What do you think?
Rate this book
Gurdjieff a la Luz de La Tradicion
El autor de Tesoro de sabiduría tradicional, una de las joyas de la espiritualidad universal, hace en este pequeño libro una crítica incisiva y radical del maestro seudoesotérico por antonomasia, mostrando sus contradiccions y los caminos falsos por los que lleva a sus discípulos.
108 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 14, 2025
After finishing this book, I think I would agree with several things & some are more striking than before. Gurdjieff was clearly some kind of psychopath, but not necessarily one-dimensionally negative (nor positive). Throughout the text, anecdotes from life and learning are constantly intertwined, so it is sometimes difficult to untangle various threads. The problem comes a lot from his pupil J.G.Bennett ("Witness"), and even more from Fritz Peters, GIG's son or stepson, who, although he grew up in the cult environment and was constantly in contact with his father, wanted to dissociate from it- at the same time remaining a somewhat sympathetic observer. Peters' conclusion is that GIG was a "real phony".
But I would single out three things that seem to me to be fundamental and essentially difficult to refute:
a) his followers were sheeple, whatever their status. Every single one of them. They were weak-willed & uncritical people, practically all of them & in all phases. The others, e.g. dissenters like Guenon and Crowley rejected him, mostly as an inferior black magician. Louis Pauwels and some others were more appreciative, while a Jungian analyst who observed the entire circus in Prieure for a year concluded it was collective hypnosis with elements of brainwashing psychosis. It is important to point out that, whatever the attitude of his followers-addicts, for external observers - they withered in the cult following, losing energy & individuality & did not grow as independent human beings. They did not flourish; they did not rebel; they did not develop their own personalities & their lives were of, I would say- codependents. So, his influence here - if judged by these parameters - is unequivocally negative. It is certain that he often drugged a number of his followers: he cooked big lunches himself - so he must have mixed something because he knew these things.
b) doubtless, he was an authentic hypnotist, magnetist, thaumaturgist. There are countless testimonies to this. In some cases, those who came to him to see it, felt it as some energy, albeit more negative, like paralysis, has been drawn from them & they broke away from it - but if they had to break away, there was something. It can be attributed to the tricks of the hypnotist without any para-energy, but the effects are there. According to the effects, it is a transfer and manipulation of vital energy, and not anything like Tantric shaktipat. A part of these students experienced, I would say periods of expanded and energized ego-consciousness, but not transpersonal consciousness on a personal level, let alone cosmic of any degree. GIG, either naturally talented (certainly), or self-taught, but probably initiated into some shamanic elements in Central Asian Sufism and perhaps marginally into Tibetan Bon in Ladakh, maintained himself and his health beyond all expectations. I knew he had a serious car accident sometime in the 1920s or 30s, but I forgot - or didn't notice - that a year before his death, in 1948, he had a serious car accident that left him with broken ribs, a fractured skull, bleeding from his ear... and refused X-rays, penicillin, painkillers - and within two weeks he recovered, on his own. On the one hand, some people have practically incomprehensible vitality even without esoteric manipulations (R.F. Burton) - but GIG almost certainly had some auto-manipulative methods to improve his mobility. But then he quickly fell into edema and died. At the autopsy, the doctors said that he was so ruined inside that he should have been dead a long time ago. However, he often helped others to raise their vitality. Regarding the story about the man-as-machine (his central idea) - he is a proof of this because even in those busy, but not so extreme situations, he was" asleep" according to his own criteria. Simply - he did not have functional consciousness and motor skills at necessary periods. The few cases that speak of his influence as willingly expanding others' consciousness are suspicious because they come from enchanted uncritical followers.
