could be different: this one "The Fourth Way as described by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky" and the other one "Later Fourth Way teachings and theories." Or keep the titles and do something like the Fourth Way book where there is a sentence saying "This article is about Fourth Way as described by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky"... Otherwise we can continue our arguing. Aeuio 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff is not the creator of the Fourth Way! He learnt it during the trips he talks about in Meeting with Remarkable Men. Of course, he brought it back to the West, but because our Western civilization had lost it, it does not mean that it had never existed before in the history of mankind. Ouspensky recognizes him as his teacher, but it is Ouspensky who actually first wrote about the Fourth Way using this name.

The system to awaken higher centers in man has always existed, and Gurdjieff himself mentions that there were previous schools, for instance in Babylon and in Egypt. He makes Beelzebub say: "Although this learned Hamolinadir was descended from the race of beings called 'Assyrian,' and his arising and preparation for becoming a responsible being had taken place in that very city of Babylon, his knowledge had been acquired in Egypt, in the 'highest school' of all those existing on the Earth at that time, called the 'School for Materializing Thought.'" [Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, Penguin, 1999 ISBN 0140194738 - Chapter 24 "Beelzebub's fifth flight to the planet Earth"]
Regards, Baby Dove 08:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff never said where he learned the Fourth Way system, that's your own original research. Then, you don't know for sure who had it before and who lost it. If you wish to reference Meetings, then you'll see that Gurdjieff learned something here and something there, and put it all together. Try to see this from a view of someone who hates Gurdjieff, they would say that he made the whole thing up, therefore "Gurdjieff claims..." has to be in there. And "but it is Ouspensky who actually first wrote about the Fourth Way using this name" is wrong, it was as usual Gurdjieff who first used this name. And in your last quote, there is no mention of the Fourth Way, so you are again adding your interpretation that every good school in the past was a Fourth Way school. Aeuio 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I threw some stuff in there to show your side. Aeuio 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC

Mr. Gurdjieff certainly learnt this from someone else. The good thing about his ideas is that he did not invented them, so they are valuable. About "Meetings with Remarkable Men" he talks about what he learnt, I did not figure it out. Finally, I have looked for the term "Fourth Way" in Beezebub's, in Life is Real Only when I Am, in Meetings with Remarkable Men, and in the Herald of the Coming Good, and he does not use this word at all.
As I said, Mr. Ouspensky quotes him as his teacher, but it does not look like Gurdjieff has publicly used this name before. What is your source? Regards, Baby Dove 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you are asking this. Everything in "In Search of the Miraculous" is early quotes of Gurdjieff. There Gurdjieff introduces the term "Fourth Way", and that's where everyone else has gotten it from...although he only says that Fourth Way is a way for spiritual development and doesn't say what the Fourth Way teaching is exactly. And I think you are right about the second part, as Gurdjieff never referred to the Fourth Way in his own writing. Aeuio 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the little misunderstanding. Gurdjieff was asked by a new person "what ways are there to spiritual development". He replied "there only are three real but long and hard ones, and there is a fourth way"...and thereby he gave the name Fourth Way to his Teaching. This "Fourth Way" title was expanded in books by his students, but not by him in his books. Aeuio 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff was quoted in "In Search of the Miraculous" saying: "Two or three thousand years ago there were yet other ways which no longer exist and the ways now in existence were not so divided, they stood much closer to one another.

"The fourth way differs from the old and the new ways by the fact that it is never a permanent way. It has no definite forms and there are no institutions connected with it. It appears and disappears governed by some particular laws of its own.

"The fourth way is never without some work of a definite significance, is never without some undertaking around which and in connection with which it can alone exist. When this work is finished, that is to say, when the aim set before it has been accomplished, the fourth way disappears, that is, it disappears from the given place, disappears in its given form, continuing perhaps in another place in another form. Schools of the fourth way exist for the needs of the work which is being carried out in connection with the proposed undertaking. They never exist by themselves as schools for the purpose of education and instruction" Now this doesn't say where he got the system, and I confess that I don't have a photographic memory so I can't go to the exact spot where he said he got the teaching, but he did gather it from various sources on his travels. He did not create it and, if we believe his words above, he did not believe he was the last appearance of school.--Moon Rising 05:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's a messy situation, but he never learned the "Fourth Way" anywhere as a whole, and many times he mentioned that he personally figured things out, so it's hard to say what's what. Aeuio 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Messy situation? Never learned the 4th Way anywhere as a whole? personally figured things out? To the uneducated reader, this almost sounds like he made the whole thing up as he went along (I am not saying this is what happened, just could be misinterpreted that way). If he did assimilate, combine, decipher and discern the knowledge he found scattered about here and there, what makes him the sole authority on this knowledge? Could you possibly imagine that another 3 brained being could come upon these same or similar/related sources, and make the same connections? Aeuio, this is a hypothetical question and not meant to start a war of words....just a thought I had after reading your comment.--Moon Rising 04:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Never learned the 4th Way anywhere as a whole?" - if he did then he would have said that he was in one school where he learned everything, and not "I was here where I learned this little point, there where I learned this little point, and there where I learned this little point, and there...". "personally figured things out" - he mentions a thousand times in all three of his books, "according to my convictions and personal experiments...this is why this happens..." and so on. And he is not the sole authority, he is the higher authority than his students. For your last comment, how much I remember Gurdjieff wasn't alone, and if other people could do the same then Gurdjieff would be nothing special. Aeuio 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aeuio, Sorry I have not responded to some of the comments addressed to me above; I've been under the weather. First, I admit that the idea to create a second article was not too bright (stupid is the word I used) and I don't know why I suggested it. I think I may have had a fever at the time. It is probably confusing for the casual reader to have to hop back and forth to different pages for different fourth way ideas. I still have not found the link to that article, not because I didn't read through your post. I also don't see that we are arguing, rather discussing, different points of view. I do appreciate that you have broadened your page to allow Ouspensky's thoughts in. That is a good first step. I also want to compliment you on the large amount of time and energy you have put into this article to give readers a more through idea of the fourth way as taught by Gurdjieff. --Moon Rising 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So it's agreed about the to articles then (I removed the link, but it was there - scroll down to After Gurdjieff)(the page is now a redirect). Anyways, if you want to add the theories that those people mentioned wrote then do so. Aeuio 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarities with other teachings

