What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fourth Way
The Fourth Way is the most comprehensive statement thus far published of the ideas taught by the late P.D. Ouspensky. Consisting of verbatim records of his oral teaching from 1921 to 1946, it gives a lucid explanation of the practical side of G. I. Gurdjieff's teachings, which Gurdjieff presented in the form of raw materials, Ouspensky's specific task having been to put them together as a systematic whole.
Just as Tertium Organum deals with a new mode of thinking, so The Fourth Way is concerned with a new way of living. It shows a way of inner development to be followed under the ordinary conditions of life -- as distinct from the three traditional ways that call for retirement from the world: the fakir, the monk, and the yogi.
The Fourth Way is a guide for those who seek a true way of inner growth under conditions open to the men and women of today.
Just as Tertium Organum deals with a new mode of thinking, so The Fourth Way is concerned with a new way of living. It shows a way of inner development to be followed under the ordinary conditions of life -- as distinct from the three traditional ways that call for retirement from the world: the fakir, the monk, and the yogi.
The Fourth Way is a guide for those who seek a true way of inner growth under conditions open to the men and women of today.
450 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 17, 1957
401 people are currently reading
2,415 people want to read
About the author
P.D. Ouspensky
148books400followersPyotr Demianovich Ouspenskii (known in English as Peter D. Ouspensky, Пётр Демья́нович Успе́нский; was a Russian mathematician and esotericist known for his expositions of the early work of the Greek-Armenian teacher of esoteric doctrine George Gurdjieff, whom he met in Moscow in 1915. He was associated with the ideas and practices originating with Gurdjieff from then on. He shared the (Gurdjieff) "system" for 25 years in England and the United States, having separated from Gurdjieff in 1924 personally, for reasons he explains in the last chapter of his book In Search of the Miraculous.
All in all, Ouspensky studied the Gurdjieff system directly under Gurdjieff's own supervision for a period of ten years, from 1915 to 1924. His book In Search of the Miraculous is a recounting of what he learned from Gurdjieff during those years. While lecturing in London in 1924, he announced that he would continue independently the way he had begun in 1921. Some, including his close pupil Rodney Collin, say that he finally gave up the system in 1947, just before his death, but his own recorded words on the subject ("A Record of Meetings", published posthumously) do not clearly endorse this judgement, nor does Ouspensky's emphasis on "you must make a new beginning" after confessing "I've left the system".
All in all, Ouspensky studied the Gurdjieff system directly under Gurdjieff's own supervision for a period of ten years, from 1915 to 1924. His book In Search of the Miraculous is a recounting of what he learned from Gurdjieff during those years. While lecturing in London in 1924, he announced that he would continue independently the way he had begun in 1921. Some, including his close pupil Rodney Collin, say that he finally gave up the system in 1947, just before his death, but his own recorded words on the subject ("A Record of Meetings", published posthumously) do not clearly endorse this judgement, nor does Ouspensky's emphasis on "you must make a new beginning" after confessing "I've left the system".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
February 5, 2025
I have to admit, I gleaned a cornucopia of spiritual advice from the writings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky in the 1990's, advice that gave me a certain degree of solace at a time of downsizing and draconian discipline in a dead office! But it was a false start, not the full stop of certainty I needed.
No, for that I had to go back to my roots.
I see now that Gurdjieff worked in short, desultory bursts of nervous energy - and was consequently not to be implicitly trusted over a long period - and that Ouspensky had succeeded in his 'clarifications' only insofar as veiling G's energetic and primitively energetic theories with new layers of abstraction.
The important upshot of reading them was that I was now imbued with a positive sense of a Way Out of our postmodern schmozzle.
Of course that was only a gut feeling, which couldn't endure the wintry blasts of discursive reason, so further travelling in pure unknowing was still imperative. It took my office burnout at retirement to show me that!
But that was 20 years later. The Way is long and needs patience, alas.
Fortunately, one Christmas at around that time I had a real nudge forward...
***
Glenn was a mover and a shaker. His dad had been, I believe, a general officer and had given Glenn his start in his pursuit of excellence. He had the avid ear of senior managers in our organisation as an 'in situ' consultant for workplace improvement.
But this particular Christmas was a real downer, because our chief had ordered us to work a full day, even though it was Christmas Eve - no cutting corners. The Big Boss had announced he'd make the rounds at quitting time to 'wish us well.'
Being compliant, I told my workers to stay put and chill out.
But one of them reached into his briefcase and drew out a bottle of sparkling white wine. The guys all cheered. It was party time. What could I do? I laughed and held out my coffee mug.
Soon there were crackers and cheese laid out all along the filing cabinets, and Christmas music boomed from a ghetto blaster. We'd make merry - Scrooges begone.
Suddenly I got it into my head to scour the extended office for stragglers and wallflowers. I found one. Glenn. Beavering away glumly at his desk...
***
Well, that Christmas I Learned more than I EVER could learn from books like this one. Ouspensky is only cerebral. What I had most to learn was the Way of the Heart...
I Learned that it's LONELY at the top, and that a little Good Will can FILL THAT VOID.
And that's it's better to give than to receive:
It was time to offer my help with open hands.
Fourth Way? Same old, same old.
Love And compassion are the REAL answers!