c) in terms of sources - I would say he was an original eclectic. It is almost certain that he wandered around Central Asia and that this was his main source, not as some system - there were also gnostic old Christians there, shamanic Sufis, Bon shamans & Buddhists were not far away. The author Perry has well noticed that the mysterious Sarmoung "brotherhood", supposed Gurdjieff's initiatory source are - GIG itself. He interestingly noticed that the GIG system is materialism - only I would say spiritual materialism. He finds analogies with Democritus and the Indian Charvaka materialists. But that is only a starting point. GIG constantly talks about vibrations, which of course is not found in early atomists. But that vibratory concept is not found among traditional Westerners, the Hermetic-Platonic tradition included. I would say - not Perry - that this is the influence of India-Tibet, because they operate with these ideas (mantras, vibrations, etc.). The "laws" of 3 and 7: 3- Gurdjieff ripped from Hindu gunas, and 7 could pass as a general archaic esoteric idea, perhaps quasi-Pythagorean . He built a scheme that is from the construction of those "atoms" (having nothing to do with real atoms) into higher and higher structures ( man number 4., 5., 6.---, and so up to the archangels & more). So it's some bizarre spiritual materialism. He rejected all traditions; I would say that he picked up some main occult ideas and built his own system. For example it is emphasized that Taoism is the only one that has the building of the soul, etc. - but GIG's "physics" and physiology have nothing to do with Taoism. My judgment is - he is original, and so he put together a system by taking some ideas from others, and he put them together himself, added some of his own and got a new one.
In summary, his system is vastly inferior to the great traditional ones of the East and the West, when we know the nuances. But there are some interesting things: I would say that emphasizing that man is a machine may be fascinating at first glance, but radically and mechanically it gives poor results, and it seems crude to the widespread doctrines that speak of the spectrum of consciousness, so it is not either-or, but rather a continuum; his theses that God is mortal (plus some contradictions) are meaningless; he himself was a fascinating speaker whatever he said, while as a writer he was atrocious and could not articulate his ideas not because he was a prankster & trickster with some "deep" stuff- simply, he lacked education & did not posses an analytical mind. When Ouspensky published "In Search of the Miraculous", GIG fell into ecstasy - although he was separated from his former pupil, he said: That is all, the best exposition, the complete thing. I would conclude that by vocation he was a guru, a dynamic and vital person, a hypnotist and a magnetist, oriented to worldly things (from food to sex), and no emotional believer or intellectual; he had no interest or knowledge in culture & knowledge, even that related to elaborated metaphysical ancient high doctrines; despite all his constructs - and he had a call to create an esoteric system, a doctrine- hence his ambitious writing enterprise (plus added some messianic complex): he did not have the idea or the talent to shape something that could be judged as transpersonal and transcendent teaching. Harmonious development, his darling idea: nothing of that, neither for him, nor for his students galore. Likewise, when new ideas flourished in the West (psychoanalysis, quantum theory,...) he had no interest & dismissed them outright - but neither did he have interest in the great traditional culture of the East & the West. He was actually poorly educated. In addition to vitality, it seems that he really had a gift for music, so he worked a lot on it himself, both composing and playing, in the function of his designed movements/exercises (it was clearly stated that they have nothing to do with the Mevlevi order dervishes or some Indian equivalents) which, so the theory goes- should, transform the beings of the participants.
So - original, confused, inferior to true doctrines, an authentic charismatic eager for life with a streak of messianic pathology and a certain sadistic cruelty and indifference that cannot be erased by outpourings of charity to many.
The story of this guru, as are those of Castaneda, Idries Shah, Osho Rajneesh, Oscar Ichazo, various transplanted yogis & lamas... is instructive: don't be sheeple.