I removed the wl when mentioning Don Juan in Castaneda's teachings. Don Juan is the name Castaneda used for his teacher, and it has nothing to do with Zorrilla's Tenorio or Tirso's Don Juan, neither with the legendary character. Regards, Baby Dove 07:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think that I know Don Juan's theories, but don't know who Don Juan is? Next time just fix the link. Aeuio 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this time I just explained what I did; Idid not neven know who had put the link. Regards, Baby Dove 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Collin and the word "astrology"

The word "astrology" was replaced by "planetary influences", not to give the false idea that Rodney Collin was what ordinary language calls an astrologer. Baby Dove 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs official sources

If something is not an official source, it can still be considered a reliable source. Even non-academic popular writers are considered reliable sources. At least in principle, they have done research and gone through some form of editorial oversight. Academic and scholarly sources may be considered superior, but that does not affect the status of a popular writer as a reliable source. Official references and primary sources are generally treated as accurate but subjective and biased.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church have not bestowed priesthood and authority upon most of the extreme number of authors who discuss those churches. However, those "outside" and "unofficial" writers are still considered reliable sources of verifiable information. Maintaining a neutral point of view requires including outside observations, material unsanctioned by the "official" group and similar secondary sources. For example, most of the Protestant churches are outside of Apostolic succession. That does not mean they cannot claim to be Christian, nor does it invalidate (from a NPOV) a claim to apostolic Christianity. If other sources contradict their claims, an editor would be free to include that additional information in the article.

Sources cannot be excluded because the authors are not properly sanctioned or fail to be in a proper line of succession. Groups are not granted exclusive claims over schools of thought. If a group or individual claims to advocate a particular religion or philosophy, they should be taken at face-value. If there are additional sources that reinforce or contradict such a claim, they should be used in the article. However, our personal biases regarding what is a "true" X should not be the standard for inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information. Vassyana 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused as what exactly you are trying to say. I am not sure that you understood the debate here. Aeuio 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This was spurred in large part by this discussion. For example, Burton and those who are part of his line of succession, are not the exclusive authorities of what Fellowship of Friends is and teaches. Outside authors are still considered reliable sources. If they contradict what official sources relate, this can be taken into account and noted in the article. I hope that clarifies my opinion. Vassyana 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question which fits in here. If I were to find some author who wrote "Prem Rawat's techniques have better results if done while eating, and not during mediation". Do you think that I could add this to the Rawat's article, and moreover exactly as quoted without even saying who exactly said this? Aeuio 12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess not, and the same goes here. The info can be added and sourced, but not in this way. Aeuio 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of sources, including secondary and tertiary sources, would contradict such a statement. Again, if there are other sources that contradict the statements, that can be taken into consideration. If it's contradicted by one or two sources, it should probably be included in the article with the contradicting information. If it's contradicted by a large number of reliable references from multiple and sources, it is information we can reasonably assume is incorrect. Also, since you brought up Prem Rawat, that article uses outside scholars and writers for the vast majority of information. Many of the sources speak about topics on which "official" sources are mute or even contradictory, and some of that information is included in the article. Also, please bear in mind that secondary sources are considered more reliable than primary sources. If a few secondary sources, particularly multiple references, support a statement, it should simply be reported in the article like any other fact. If it is a fringe view, or the exclusive claim of only one or two sources, then it should be reported in the article, along with who makes the claim. If someone is mentioned as specifically putting the claim forward, care should be taken to avoid loaded language. I hope this clarifies my opinion. Take care. Vassyana 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not absurd at all. Vassyana, pretend that I find a valid publish source from a student of a student of Rawat that wrote in his book "Prem Rawat's techniques have better results if done while eating, and not during mediation" and I want to add this into the article - what would happen (I want a simple answer of how or if it would be included.) Aeuio 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about what you are asking, since such an instance would be covered quite clearly by what I said above. Vassyana 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is convayed in a general sense, but I want a direct answer as what and how it would be written in the Rawat teaching article if I were to find a valid publish source from a student of a student of Rawat that claims in his book that "Prem Rawat's techniques have better results if done while eating, and not during mediation" - What would appear in the article? How would it be written? (Imagine you are adding it into the article and post it below) Aeuio 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I state above: "The overwhelming majority of sources, including secondary and tertiary sources, would contradict such a statement." That includes references written by supporters, critics and scholarly observers. Since it is "contradicted by a large number of reliable references" with viewpoints representing a wide spectrum, it can easily be discounted as incorrect. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Therefore, I would not include it in the article. However, it is an obvious example opposed by most sources from nearly all prominent viewpoints. If multiple sources indicated that indeed the Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat, taught secretly to perform the techniques while eating, and it was only contradicted by official sources, that would be included in the article. I hope that clarifies my stance. Vassyana 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's good, thanks Aeuio 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Aeuio, thank you for allowing links that you do not personally favor. I modified your entries of the various Gurdjieff Foundations as follows:

• Created a new subsection under the Fourth Way section for "Gurdjieff Foundations" and moved your explanation of the Foundations from the External Links to this section, which fits in with preceding and following information.

