But really, are you sure Gurdjieff was a non-dualist? - Fourth Way Transformational Work Group of Los Angeles

But was Gurdjieff really a non-dualist?

Many self-identified students of Gurdjieff believe his system is not compatible with non-dualism. Here are more of his teachings that show this is not so, and even an explanation of why some students believe this.

The world which we perceive is a world of separate objects that are created and destroyed.

The world existing in the reality that is the Absolute, that Gurdjieff often says is a unity where everything is one. Naturally that would include the person who is mentating on that Absolute since it includes them. This unity is hidden behind an appearance of multiplicity. Part of that multiplicity is a multiplicity of human beings. In reality, according to Gurdjieff, they are a unity with everything else. This is not a one off. It's a many off.

Gurdjieff says in “Life is Real Only Then, When I Am” that his purpose in writing his “third series” is:

“"THIRD SERIES: To assist the arising, in the mentation and in the feelings of the reader, of a veritable, nonfantastic representation not of that illusory world which he now perceives, but of the world existing in reality."

Gurdjieff's statement about merging with reality is just saying the same thing he always says. To see, or rather mentate and feel, reality as it is means merging with it. The view that the world we take as real is an illusion, as stated here, is a common theme of non-dual teachings. Gurdjieff does say he intends to assist in his reader the formation of a representation of the Absolute. This is also a common effort of non-dual schools. While reality is beyond any description in words, all such schools make some effort to say something about it in words that will guide the student in the general direction, and allow the student to know that the are not seeing reality as it is.

On page 16 he writes:

"Everything in the Universe is one, the difference is only of scale; in the infinitely small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great."

In "In Search of the Miraculous" page 85 Gurdjieff says this:
" The subjective or phenomenal world of our observation is only relatively real, at any rate it is not complete. "

That the world of phenomena is only relatively real, and not absolutely real; in that sense illusory, is a common theme in non-dual traditions.

On page 285, Gurdjieff says:

" "One of the most central of the ideas of objective knowledge," said G., "is the idea of the unity of everything, of unity in diversity. From ancient times people who have understood the content and the meaning of this idea, and have seen in it the basis of objective knowledge, have endeavored to find a way of transmitting this idea in a form comprehensible to others. The successive transmission of the ideas of objective knowledge has always been a part of the task of those possessing this knowledge. In such cases the idea of the unity of everything, as the fundamental and central idea of this knowledge, had to be transmitted first and transmitted with adequate completeness and exactitude."

The main point of esoteric schools is the unity of everything, which is the basis of objective knowledge.

In another transcript of a talk on the enneagram, titled "The Enneagram, A Lecture by Gurdjieff", Gurdjieff says:

But this unity cannot be described in words, by science, by philosophy, or religious texts. On page 286 of In Search of the Miraculous he writes:

" "None the less the idea of the unity of everything exists also in intellectual thought but in its exact relation to diversity it can never be clearly expressed in words or in logical forms. There remains always the insurmountable difficulty of language. A language which has been constructed through expressing impressions of plurality and diversity in subjective states of consciousness can never transmit with sufficient completeness and clarity the idea of unity which is intelligible and obvious for the objective state of consciousness. "

And in "The Enneagram Lecture" he writes:

" Man's eyes are dazzled by the bright play of the colors of multiformity, and under the glittering surface he does not see the hidden kernel of
the one-ness of all that exists. This multiformity is so real that its single modes approach him from all sides - some by way of logical deduction
and philosophy, others by way or faith and feeling. From the most ancient times down to our own epoch, throughout the ages of its life, humanity as a whole has been yearning for a knowledge of this oneness and seeking for it, pouring itself out into various philosophies and religions which remain, as it were, monuments on the path of these searches for the Path, leading to the knowledge of unity. These searches radiate to the Path just as the radii of a circle join at the center, getting closer into contact with each other the nearer they get to the center. The goal itself determines the direction of the paths and brings the wanderers on the paths to a knowledge of the one-ness which reaches the depths where that knowledge becomes a reality to the knower and cannot be communicated to another who has not reached the same stage of development. The words and notions of conversational language become dead and empty, conveying nothing to him who does not carry such knowledge within himself "

Gurdjieff says the unity is hidden behind deceptive appearances, and finding this unity is the aim of all the esoteric paths. He also says the true nature of this unity cannot be expressed in language. If Gurdjieff's terms "unity" and "one-ness" cannot then be adequate to describe the true nature of reality, the aim of the path. They are just place holders.

