Forwarded from Occult of Personality
Gurdjieff deconstructing astrology.
At one time, and as a part of a general discussion on the "deterioration of knowledge and science" in the modern world, Gurdjieff brought up the subject of astrology. He claimed that many centuries ago it had been a "really genuine science" and very different from the present-day conception of astrology. As an example of the way in which it had been "civilized and misinterpreted" he said that the astrological signs were originally "invented" to synthesize the particular characteristics against which a given individual would have to fight―or to struggle―in the course of life on earth.
He said that an individual born under the sign and influence of Aries, the Ram, should―properly―remember that the Ram was a symbol of the characteristics of his nature against which he should struggle in order to achieve harmony and balance within himself.
Scorpio, in this interpretation (the female kills the male when mating has been accomplished), could generally be interpreted as a "killing" sign, although he did not mean killing in a physical sense.
He went on to point out that Pisces and Gemini were the two obvious dual signs, but that they represented two different kinds of duality. In Pisces, it is warring duality―two fishes, tied together (as they are sometimes depicted in old engravings and drawings) but struggling to break the bond between themselves―in other words, Pisceans have to struggle against a self-divisive tendency in their own natures. Gemini, on the contrary, represented a merging duality, and the struggle was against ingrowingness and towards separation. Sagittarius has to struggle against destructiveness (the arrow aimed against the world) . . . and so on. The straightforward simple method being to find out what your, sign symbolized in your mind and relate it to your natural characteristics.
Gurdjieff did not discuss all the signs in detail, but suggested that once one could discover, for oneself, what the sign symbolized or represented in the way of characteristics (or compulsions) in one's self, then one would have to remind oneself that such a synthesis represented those elements against which one would have to fight throughout life―what might be called the "built-in obstacles" in one's own nature that were part of the key to "self-perfection" or growth; the necessary obstacles standing in the path to development. He added that, as was usual in all great, ancient sciences, the lesson was never clearly stated, but could only be learned with effort, and that a great part of the problem in astrology was the individual's particular interpretation of the meaning of his sign for himself. Going back to Aries, as a convenient example, he said that it was not only that persons born under this sign would have to struggle against their tendency to "ram" (or batter) in various circumstances and situations, but that it would also depend upon their interpretation of "ramming" and their personal analysis and understanding of the ways in which this compulsive characteristic was manifested. The sign, in other words, was a key―an indication―for all persons born under it, but since each person differed individually, it would be necessary for them to find out for themselves in what particular ways the sign manifested in their individuality.
He warned that in the particular, individual search and analysis of such characteristics, a clue usually could be found if one was able to observe, objectively, the characteristics within oneself to which one is inordinately attached. He said that while it was very hard to observe one's personal prejudices and "pleasing characteristics" with real objectivity, it was nevertheless necessary to do so in order to evaluate oneself correctly. In this, other people could be useful, as through them it was possible to observe the effects (upon them) of one's own recurring, individual manifestations.
At one time, and as a part of a general discussion on the "deterioration of knowledge and science" in the modern world, Gurdjieff brought up the subject of astrology. He claimed that many centuries ago it had been a "really genuine science" and very different from the present-day conception of astrology. As an example of the way in which it had been "civilized and misinterpreted" he said that the astrological signs were originally "invented" to synthesize the particular characteristics against which a given individual would have to fight―or to struggle―in the course of life on earth.
He said that an individual born under the sign and influence of Aries, the Ram, should―properly―remember that the Ram was a symbol of the characteristics of his nature against which he should struggle in order to achieve harmony and balance within himself.
Scorpio, in this interpretation (the female kills the male when mating has been accomplished), could generally be interpreted as a "killing" sign, although he did not mean killing in a physical sense.
He went on to point out that Pisces and Gemini were the two obvious dual signs, but that they represented two different kinds of duality. In Pisces, it is warring duality―two fishes, tied together (as they are sometimes depicted in old engravings and drawings) but struggling to break the bond between themselves―in other words, Pisceans have to struggle against a self-divisive tendency in their own natures. Gemini, on the contrary, represented a merging duality, and the struggle was against ingrowingness and towards separation. Sagittarius has to struggle against destructiveness (the arrow aimed against the world) . . . and so on. The straightforward simple method being to find out what your, sign symbolized in your mind and relate it to your natural characteristics.
Gurdjieff did not discuss all the signs in detail, but suggested that once one could discover, for oneself, what the sign symbolized or represented in the way of characteristics (or compulsions) in one's self, then one would have to remind oneself that such a synthesis represented those elements against which one would have to fight throughout life―what might be called the "built-in obstacles" in one's own nature that were part of the key to "self-perfection" or growth; the necessary obstacles standing in the path to development. He added that, as was usual in all great, ancient sciences, the lesson was never clearly stated, but could only be learned with effort, and that a great part of the problem in astrology was the individual's particular interpretation of the meaning of his sign for himself. Going back to Aries, as a convenient example, he said that it was not only that persons born under this sign would have to struggle against their tendency to "ram" (or batter) in various circumstances and situations, but that it would also depend upon their interpretation of "ramming" and their personal analysis and understanding of the ways in which this compulsive characteristic was manifested. The sign, in other words, was a key―an indication―for all persons born under it, but since each person differed individually, it would be necessary for them to find out for themselves in what particular ways the sign manifested in their individuality.