The links now are a cluster and the reader wouldn't know what they are about. My version describes what those links are. But because I believe that they will all be deleted anyways I'll put to hold the change. Aeuio 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Changed name of next subsection to delete the word "fake" (NPOV), but left in comments quoting Gurdjieff about fake schools. I think it is more NPOV to let the reader make their own decision about other schools based on the text which is from a reliable source, than from an editorialized subheading, in my opinion.

The section is only commenting on aspects of fake schools, so the title just represents what the section says. Aeuio 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We should really have something in their about Misleading schools, since both G and O spent so much time elaborating upon them. This isn't an NPOV dispute--its a recurrent Fourth Way theme.Yeago 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted the subheading "Misleading fourth way schools" and combined the one sentence in that section with "Other fourth way schools."

Agree Aeuio 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• External links - left in all the links you added to the various Gurdjieff Foundations, but removed the description of each - which was added to the new subsection noted above. Having all external links follow one after the other, without comment, seems more NPOV and does not bias the reader.

I think that all of these links to different schools should be deleted as they are promoting. Aeuio 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that links to the major foundations which were established by core members of Fourth Way thought should be kept. However, that doesn't mean we link to them redundantly as has been done (linking to the main page, then linking to the groups page). When we start linking every foundation we are inviting garbage, like the Albequerque group who linked to their site from nearly every Fourth Way related page. I disagree with linking to Fellowship of Friends. I don't mind discussing them in the article, however. The FoF article can link to their website.Yeago 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Aeuio 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

- I expect that you will disagree with some or all of these changes, but I sincerely believe that they make the article less biased, while still preserving much of your point of view about Gurdjieff.--Moon Rising 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the fifth time, it's not my view, it's Gurdjieff's. Aeuio 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, Moon Rising, I appreciate your presence as you have prompted much development of this group of articles. Thanks for helping out.Yeago 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I agree -- this and several other of Wikipedia's Fourth Way related articles have been much improved over the last several months by the work of, and hopefully with the presence of, many editors.--Moon Rising 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with the edit/reversions of the external links at the moment? I don't want to initiate 3rd reversion w/out context. Mr. Bene 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some vandalizer won't give up. Aeuio 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I added my external link to: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Way&action=edit&section=19 a number of times and each time it was removed, now the edit is protected. Could someone at wikipedia add: The Fourth Way System to the external links on The Fourth Way page? Thanks. Fourthwaysystem

The page is protected because of you. What you were doing was quite annoying and spamming. Anyone can create a website on Gurdjieff's teaching, and if we linked to everyone of them then this page would be rather stupid. Your website is written by —redacted—. Who is he in terms of the Fourth Way and why is what he said notable enough to include in the External links? And next time, when your edits get reverted please comment on the talk page instead, and I am not sure how you justify replacing all of the external links with your website. Aeuio 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your identified accusations, ever remember yourself? I put my link on the page and then you removed it. I put it back and then you removed again, so you received your own treatment. Read the material on the proposed website, if it does not seem to be related to the Fourth Way ideas then you have something to argue with. I'm not sure that the ideas of the Fourth Way belong exclusively to those group-links that you guard with such passion. Posted by fourthwaysystem (wikipedia ID)

Your website is from some unknown who loves Ouspensky and deeply hates Gurdjieff. It's filled with pure ranting and nonsense. Please go and promote your website somewhere else. Aeuio 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kitchener, Ontario...70.48.255.128? You're a bit out of the way to claim to be a central authority. We'll see. To those operating wikipedia, this character, Aeuio, is a fanatic cult member and should lose whatever editing privileges he has be granted. Please add my address: The Fourth Way System back on the edit page: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Way&action=edit&section=19 posted by fourthwaysystem (wikipedia ID)

Kitchener? You don't get the power of the modem buddy - only non changing ip's can be traced. Take yourself for example. If you had one ip then you would have been blocked long ago, but your ip keeps changing so the page had to be protected. BTW, you have been identified as a vandalizer on another page as well. And the page you are adding is some rude blog and doesn't belong here. MoonEagle 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added my site to the external links of both pages and they were removed several times before I began to remove the other links. I'm certain there is some kind of record of what happened and wikipedia is not fooled at all by your feigning innocence. fourthwaysystem (wikipedia ID)

If you click "history" on top of the page you'd find those records. And for the last time your link won't be added because: 1) It's ridiculing Gurdjieff to the core and Promoting Ouspensky - what is this crap? You might be able to mention this under criticism of the Fourth Way if you weren't promoting Ouspensky 2)Who in the world is the —redacted— guy? - Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can add any link their wont. Aeuio 12:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I removed a user's real name as requested from this discussion. It seemed user Aeuio is not recently contributing, and has a disabled talk page, so I couldn't ask permission first. But the page history will show the redacted name if needed. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Foundations vs. Fake Schools and promotion