But I would single out three things that seem to me to be fundamental and essentially difficult to refute:
a) his followers were sheeple, whatever their status. Every single one of them. They were weak-willed & uncritical people, practically all of them & in all phases. The others, e.g. dissenters like Guenon and Crowley rejected him, mostly as an inferior black magician. Louis Pauwels and some others were more appreciative, while a Jungian analyst who observed the entire circus in Prieure for a year concluded it was collective hypnosis with elements of brainwashing psychosis. It is important to point out that, whatever the attitude of his followers-addicts, for external observers - they withered in the cult following, losing energy & individuality & did not grow as independent human beings. They did not flourish; they did not rebel; they did not develop their own personalities & their lives were of, I would say- codependents. So, his influence here - if judged by these parameters - is unequivocally negative. It is certain that he often drugged a number of his followers: he cooked big lunches himself - so he must have mixed something because he knew these things.
b) doubtless, he was an authentic hypnotist, magnetist, thaumaturgist. There are countless testimonies to this. In some cases, those who came to him to see it, felt it as some energy, albeit more negative, like paralysis, has been drawn from them & they broke away from it - but if they had to break away, there was something. It can be attributed to the tricks of the hypnotist without any para-energy, but the effects are there. According to the effects, it is a transfer and manipulation of vital energy, and not anything like Tantric shaktipat. A part of these students experienced, I would say periods of expanded and energized ego-consciousness, but not transpersonal consciousness on a personal level, let alone cosmic of any degree. GIG, either naturally talented (certainly), or self-taught, but probably initiated into some shamanic elements in Central Asian Sufism and perhaps marginally into Tibetan Bon in Ladakh, maintained himself and his health beyond all expectations. I knew he had a serious car accident sometime in the 1920s or 30s, but I forgot - or didn't notice - that a year before his death, in 1948, he had a serious car accident that left him with broken ribs, a fractured skull, bleeding from his ear... and refused X-rays, penicillin, painkillers - and within two weeks he recovered, on his own. On the one hand, some people have practically incomprehensible vitality even without esoteric manipulations (R.F. Burton) - but GIG almost certainly had some auto-manipulative methods to improve his mobility. But then he quickly fell into edema and died. At the autopsy, the doctors said that he was so ruined inside that he should have been dead a long time ago. However, he often helped others to raise their vitality. Regarding the story about the man-as-machine (his central idea) - he is a proof of this because even in those busy, but not so extreme situations, he was" asleep" according to his own criteria. Simply - he did not have functional consciousness and motor skills at necessary periods. The few cases that speak of his influence as willingly expanding others' consciousness are suspicious because they come from enchanted uncritical followers.
c) in terms of sources - I would say he was an original eclectic. It is almost certain that he wandered around Central Asia and that this was his main source, not as some system - there were also gnostic old Christians there, shamanic Sufis, Bon shamans & Buddhists were not far away. The author Perry has well noticed that the mysterious Sarmoung "brotherhood", supposed Gurdjieff's initiatory source are - GIG itself. He interestingly noticed that the GIG system is materialism - only I would say spiritual materialism. He finds analogies with Democritus and the Indian Charvaka materialists. But that is only a starting point. GIG constantly talks about vibrations, which of course is not found in early atomists. But that vibratory concept is not found among traditional Westerners, the Hermetic-Platonic tradition included. I would say - not Perry - that this is the influence of India-Tibet, because they operate with these ideas (mantras, vibrations, etc.). The "laws" of 3 and 7: 3- Gurdjieff ripped from Hindu gunas, and 7 could pass as a general archaic esoteric idea, perhaps quasi-Pythagorean . He built a scheme that is from the construction of those "atoms" (having nothing to do with real atoms) into higher and higher structures ( man number 4., 5., 6.---, and so up to the archangels & more). So it's some bizarre spiritual materialism. He rejected all traditions; I would say that he picked up some main occult ideas and built his own system. For example it is emphasized that Taoism is the only one that has the building of the soul, etc. - but GIG's "physics" and physiology have nothing to do with Taoism. My judgment is - he is original, and so he put together a system by taking some ideas from others, and he put them together himself, added some of his own and got a new one.