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢 "𝙣𝙤𝙣-𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡" 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨. It means that reality is beyond description in dualistic concepts, that all concepts are necessarily dualistic, and that words are ways to communicate concepts. So no philosophical description of reality is adequate, and it must be realized through awakening. That the nature of reality is beyond description in words is the core doctrine of all forms of Buddhism.

This idea that the reality is beyond concept is enough to establish Gurdjieff's credentials as a non-dualist. He said this a number of times. It's also evident in his teaching in two ways which pervade his writings and lectures. First, he avoids philosophizing or trying to explain the nature of ultimate reality, beyond a few minimal statements. Second, when does discuss or name ultimate reality he does so in several completely different, and traditionally opposed, ways. Sometimes he speaks of an impersonal Absolute which can do nothing since it has no law of three. Other times he speaks of Our Endless Creator, who is a kind of person. This is exactly an approach that would be taken by someone who thinks the nature of reality is beyond concept, so many different metaphors can be used as needed. It is also reflects Gurdjieff's familiarity with Orthodox Christianity, which accepts a form of non-duality injected by Pseudo-Dionysius who was a student of the Neoplatonist Proclus (see Joseph Azize). This dominant Orthodox (and Catholic) theology embraces non-dualism, and also considering God, the ultimately real, to have qualities of personhood. Even in Lamaism Buddhism often speaks of reality personified as a primordial Buddha. Even in Theravada Buddhism, Early Buddhism, Buddha sometimes says the ultimate reality beyond any words or attributes, and in other places talks of it as a kind of place or world of refuge. This apparently inconsistent way of talking is the logical result of talking about something that cannot be talked about.

On page 733 of Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson (1992) Gurdjieff writes:

" "In the common presences of these unfortunate highest being-bodies, perfected in Reason to the highest limit attainable by ordinary higher cosmic Individuals, there is one single datum which occasionally engenders in them the impulse of hope that they may at some time purify themselves and have the happiness of uniting with, and becoming a particle of, that 'Greatness' which our Omnipotent All-Just Common Father Endlessness actualizes for the welfare and happiness of everything existing in our Megalocosmos. "

and on page 735:

" "As soon as the three-brained beings of our Megalocosmos, irrespective of exterior coating, acquire any degree of self-awareness, they begin to dream consciously or instinctively of going to that holy planet, so that later they may have the happiness of becoming a particle of that Greatness with which sooner or later every essence is destined to blend. "

He repeatedly gives the aim as uniting with, as becoming a particle of, and as blending with everything. He obviously means it.

Gurdjieff's understanding of non-dual Buddhism is confirmed by his treating Buddhism as a different religion to Lamaism, and even in the names he gives them. Early Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, presents itself as based on the words of the historical Buddha, as Gurdjieff says. Tibetan Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, is largely based on the teachings of lamas, great teachers who lived over a thousand years later.

(Non-dualism also had a big influence on Sufism via Neoplatonists who fled Christian persecution to the east and were welcomed with open arms by Islam, which had great respect for ancient Greek philosophy. This would a fourth route of familiarity with non-dualist traditions, Gurdjieff's love of Plato, his knowledge of Orthodox Christianity, his visits to Central Asian Tibetan monasteries, and his constant interaction with Sufis.)

Gurdjieff wrote things down very carefully and he meant what he said. He put "merging with reality" prominently and in pride of place in the prologue to his third series which was intended to be the teaching that would show people the actual way to practice his system.

Since the first series was preparing people by deconstructing their mistaken views, and since ISOTM was aimed at recruiting intelligentsia of Europe oriented toward science and western ideas, and since he taught by showing people their current situation and the next step, and since he thought describing the ultimate reality and the aim of the work in words was impossible and unhelpful other than to speak of the hidden unity, he would not have spoken of "merging with reality" in most of his teachings but only in his most advanced teachings for committed people already on their way.