The article has two succesive items: the Gurdjieff Foundations, which describes the origin of these foundations when Gurdjieff was close to die, and they evolution in an "International Association", and Fake Schools, which describes the existence of many schools leading nowhere but making the students believe they are going somewhere.
This is the best example of promotion I have ever found in my entire life! It is suggesting, "If you are not in the Gurdjieff Foundation, do not even try to do this work, because the Foundation is the only one who knows how to teach you."
Of course, it appeals to faith in the reader, because he cannot know whether this is true or not. Even when Gurdjieff organized these foundations, he was unable to know how would they evolve through the years. As stated by Ouspensky, only a conscious teacher can help others awaken. Does the Gurdjieff Foundation have a conscious being behind, or it is only a place where sleeping people they talk about how wonderful it was to have Mr. Gurdjieff as a teacher while trying to understand by themselves how to do it?
Just asking, because after 58 years, many things could have changed. For instance, within Christianity, after their origin within the Hebrews, Paul was one of the leading figures by 58 AD, and he was even imprisoned by the Romans as such. Regards, Baby Dove 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was how Gurdjieff felt and he brought the term "Fourth Way". This is supposed to be a factual document and not reflect how we may personally feel about the teachings. He was emphatic that those who simply read his books and claimed the mantle of "consciousness", using the name of his system, were going to be frauds, and he created a system of Foundations to establish his teaching on legitimate grounds. Aeuio is right that the perpetual emergence of fake schools and cults was a major topic of discussion in the Fourth Way teaching. That's good reporting, not promotional tactics. Ericbarnhill 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And who guarantees that the Foundations have never deviated from his teachings after 58 years? Regards, Baby Dove 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. This isn't a forum for debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the Foundations. This is a place for reportage on the Fourth Way. Gurdjieff brought this concept and it involves schools. He founded some schools. He said others were frauds. Those are facts. Valid or invalid those are his positions and he brought the concept so it's relevant to this entry. Ericbarnhill

Well said Eric Aeuio 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a forum for debate about the Foundations. Likewise, it is not a forum for debate on whether or not other organizations that claim a connection to G & O are Fourth Way schools. I have added mention of another Fourth Way school. Earlier in this discussion, Yeago invited me to do so, in the section - following Gurdjieff, and I have now done so. Please do not revert this edit, as someone did when I inserted a link to this organization. You may not agree with it, but in the interest of NPOV, it should be allowed to remain. Please use this talk page to discuss before reverting. Thank you. --Moon Rising 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be deleted, but you are certainly out of line writing that its a "true fourth way school" since not only is this disputed, but its not even written in the fof article. I changed it to say what the fof article says. Just be aware that if the "Designation as a Fourth Way school" is deleted somehow from the fof article, its going to be written here as it certainly fits in, as this is the article about the Fourth Way. Aeuio 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to start a debate on the validity of schools. I simply wanted to point out that the article as it was when I started this item in a talk page, shows a bias against all other organizations. Then, Moonrising has added another link, and I can see others coming, deviating from the simple description of a religious method.
From a viewpoint, the Fourth Way and the schools teaching it are hard to see as a separate thing, such as a richer view of Christianity is allowed when considering the multiple existing churches with different creeds.
However, to avoid any possible editing war in the page, maybe references should be kept as short and NPOV as possible, or simply being replaced by suitable links for the reader to get informed about their differences. Regards, Baby Dove 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Patterson ref

When a "citation needed" tag was set in the section about William Patrick Patterson (not Paterson, as it says in the header), it was supposed to make note that his quality as having Lord Pentland as a primary teacher was not proved. Then, the old tag was replaced by an external link to the Gurdjieff Studies Program, a web site from an organization of which the said person is the founder and current director. This is not exactly a link giving a required NPOV, because now it is obviously himself who is giving this information.
He is also promoting his own business through the article, given that through the new link one can learn about his four seminars (at this point, the next one, to be held in New Jersey is costing $500), besides the promotion of his books, which can be conveniently bought on-line through a convenient link to Gurdjieff Legacy Bookstore.

Do you have some sources saying that he has no connection to Pentland? Aeuio 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Patterson studied with Pentland just like he describes in great (some might say exruciatingly boring) detail in his autobiography "Eating the I". He's still in contact with the Pentland line, he was in contact with them during publication of "Voices in the Dark." Ericbarnhill 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of him, so I asked for a source, but the source seems to be himself, which is only a personal statement. Regards, Baby Dove 06:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The source about Patterson can't be Patterson. Is there any other source? Mario Fantoni 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing a simple google search I found only affirming claims about him being Pentland's student. Such as here: "Patterson's credentials to write on Gurdjieff come from being a long-time student of John Pentland, the man Gurdjieff chose to lead the Work in America. Patterson is a clever and absorbing writer..." If you have a reason to believe that everyone is lying, then prove it (and that means saying something like the following "In his biography Patterson says he and Pentland did so and so, but this is a lie due to so and so." or "Paterson was described as a liar by the pentland line here") Otherwise there is nothing contradicting this, so the matter is done. Aeuio 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mario Fantoni 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Patterson cl

To clarify something Aeiuo, Patterson has not been connected with Pentland or Pentland's students for a very long time. He is not someone who is considered in the line of transmission of the Foundations; I'm not implying anything there about his worth, just the fact that he left, but retains some contacts. Also, I think this section swallows Patterson's rhetoric whole a bit. How about keeping the second paragraph and just the first sentence of the first, changing tense to past? Ericbarnhill 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll delete the things from his website. Aeuio 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you really respected Mr. Patterson, and I was thinking it was not worth discrediting him... But you simply obbeyed a command! And you were talking about puppets... Regards, Baby Dove 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The typical Baby Dove comment - I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I agreed with a reasonable suggestion about deleting something encyclopedic I copy/pasted from a website. (even if he didn't say it, I would have done it myself) And then you are saying that I posted a noncontroversial suggestion to myself (which according to you contradicts my opinion), in order to delete a few weird lines. With that kind of thinking you think that you know who I am and what I believe... unless you have something actual (such as I had when I got an administrator to say that you and Mario are "clearly the same person") please keep your poor conclusions to yourself as i am not interested in participating in your nowhere-leading talk. Aeuio 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate ext lk showing howb Patterson promotesd his own teaching selling books and seminars in his Gurdjieff Studies Program site. Please, do not delete them as usual without written justification here, as WP rules establish. Regards, Baby Dove 07:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the way you wrote it. Aeuio 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to agree at last. Regards, Baby Dove 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Transmission