In summary, his system is vastly inferior to the great traditional ones of the East and the West, when we know the nuances. But there are some interesting things: I would say that emphasizing that man is a machine may be fascinating at first glance, but radically and mechanically it gives poor results, and it seems crude to the widespread doctrines that speak of the spectrum of consciousness, so it is not either-or, but rather a continuum; his theses that God is mortal (plus some contradictions) are meaningless; he himself was a fascinating speaker whatever he said, while as a writer he was atrocious and could not articulate his ideas not because he was a prankster & trickster with some "deep" stuff- simply, he lacked education & did not posses an analytical mind. When Ouspensky published "In Search of the Miraculous", GIG fell into ecstasy - although he was separated from his former pupil, he said: That is all, the best exposition, the complete thing. I would conclude that by vocation he was a guru, a dynamic and vital person, a hypnotist and a magnetist, oriented to worldly things (from food to sex), and no emotional believer or intellectual; he had no interest or knowledge in culture & knowledge, even that related to elaborated metaphysical ancient high doctrines; despite all his constructs - and he had a call to create an esoteric system, a doctrine- hence his ambitious writing enterprise (plus added some messianic complex): he did not have the idea or the talent to shape something that could be judged as transpersonal and transcendent teaching. Harmonious development, his darling idea: nothing of that, neither for him, nor for his students galore. Likewise, when new ideas flourished in the West (psychoanalysis, quantum theory,...) he had no interest & dismissed them outright - but neither did he have interest in the great traditional culture of the East & the West. He was actually poorly educated. In addition to vitality, it seems that he really had a gift for music, so he worked a lot on it himself, both composing and playing, in the function of his designed movements/exercises (it was clearly stated that they have nothing to do with the Mevlevi order dervishes or some Indian equivalents) which, so the theory goes- should, transform the beings of the participants.
So - original, confused, inferior to true doctrines, an authentic charismatic eager for life with a streak of messianic pathology and a certain sadistic cruelty and indifference that cannot be erased by outpourings of charity to many.
The story of this guru, as are those of Castaneda, Idries Shah, Osho Rajneesh, Oscar Ichazo, various transplanted yogis & lamas... is instructive: don't be sheeple.
August 25, 2023
This rather slim work is an excellent counter-balance to a great deal of Gurdjieff's magnetic personality; Whitall, with all his Traditionalist erudition, shows how for those seeking to ascent the Divine Ladder to perfect unity with God, the Good, etc. is possibly hampered by Gurdjieff's emphasis on the subpersonal facets of man's being. More specifically, Perry demonstrates the absurdity of modern man that, through fields of inquiry such as hypnotism, psychoanalysis, and the oft-butchered idea of Hinduism's kundalini, one can effectively transcend the falsity of dualisms. In the third section on Gurdjieff's time spent at the Château du Prieuré, Perry draws out the implication of Gurdjieff's cosmological doctrine and its possible disintegration of man's spiritual disposition (re: Crowley's own decline from trying to "use chaos as a self-overcoming.")
So while it is unfair to say that Gurdjieff is a "devil" or an otherwise wicked man, all that is Good in Gurdjieff will potentially break modern man, because modern man is an inherently fragmented sort of pneuma. Perry's parting question is one that is very easily disguised by the star-struck nature of Gurdjieff's inner enneagram: if God is omnipotent, then Gurdjieff's system of "materialistic atomism as occultism" is remarkably thorny; if God is not omnipotent but is more akin to a cosmic, infinitely embodied Demiurge, then Gurdjieff is spot on. Nevertheless, read Gurdjieff as an inspired man.
So while it is unfair to say that Gurdjieff is a "devil" or an otherwise wicked man, all that is Good in Gurdjieff will potentially break modern man, because modern man is an inherently fragmented sort of pneuma. Perry's parting question is one that is very easily disguised by the star-struck nature of Gurdjieff's inner enneagram: if God is omnipotent, then Gurdjieff's system of "materialistic atomism as occultism" is remarkably thorny; if God is not omnipotent but is more akin to a cosmic, infinitely embodied Demiurge, then Gurdjieff is spot on. Nevertheless, read Gurdjieff as an inspired man.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews