Michael Pittman, Classical Spirituality in Contemporary America: The Confluence and Contribution of G. I. Gurdjieff and Sufism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Gurdjieff and Sufism: A Contested Relationship
CESNUR, University of Tallinn, Estonia: 18-20 June 2015
The origins of the ‘system’ taught by the Greek-Armenian esoteric spiritual teacher, George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (c. 1866-1949) remain obscure, and its sources have been sought in a range of religious traditions, most commonly Buddhism, Christianity, and Sufism. This paper examines the claim that Gurdjieff’s teaching is broadly derived from Islamic sources, in particular central Asian Sufism. Gurdjieff spoke of his system as ‘esoteric Christianity’, and his cosmology owes much to neo-Platonism, in particular the works of Iamblichus (Azize 2010). However, Sufi influence is here identified in five areas of the Work. First, his travels in search of wisdom, chronicled in a fictionalised form in Meetings With Remarkable Men (1963), seemingly led him to Sufi monasteries in Afghanistan, where he learned the meditative technique of ‘self-remembering’ (Hunt 2003). Second, the sacred dances or ‘Movements’ that Gurdjieff taught have been hypothesised to originate in dervish dances (Barber 1986). Third, his pupil John Godolphin Bennett (1897-1974) identified Gurdjieff’s distinctive persona and teaching method, involving insults and ‘shocks’, as an instantiation of the Sufi ‘way of blame’ or malamatiyyah (Bennett 1973). Fourth, Gurdjieff’s famous nine-sided figure, the Enneagram, has been dubiously linked to Sufism and used by neo-Sufis and post-Gurdjieffians, including the psychologist and spiritual teacher A. Hameed Ali (b. 1944), better-known as A. H. Almaas (Almaas 1998). Finally, John Bennett’s involvement in the Indonesian new religion Subud (founded by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo, 1901-1987), itself often claimed as a form of (Javanese) Sufism, is explored. It is concluded that although it is valid to identify Sufi influences within the Gurdjieff ‘Work’, it is inaccurate to state that Gurdjieff was a Sufi teacher or that the Work is a modern, Westernised form of Sufism (and thus an ‘Islamic’ new religious movement).
Editors' Introduction, G. I. Gurdjieff and the Study of Religion/s
International Journal for the Study of New Religions, 2015
George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (c. 1866–1949) is often spoken of as one of the foundational figures of modern “secularized” mysticism (Hunt 2003, 225–250), yet he is far less studied than other foundational figures such as Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831–1891), co-founder of the Theosophical Society, and Rudolf Steiner (1851–1925), founder of Anthroposophy. Much of Gurdjieff’s biography is speculative, and his teaching (termed the “Fourth Way,” or the “Work”) is contested in terms of its sources (Christian, Sufi, Traditionalism), and its proper scholarly classification (religion, spiritual- ity, esotericism, psychology). Indeed “insider” accounts of varying inflection continue to dominate publications about Gurdjieff (Sutcliffe 2014). With the exception of the monograph by Webb (1980), some sections of wider studies (Rawlinson 1997, 282–313; Hunt 2003, 225–249) and a compen- dium of Gurdjieffian concepts that requires prior familiarity (Wellbeloved 2003), analysis of Gurdjieff within the academic Study of Religion/s remains an emergent field. Two recent examples are the four chapters under the title “The Gurdjieff Work” in Cusack and Norman (2012, 237–348) and the spe- cial issue of the Journal for the Academic Study of Religion (Cusack 2014). This present issue contributes further to this new wave in the study of Gurdjieff, and like these recent texts, it approaches its subject within the historical, comparative and theoretical concerns of the Study of Religion/s.
G. I. Gurdjieff and the Study of Religion
George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (c. 1866-1949) is often spoken of as one of the three foundational figures of both new religious movements (NRMs) and modern ‘secularised’ esotericism. His teachings have been accorded significant influence on the ‘New Age’, yet he is far less studied than the two other foundational figures, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), co-founder of Theosophy, and Rudolf Steiner (1851-1925), founder of Anthroposophy. Much of Gurdjieff’s biography is speculative, and his teaching (termed the ‘Fourth Way’, or the ‘Work’) is contested in terms of its sources (Christian, Sufi, original standalone system) and its proper scholarly classification (religion, spirituality, esotericism). The academic study of the Gurdjieff tradition has been slow to develop, and insider, sui generis accounts still dominate publications about Gurdjieff. This issue considers issues including Gurdjieff’s sources and teaching techniques, the proper scholarly placement of Gurdjieff in Religious Studies, and orthodox and heterodox continuations of the Gurdjieff teaching.
Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, Vol. 14, Issue 1, 2023, pp. 156-174.
The volume comprises thirty-three essays; it opens with a general introduction by the editors, and it is divided into five parts, each one with its own brief introduction.
The period between the ninth and twelfth centuries in the development of the Sufi movement in Islam infrequently attracts scholarly study. The lack of textual evidence and the apparent unreliability of the available materials are among the major reasons for this. Hagiographies, which are our main sources, have long been regarded in a negative light, and their value for our understanding of the early history of Sufism is held in doubt. More recently, however, a new scholarly voice has begun to reclaim the historical value of hagiographies.1 There is a crucial need to go beyond what can be seen as a " macro-oriented " method of grouping the names of the figures whose activities contributed to the appearance of Sufism, during the early medieval centuries. Scholarship on Sufism should shift its focus onto the " micro-oriented " achievements of each individual figure in order to reconstruct, as far as the available material allows, the social, religious and interpersonal realities. Around the teachings and life stories of early Sufi personalities, " a wide spectrum of subsidiary subjects are dealt with concerning customs, social practices and historical development of ideas in Sufism " , as was asserted by Radtke and O'Kane in reference to Meier's monograph on Abū Saʿīd Abū al-Khayr (d. 1049).2 Studying the distinct modes of religiosity of different personalities in their particular socio-intellectual contexts will enable us to effectively reappraise early Sufism as the constituting of individual fragments and interpersonal dynamics, and later on to set out from a more stable starting point in order to understand the general development
In the Muslim historical and cultural context, examples of peaceful means to negotiation must be explored to break down the stereotypical assumptions about Islamic endorsement of or mandate toward violent means to address religious and social differences. The following paper explores the life and leadership model of Idries Shah (1924-1966) as one such case of an individual whose Sufi Muslim convictions provided a natural platform for Koestler’s model of the yogi. Shah’s strategy primarily targeted Western audiences whose misperceptions of Islamic thought and practice contributed to conflict. His literary works in Sufism provided peaceful means to discuss Islam through honest exploration of mysticism, magic, fables and storytelling rather than resorting to a rigid interpretation of the Qur’an, reiterating of Hadith or a legal discussion on sharia. As exemplified by Shah, Sufism had the potential to address twentieth century crises of globalization through a peaceful exchange of wisdom and spiritual renewal.