He warned that in the particular, individual search and analysis of such characteristics, a clue usually could be found if one was able to observe, objectively, the characteristics within oneself to which one is inordinately attached. He said that while it was very hard to observe one's personal prejudices and "pleasing characteristics" with real objectivity, it was nevertheless necessary to do so in order to evaluate oneself correctly. In this, other people could be useful, as through them it was possible to observe the effects (upon them) of one's own recurring, individual manifestations.
❤10🔥4🤔4❤🔥2
Forwarded from Occult of Personality
One way to discover those things within ourselves to which we are attached, which we like and of which we are proud (although perhaps quite unconsciously), is the frequency of their repetition in outward manifestations―in dealings with other people. Such recurrent manifestations could be the first clue to our "vanities", which in turn should be interpreted in relation to the characteristics of our astrological sign.
In an attempt to give an easily comprehensible, hypothetical example, and a very obvious one, he said that if a given individual should observe that in his dealings with other people he manifested a certain, persistent, recurring insistence on "having his own way", and that such a person turned out to be someone who was born under the sign of Aries, the implication is fairly obvious.
Learn how, consciously, not to insist. If a Piscean was also "insisting" in this sense, the insistence might be interpreted as a "onesided" insistence; and it might be necessary to learn, consciously, to "insist" with the other half of one's nature.
If a person born under the sign of Aries can learn not to insist in his dealings with other people (assuming that he has found he does so), he will at least have learned the possibility of not being insistent in his own self-struggles towards growth or development.
Any recurring manifestation (any unconscious habit) is, of necessity, a form of blindness in that the repetitive manifestations, by its very operation, prevents conscious activity.
In relating this rather general conversation to Gurdjieff's "work" or his "method" I could only conclude, personally, that it is a fairly clear example of his teaching ― fundamentally, the discussion seemed to me to emphasize the need to produce constant struggle within oneself which, generally, was the basis of his method―anything to keep the pot boiling. Anything, including astrology.
The simplest guidepost that he gave in this discussion of astrology and the signs of the Zodiac was to watch for those things in oneself which one "loves"―whether they were physical, emotional, or mental manifestations, compulsions, habits, or characteristics (he gave a choice of terms). If you "loved" your hands as a physical feature―this was a clue of a kind; something to do with the use or function of the hands. If you "loved" or "cherished" your propensity for eloquence, this was another clue. If you loved or were proud of the fact that you were always "honest" . . . another clue. And so on.
Not much in the way of answers, but as he admonished repeatedly, there are no answers except the ones that one finds for oneself.
~ Fritz Peters 'My Journey With A Mystic'
In an attempt to give an easily comprehensible, hypothetical example, and a very obvious one, he said that if a given individual should observe that in his dealings with other people he manifested a certain, persistent, recurring insistence on "having his own way", and that such a person turned out to be someone who was born under the sign of Aries, the implication is fairly obvious.
Learn how, consciously, not to insist. If a Piscean was also "insisting" in this sense, the insistence might be interpreted as a "onesided" insistence; and it might be necessary to learn, consciously, to "insist" with the other half of one's nature.
If a person born under the sign of Aries can learn not to insist in his dealings with other people (assuming that he has found he does so), he will at least have learned the possibility of not being insistent in his own self-struggles towards growth or development.
Any recurring manifestation (any unconscious habit) is, of necessity, a form of blindness in that the repetitive manifestations, by its very operation, prevents conscious activity.
In relating this rather general conversation to Gurdjieff's "work" or his "method" I could only conclude, personally, that it is a fairly clear example of his teaching ― fundamentally, the discussion seemed to me to emphasize the need to produce constant struggle within oneself which, generally, was the basis of his method―anything to keep the pot boiling. Anything, including astrology.
The simplest guidepost that he gave in this discussion of astrology and the signs of the Zodiac was to watch for those things in oneself which one "loves"―whether they were physical, emotional, or mental manifestations, compulsions, habits, or characteristics (he gave a choice of terms). If you "loved" your hands as a physical feature―this was a clue of a kind; something to do with the use or function of the hands. If you "loved" or "cherished" your propensity for eloquence, this was another clue. If you loved or were proud of the fact that you were always "honest" . . . another clue. And so on.
Not much in the way of answers, but as he admonished repeatedly, there are no answers except the ones that one finds for oneself.
~ Fritz Peters 'My Journey With A Mystic'
🔥5❤🔥3