"Merging with reality" is no aberration in Gurdjieff's teaching. It fits both the matrix of his teaching and many other non-dual things he said. It's not something we should ignore because he doesn't say it on every page. A non-dual tradition naturally speaks most about how to wake up to realty, rather than trying to describe a reality that cannot be described. We can't erase this idea from Gurdjieff's teaching because we disagree with it, or our egoism is scared by it. It's worth repeating over and over. If Gurdjieff is right, people who practice his system will eventually contact a reality in which all is one and verify this form themselves.

Buddhism is founded on non-dualism, although the term is not found in the surviving reports of Buddha’s own words. He does describe reality in non-dualist terms in many passages, however. For example he says that we cannot say the universe arises, or that it doesn’t arise. He says he cannot say he will exist after the death of his body, or that he will not exist. He uses the catuskoti, which emphasizes the non-duality his rejection of opposites. Later Mahayana authors coined the term non-dual for this belief about the nature of how things really are.

When people say Gurdjieff’s ideas are incompatible with non-dualism, they are saying that Guradjieff rejected Buddhism which is based on it. They are saying that Gurdjieff had a whole different view of the nature of reality and the aim of transformational work than Buddhism. These claims are shown to be mistaken by Gurdjieff’s own great reviews of Buddhism. Bennett wrote:

"[Gurdjieff] certainly had a deep respect for Lamaism. In Beelzebub's Tales, he asserts that a group of seven lamas possessed both knowledge and spiritual powers unparalleled elsewhere on earth, and that the accidental death of the chief of the group had destroyed one of the hopes of mankind. A further point is that in one of his most remarkable spiritual exercises Gurdjieff placed 'Lama' on the same footing as Muhammad, Buddha and Christ,..."

The whole premise of Lamaism is that the world is an illusion and the aim is to merge with reality. These are things Gurdjieff himself said in his first lectures recorded in ISOTM, in later lectures, and in his final writings in "Life is real." decades later.

Gurdjieff speaks of the "real world" at times. So does Buddhism. The Absolute is the real world, and that is what Lamaism says is also our most real I. Gurdjieff says the real world, the Absolute, world 1, is a unity. Buddhism usually but not always prefers to say it is not a multiplicity, being more concerned with technical philosophical precision than Gurdjieff, who spurned it.

If the world is illusory, what is in the world is illusory. The world we perceive has other individuals in it, separate from the world, independent agents. One of the agents we perceive in this world is us, me. The quote you provide confirms that Gurdjieff understood and stated that these individuals are illusory, including ourselves.

Gurdjieff said that sleep (the opposite of awakening, which is the meaning of "buddhi") is first of all identification (in Buddhism a false sense of "I", what I am). It is people who are identified with their feeling of "I", "me" and "mine", with their common presence, who cannot tolerate the idea the world they perceive is an illusion. It's what Gurdjieff said and wrote more than once. They ignore it. He didn't really mean it because he didn't say it every five minutes. They can't tolerate that what they think is their Real I they worked so hard for is not the final Real I, that it must become passive to complete their work just like their personality had to become passive (generously assuming that it did) to reach the first step. That the entire world they perceive, which includes all the people they perceive including themselves, is an illusion, is scary. It's frightening. It seems like the paranoid delusion of a psychotic. It can even be disgusting. It's definitely impossible to comprehend. It's totally counter-intuitive and goes against all our perceptions. This explains why Gurdjieff seeking to attract students didn't emphasize these ideas in his introductory talks and beginning instruction. Since the actual aim of mystical practice cannot be expressed in words, trying to do so especially in the beginning of instruction can be more misleading than helpful.

Gurdjieff graded his teaching to the level of his students. Much of his writing refers to lower aims, within the grasp of his pupils and understandable by them.

The same things are true of Buddhism. In the Pali Suttas, Gotama mostly refused to say anything directly about the nature of reality or the state of the awakened. His beginning instructions and practices often have much lower and more attainable aims for beginners than Nirvana.