Last week I moved Transmission before Fake Schools, because both things refer to a different subject. Transmission refers to the possibility that a given school ceases to be real when the conscious founder dies. Fake schools refer to the possibility that a school is not real because of not having a conscious teacher. In both cases, however, we cannot judge the situation beforehand.
I also wanted to point out that my move was reverted without any explanation, not even as an edit summary. This forces one to check the entire article every time, which is more work. It should be remembered that it is a Wilkipedia policy to leave an edit summary. It says, "An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about." Edit_summary Regards, Baby Dove 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't undertand why the order of "Fake Schools" and "Transmission" is so important. Mario Fantoni 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the order of two sub sections is being changed, so keep it as you like Aeuio 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Mario Fantoni 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ERRORS to be corrected

1: The Foundations

The Foundations were started AFTER Gurdjieff's death by Jeanne de Salzmann in the 1950's: Source: Gurdjieff Org. They were not established by Gurdjieff near the end of his life. Bennett writes in Witness (page 254) of Gurdjieff APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES: "Letter January 13th, 1949", dictated by Gurdjieff to Bennett in Child's in N.Y.: "I need three representatives for France, England and America." He named Bennett for England, Lord Pentland for America and R. Zuber for France. To Wim Nyland he said: "For you I have special task". (see I. Popoff)

2: Wim Nyland

Wim Nyland was, after Jeanne de Salzmann, Gurdjieff's closest pupil, appointed "for a special task" by Gurdjieff in the USA. His name is not even mentioned.

3: John Godolphin Bennett

Missing: Bennett visited Gurdjieff in his Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man at the Château Le Prieuré in the summer of 1923, spending three months at the institute. The part about Ouspensky repudiating Bennett is unimportant, Ouspenky left Gurdjieff long before and repudiated Gurdjieff. Same goes for subjective interpretations of how Bennett felt at that time. He visited Gurdjieff in 1947/48 for 18 months nearly every weekend and stayed in Paris for 1 month. He founded fourth way schools in Sherborne, UK, and Claymont, W.Virginia, USA.

4: Olgivanna Wright and Taliesin

completly missing

5: Henri Tracol

completly missing

6: A.L. Staveley + Jane Heap

completly missing

The latter four are much more important than W.P. Patterson or J. Moore.

7: Lord-Pentland

Lord Pentland was not appointed by Gurdjieff "to lead" the work in North and South America .

Lord Pentland was appointed by Gurdjieff as his representative to publish Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson in USA. (see sources given in 1. The Foundations)

The notion: The man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America comes from W.P. Patterson . Patterson worked with Pentland, but left the Foundation and gives workshops. Patterson has done some good work by pointing out the dangers of pseudo schools. Nevertheless his writings are very much coloured by his personal likes and dislikes and miss an objective approach. He also uses his connection to Pentland, as if Pentland gave approval to Patterson's teaching.

'As some here rightly point at "advertising": The notion of Pentland being appointed by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America is similar clannish pride, and wrong.'

Some information can be found here: Changes in G. I. Gurdjieff’s Teaching ‘The Work’:

However, Gurdjieff also provoked change. If we look at what happened after his death, we can see that although he had united the groups of American and British pupils in Paris after World War Two, he chose not to form a secure line of succession. At the same time he suggested to various pupils that they were the only ones who could carry out his teaching after his death and this was a provocation to schism. (James Moore, Gurdjieff: the Anatomy of a Myth. London: Element, 1991, p. 288.)

There is no doubt about the unique role of Lord Pentland as president of the New York Foundation.

But the efforts of some to lift/boost him onto some kind of throne as Gurdjieff's chosen successor leaves an elevated/declamatory taste.

Iramsamkeep 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The editors don't strike me as boosting anyone. They are just reading the Gurdjieff biographies. Moore's biography says he was chosen to lead the work in America. I read your long explanation on the other page about how Moore is being manipulative. This is original research and therefore does not meet Wikipedia standards. If you have a source that contradicts the major biographers please cite it. Your Moore quote above does not suffice. No one is saying Gurdjieff chose a successor. They are saying Gurdjieff chose Pentland to lead the American work, and nothing less or more, because this is what his biographers say. If you cite a source that convincingly challenges this I'm sure we'll all accept it. Until then the passage should be in accordance with Gurdjieff biographers rather than your original research. Ericbarnhill 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Moore changed his own wording from 'appointing as representative' into 'the man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead'. This is all you can quote. Moore never met Gurdjieff. The people quoted by myself (Popoff, Bennett) met him. Which source is more valid? Anyway, which other biographers are you refering to? Pauwels? Shirley? Give me a break. Who are 'they'? Who is 'we all'? Iramsamkeep 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me put an end to this: Iramsamkeep - three sources (gurdjieff.org/James Moore/Spice article) which you provided which say that Pentland was chosen to lead the publishing, all also say that Pentland was chosen to lead the Work in America (the spice article says that those were Gurdjieff's words on his deathbed). You then said that these sources are unreliable(which you provided) and came here and are still continuing to use the same sources for your argument? I am not sure how you justify this to yourself. Anyhow: Do you have a source which say that all of these sources are wrong and that they are twisting the truth? Otherwise all you did was prove that Pentland was also chosen for the publishing - but not that this has been misrepresented as Pentland being chosen to lead the work. That's your original research...and I am not sure why this is even a big deal. + there are other sources which affirm that Pentland was given authority by Gurdjieff for North America. Aeuio 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake schools

