One easy principle for popularity is to imitate the popular. Gurdjieff was against personality cult. He hid himself behind so many curtains that nobody may know who he was. Here this book seeks to tell us who he was.
Am I for or against Gurdjieff? Both, of course, as one is for and against God, for and against oneself, for and against one’s life. Hagiography is a different thing. It matters not who is shocked. If everything was clear there would have been only one explanation, one moral code, one faith, for the last hundred thousand years. Or, more exactly, there would be no faith. Read Ouspensky and say whether you are for or against him. To my mind, those who swallow the Gurdjievian cosmogony whole, and those who reject it out of hand, are equally wrong and, above all, equally superficial. Those who study Gurdjieff, alive or dead, without either fear or respect, are equally naïve. From such a man one takes and rejects, one is both wary and receptive. One struggles with him. To struggle with Gurdjieff (and not against him) is to understand him, to know him, and, in the end, to love him.
As for putting him on a pedestal, especially after his death, that is the most sinister trick that well-meaning Gurdjieffians could possibly play on him. That is to show true disrespect. (Gurdjieff – A reading guide | 3rd Edition — 2004 | Edited by J. Walter Driscoll.)
As far as I understand, he never wanted to be immortal. He intentionally did not leave behind any legacy except his thoughts and two books. Those who claim this legacy must show that they can claim it. Her true pupil said she was not concerned as to who Gurdjieff was so long he was her Teacher. May god help these authors.
© Sandeep Bhalla