The quoted book ("Life is Real..."), at least in the mentioned First Talk, does not contain any reference to the term "self-remembering", therefore, it whas been removed. Sekmeth 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does pg.88 - "to remember oneself" is the same thing as "self remembering". Aeuio 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The very mention of Fake Schools within the article meets some relativity in Mr. Gurdjieff himself. He says that "it is (of) no use troubling oneself how to recognize a wrong way." He immediately warns the reader to "think of how to find the right way", but, as it is said in this same chapter 10 of "In Search of the Miraculous", meeting a wrong teacher is due to having a wrong kind of magnetic center, which makes mentioning this subject quite useless for the general reader. Besides, the fragmentary information given, makes it definitely far from being a NPOV. Sekmeth 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing NPOV about presenting information about Fake schools as stated by Gurdjieff. We are not discussing "how one meets fake school" we are saying "Gurdjieff explained that there are fake schools..." Aeuio 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "schools" is mentioned three times in "Life is Real..." One in "I would begin at once to organize with the help of people who had already reached in these sections a definite degree, as it was called in all previously existing esoteric schools, of 'being and comprehension'." (First talk), and the second and third times in "... according to the interpretation of initiates of one school existing presently in Central Asia...", and in "I said 'simple' because in various serious schools, existing even in present times, for the self-perfecting of man, there are for the same purpose very complicated exercises." (Both in the Third Talk).

Gurdjieff never mentions in this book, the existence of any fake school, and his references talk about previously or currently existing (for him) schools. Though Ouspensky quotes him at saying that, for a wrong magnetic center, there exists the possibility of meeting a teacher who would mislead him, the three examples he gives are: "He may be genuinely mistaken and think that he knows something, when in reality he knows nothing", instead of "Honestly believes that he knows something, when in fact he doesn't"; "He may believe another man, who in his turn may be mistaken", instead of "He maybe believes another man who is mistaken", and "He may deceive consciously", instead of "He is purposely tricking others."

This three inexact quotes were corrected, because it is good to quote what the quoted one says, not our not declared personal opinions. About the cases added at the end, they show he was referring to very specific cases of the groups he met, not to a general notion of potential "Fake Schools." And in Ouspenskly's quote there is much more, such as separating the idea of right and wrong magnetic centers (he never says a right magnetic center can give bad results, for instance).

Thus, badly written quotations plus ommitted information make a biased POV, for me. Sekmeth 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this article is for those who don't know the fourth way and not those that do. Mentioning the magnetic center like that is out of place and confusing for an outside reader. The focus of the section is that "there are fake schools, and not every school that claims to be a fourth way school is in fact so" - so the section gives the explanation of what those schools do that makes them fake. Concerning the last part: In summary Gurdjieff said "I see something very wrong in you because you are focused on one aspect of my teaching, the same way that there is something wrong with those English guys who focus on only self remembering, the German who focus on blood transubstantiation"...and so on. MoonEagle 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Later teachers

Overall this is a very good and complete article that keeps improving. I fail to understand though, why there is information about teachers/followers of the fourth way that had no direct contact with G or O. They are third had teachers. Like someone has commented often in removing links to other Fourth Way groups, there are countless groups and teachers out there. It does not make sense IMHO to list 3 and omit the rest. It would make more sense to list the women in Patterson's "Women of the Rope" who had close relationships with Gurdjieff, than to include information about Patterson, a biographer, who now has a group based on Gurdjieff, but also adding his own twist. This is not an aspersion against Patterson. It is just an idea of how the page should go. I'd add info about Heap and the rest, but I can't find the book right now. They are more interesting and related to the page, by far. --Moon Rising 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason that those figures are in the page is because they are the ones that either presently, in terms of the Fourth Way or Gurdjieff, are the most notable as they have the most commosion about them, or their work and books are the sources from which we draw most of the info on these pages. We should have something adressing who they are. And those other figures which you mentioned will be added soon to complete this list. MoonEagle 03:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys realize that Moon Rising is using excuses as she's trying to remove Alex Horn from the page because Horn was Robert Burtons teacher, and she doesn't like anyone to find out what exacly is the truth behing the fof. Moon, how do you justify to yourself the removal of any info on your teacher's teacher (same goes for the vdeos you are trying to remove where RB is lecturing). If you don't want the ruth to be known and don't like it, maybe you should ask yourself why exactly you think that the fof is so great. Oldmethod 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldmethod-you don't know a thing about me. If you have something personal to say, please say it on my talk page, this is not the place for it. Thank you.--Moon Rising 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The only references to Alex horn quoted in the article, come from William Patrick Patterson (Gurdjieff Journal & Talking with the Left Hand). It is hard to get any NPOV about him, because if one goes through internet looking for some info about him, one only finds what Patterson says, and what Rick Ross says (sometimes amazingly similar). It seems that he does not care to be known at all, and the only one interested in talking about him is Mr. Patterson, who consistently disqualyfies any one he does not like, as the Inquisition used to in the middle ages. That is why it should be deleted. Regards, Baby Dove 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex Horn started a contreversial movement "based on the Fourth Way" which had later impact, such as FoF, and therefore he is notable to be here. If you can find some sources on Horn then share them, otherwise it's your just your opinion of what's NPOV and what's not. And Wpp didn't disqualyfy "anyone he does not like", he disqulified self proclaimed Fourth Way teacher that think too much of themselves. If you feel that what's written is POV then show some sources which back up your view. Aeuio 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Horn does not seem to care about what you say. The only ones concerned with him are Patterson and Rick Ross. Both upon economicar reasons, as far as ity can be seen in their websites. I am very sorry if you think a true fourth way teacher cannot say what he is. Guredjieff advertised, as I have once shown you in the Daily News, and as Ouspensky says in In Search of the Miraculous, where he talks about the ad in this Russian Paper, the Voice of Moscow, I guess. But afterwards, they belonged to a world dramatically full of agents spying everybody's lives, such as the KGB or the Gestapo. This is a good reason to make one cease advertising at all whatever one can do in private. The world should honor them for these notorious efforts, and not repeat what they did as parrots when times have changed, assuming that this is the only way to do things. Regards, Baby Dove 21:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what Horn cares about, and I am very sorry that you feel that Horn is a true fourth way teacher. Like I said before: Gurdjieff advertised his play not his teaching. Regards, Aeuio 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to mention Sharon Gans then don't we have to mention the Rosie O'Donnell racism incident? Ericbarnhill 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this bio fighting. I am turning this into a "Gurdjieff personal student" only zone. Aeuio 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are mentioning places founded by the students, it might be worth mentioning that Nyland founded a work compound called Chardovogne Barn and that work still continues there. Ericbarnhill 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about upgrading the bios anymore, someone else who actually has an interest in them can do it. Aeuio 17:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references

Has anyone else noticed that there is a dearth of references for this article. While it's mostly a good article, the lack of citation make it seem like original research. Is there anyone out there who can add some references? --Moon Rising 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The first sentence of the Intro is contradictory. It says, in part, G described his approach to self-development as a Fourth Way....The next sentence says G never used the term Fourth Way in his writings. Does anyone else find this potentially confusing to someone who is not well versed in O's writing about G? Anyone mind if I try to clarify this?--Moon Rising 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio - I saw your edit after my suggestion above. I just took a bold leap and pretty much re-wrote the first paragraph. I think it is more clear and easier to read, but that's just my opinion. I think the intro still needs improvement. I think this is a step in the right direction. Feel free to edit it further or revert if you prefer the way it was before. --Moon Rising 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was a mess. Splitting sentences into sentence fragments is not clarifying anything - I was confused reading that. "The Fourth Way is the name given to G.I. Gurdjieff’s teaching" is not even close to being precise as "G.I. Gurdjieff described his approach to self-development as a Fourth Way". Moreover you wrote wrong information "Ouspensky published a book named “The Fourth Way” comprised of lectures given by Gurdjieff." ...? That book is a compilation of Ouspensky's lectures collected by Ouspensky's students. (You can guess what I am thinking now) Anyhow I rv you because this current lead is extremely well done and it's very precise. The intro of this page is the best written thing among the Gurdjieff related articles. What looks odd to you? Aeuio 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to explain what looks odd, so I took a stab at writing it in a way that made more sense to me. Yes, I really goofed on my description of the book - I've been reading it for years and definitely know better. Don't know what my fingers were "thinking" when they typed that gibberish. As I said after my original edit - if you don't like it - revert it and you did. --Moon Rising 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Did Gurdjieff Do This?

I propose that a section be added. This section would address Gurdjieff's chief aim in establishing his system - that is, the preservation of the earth. I don't think I'm qualified to write it, as it would require research, and I don't want to take time away from other editing duties I've committed to. But I wondered if somebody here was knowledgeable enough to write something "off the top of his head." Or her head! Whichever. I do feel it's important, as it is the true basis of his work. Thank you. Jennifer Thieme 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't thinks its certain why did Gurdjieff do what he did for there could be many reasons. I don't think that anyone else will know either (not anyone hanging out on wikipedia anyways). The only things that could be written are the possible reasons coming from other authors (or Gurdjieff's stated reason which was something along the lines of stopping war). In my opinion I don't think that either would look too informative, but if you think that it would then by all means add it. Aeuio 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems

There are some very serious problems with this article. I don't mean to overly criticize the editor(s), because I realize the definitive sources of information are oral or written in an esoteric form and not accessible to those who are not personally involved with a Gurdjieff group, and so would fall under the category of original research. However, because of the great many books on the topic, there is a possibility of an article from an anthropological/historical perspective. This is a daunting task as most of the texts are contradictory and rely on original research or hearsay themselves. I propose that until the article approaches a strong wikipedia level of quality, that only the books that Gurdjieff authorized in his lifetime be used: Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson by G.I. Gurdjieff and In Search of the Miraculous by P.D. Ouspensky. If this seems too stringent, then at least limit all contributions to that which can cite a published written source available to the general public (other than a website). I also propose that the article be renamed or separated into several articles. for example "Teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff", "Teachings of P.D. Ouspensky", "Other Fourth Way Teachings", etc. Ouspensky rejected Gurdjieff's teachings after only spending a short time studying them, and there are many teachers/groups who refer to themselves as "Fourth Way" who have no connection with either Gurdjieff or Ouspensky. Please don't take this as nasty criticism, I have been engaged in anthropological fieldwork with Gurdjieff Groups throughout the United States and studying the printed material for several decades and still cannot say with certainty what is definitive. But that does not mean it isn't possible to at least map the several strains of the teaching. It is a rare opportunity to record a religious tradition in its infancy and it would be a shame to squander it over petty squabbles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.177.60 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1)To my knowledge this article complies with Beelzebub's tales and In search of the Miraculous. Please be specific on what seems out of place/or make the change yourself.

2)The splitting of the article was already attempted some time ago and it lead to nothing but edit warring. Those "others" can have their own page where their teaching could be mentioned, while you are welcome to improve the "teaching section" on the P.D. Ouspensky page. (I don't want to get into the discussion on what exactly did Ouspensky reject). In other words, this page is the only way that it could be - but you are welcome to try and make it better if you want. Aeuio 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The description of self-observation on this page is not even close to being complete. It does not, for example, include the work of attempting to observe the differences between the various centers, which is explained in some detail in "In Search of the Miraculous." That is why I added a link to a first-hand article on Gurdjieff and Self-Observation (originally published in Gnosis Magazine) that goes more deeply into this important subject, and the only one I could find that describes this process in detail. It was deleted today. The article that was linked to is referenced (linked to) on a number of Gurdjieff and other sites, including http://www.danzasdegurdjieff.com/auto-e.htm and http://www.dennislewis.org/self-observation.htm (Lewis is the author). Doesn't matter to me which site you link to but the article, written by someone who actually describes some of the issues surrounding self-observation, should be included in some way to give a more complete picture of self-observation. In any case, I preferred to include it as an external link. If you don't think it fits, that's fine, but something needs to be done about the section on self-observation, which doesn't really say anything at all about what Gurdjieff was actually teaching and could be interpreted in a very psychological way. Desertview (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please expand that section, if you have the time, using one or both of those links as inline citations. What caught my attention was adding it as an external link, because it doesn't fit our external link guidelines, but there's no problem that I can see using those as references as citations especially if attributing a particular viewpoint to Lewis when expanding it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have slightly expanded that section and added the link there. I left Lewis' name out of the paragraph itself and included it in the reference. If you would like to handle some other way, please just make the change. Thanks. Desertview (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That addition looks really good. Thanks. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Owlmonkey, someone removed the change you approved, but I can find no statement as to why it was done. Can this please be reverted, or can someone say why that was done? Desertview (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well not everyone may agree, but I do think it's a valid expansion of that section, from my understanding of awareness and the different ways it can be viewed. In the Tibetan canon at least, self awareness is also discussed in the terms that you've added. I can't claim much experience with the Fourth Way teachings in particular but it looks quite reasonable to me. Perhaps if Edward321 still has an issue with the change we can discuss it more here next. Edward321 may just be weary of the link now because earlier you added it to a number of articles, which drew attention. I just added your addition here back. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, as I remember, I only added that link to the article on self-observation to one other place where I thought it may be helpful, but I understand better now about adding external links. In any case, the original statement about self-observation was incomplete. There is a great deal of importance in the Gurdjieff Work regarding differentiating between thoughts, feelings, and sensations in oneself (Ouspensky, quoting Gurdjieff, goes into it deeply). Some of the later stuff in the article referenced touches on some other awareness-oriented areas, but this article has been widely disseminated and linked to among Gurdjieff/Fourth Way oriented sites. So I believe it is appropriate. Desertview (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Gurdjieff:

One of the glaring omissions of Gurdjieff's teachings is the issue of karma. Like many similar burning lights which popped up in the 20th Century (cult leaders, et al.), he was (and advocated) a sort of "lone wolf" approach. Of course, like the rest, he was and remains that lone wolf, for the most part. While such a philosophy is in accord with era's-gone-by when the amount of territory to explore (literally and symbolically) seemed unending, it is inappropriate or at least inapplicable in the global era of the 21st Century. Perhaps not stated by him, though nonetheless implied, one cannot endlessly run from the past, which is one's heritage. Perhaps the best way to understand him then, like the rest, is within the context of Mankind's quest through the ages, seeking and coming to a synthesis of "Man's relationship to himself", a precursor for a new global era. Compare also to the Tree of Knowledge and Law of the Eternal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.123.191 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

G and 4th way

I've changed several butts to "Gurdjieff taught" to "the Fourth Way teaches." I did this for 2 reasons: for readability - a little variety makes the article more readable. And more importantly, because many people are also interested in the fourth way as it was presented by Ouspensky. Gurdjieff authorized Ouspensky to teach, and Ouspensky's works and methods are valid, at least to some readers. I believe that the article is also for those unfamiliar with the ideas, and a complete discussion of the subject goes b eyond Gurdjieff. It should not read (imho) as a chapter in the article about G. --Moon Rising (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

4th way (again)

The intro says, G never said 4th way. But later on the article says [or rather, it used to before I removed it] Gurdjieff stressed each individual's responsibility: "The fourth way differs from the other ways in that.... But that para has no source. So... did he say it, or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes he said it as documented by Ouspensky and others. I rehrased the intro to clarify. Vitalask (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

While searching for The WP:TRUTH I came across http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch07.htm which demonstrably pre-dates our article (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch07.htm).

A whole pile of stuff turned up in one edit [1] ages ago described as Total re-write - original content moved to Fourth Way (book) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rm some: [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic Laws Gurdjieff focused on two main cosmic laws, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven[citation needed].

Like it says (cos I added it): cn. Who says so? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Clean up references

I'm going to start cleaning up the references. We need to focus on reliable secondary sources.--Nowa (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've moved these references here from the lede for the following reasons:

• Primary reference:
• Self promotional:
• Self published:
• Wiki article:

The next step is to find reliable secondary references to support the lede.

Here's an example:

”Discounting the otherworldly and singled-minded techniques of fakirs,monks, and yogis, Gurdjieff was experimenting with a "fourth way." The function of all art, that is sacred or objective art, a key to the fourth way, Gurdjieff maintained,was not the invocation of aesthetic beauty or the imitation of surface reality, but rather the initiation of the recipient into a completely different plane of understanding, to awaken him into experiencing the sense of cosmic place and time, to permanently shatter and enlarge his socially-delimited notion of personality.”

After we get 2 -3 more, we can rewrite the lede.--Nowa (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourth Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gurdjieff.org/mangan1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520191109/http://www.kebzeh.org/publications/bk_Ahmsta-Kebzeh_pb.htm to http://www.kebzeh.org/publications/bk_Ahmsta-Kebzeh_pb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)