Cause - believe me - Glenn had finally found the FUN of Christmas.
No, for that I had to go back to my roots.
I see now that Gurdjieff worked in short, desultory bursts of nervous energy - and was consequently not to be implicitly trusted over a long period - and that Ouspensky had succeeded in his 'clarifications' only insofar as veiling G's energetic and primitively energetic theories with new layers of abstraction.
The important upshot of reading them was that I was now imbued with a positive sense of a Way Out of our postmodern schmozzle.
Of course that was only a gut feeling, which couldn't endure the wintry blasts of discursive reason, so further travelling in pure unknowing was still imperative. It took my office burnout at retirement to show me that!
But that was 20 years later. The Way is long and needs patience, alas.
Fortunately, one Christmas at around that time I had a real nudge forward...
***
Glenn was a mover and a shaker. His dad had been, I believe, a general officer and had given Glenn his start in his pursuit of excellence. He had the avid ear of senior managers in our organisation as an 'in situ' consultant for workplace improvement.
But this particular Christmas was a real downer, because our chief had ordered us to work a full day, even though it was Christmas Eve - no cutting corners. The Big Boss had announced he'd make the rounds at quitting time to 'wish us well.'
Being compliant, I told my workers to stay put and chill out.
But one of them reached into his briefcase and drew out a bottle of sparkling white wine. The guys all cheered. It was party time. What could I do? I laughed and held out my coffee mug.
Soon there were crackers and cheese laid out all along the filing cabinets, and Christmas music boomed from a ghetto blaster. We'd make merry - Scrooges begone.
Suddenly I got it into my head to scour the extended office for stragglers and wallflowers. I found one. Glenn. Beavering away glumly at his desk...
***
Well, that Christmas I Learned more than I EVER could learn from books like this one. Ouspensky is only cerebral. What I had most to learn was the Way of the Heart...
I Learned that it's LONELY at the top, and that a little Good Will can FILL THAT VOID.
And that's it's better to give than to receive:
It was time to offer my help with open hands.
Fourth Way? Same old, same old.
Love And compassion are the REAL answers!
Cause - believe me - Glenn had finally found the FUN of Christmas.
May 20, 2016
When I read this book it literally made me angry to know just how flawed the teachings and the way it is taught is. There are quite a lot of concepts covered, but the main ones are that we are not conscious, do not self-remember, are mechanical and have 4 centers: moving, instinctive, emotional and intellectual. The idea in principle is good; that we need to work toward self-development and growth by becoming more aware of the multiple "Is" that we have through the centers and understanding how they can be used appropriately to transform ourselves.
The problem is that Ouspensky hides behind words and fails to explore his ideas any further than what he wants to focus on. He doesn't explain why we lack consciousness and why we don't self-remember. If you take it by it's literal definition, we are conscious and we do self-remember. I am aware of myself, my surroundings and can remember it. So what does he mean by it? Its his own made up definition of these words. So if he has his own definitions then he should firstly call it something else, secondly explain what he means by those definitions and lastly provide evidence for the phenomenon behind the definitions.
But when you look at the dialogue between Ouspensky and the other person, they are insistently asking what Ouspensky means by some of his definitions, but he refuses to answer and repeatedly says "figure it out for yourself by practice and you will understand". The problem is there is no way to figure it out, because we don't know what to work on. If we try to 'self-remember' then we might think we're self-remembering when we're really not. And since we have no definitions or explanations for it then its pointless to tell us to do something that we don't know.
The vagueness of his terminology not only becomes a problem for practice, but also for validity. How do we know that we actually aren't conscious or able to self-remember? Ouspensky doesn't substantiate his claims. He just tells people to accept his ideas and practice it. This is what irritates me the most. He acts like some authority who has special knowledge over others without actually caring to explain why his knowledge is factually accurate. He just makes the assumption that people will believe whatever he says and that they should learn how to practice it on their own. Believing in his ideas without actually seeing results is blind faith. It is making people work toward something that isn't even a sure thing.
The responses to the questions are also quite disturbing. Usually the person who is asking the questions doesn't understand a shred of what he's saying, they ask for clarification and Ouspensky looks down on them for not understanding. Again, it is him acting like an authority who has special knowledge. He is an elitist and a false prophet, who again, hides behind his words. I can't put it any less harshly.
But when I put my feelings aside and try to interpret the meaning of his ideas (without explicitly knowing), they still don't make sense. From what I gather, what he means by lacking consciousness is the fact that we are constantly doing things without knowing the reasons why we do it - which according to the system means that we are mechanical. To put it in psychological terms that actually make sense this is the distinction between automatic and controlled thinking. I agree that oftentimes we are more in the automatic state and seldom in the controlled state. But this doesn't mean we need to always be controlled. Automatic thinking serves a purpose. If we were always controlled in our thinking it would be impossible to filter out certain information and would result in information overload.
Self-remembering in the system really means that we often forget why we act in certain ways. Some ways we act contradict each other. We are also unable to remember a total self that is congruent with all sides of ourselves. Again, this is true. But he goes to the lengths to say that if we have positive emotions one minute and negative emotions another minute it is not self-remembering, because we're contradicting ourselves. This isn't true at all. For example, I could be trying to relax, which is positive, but when someone interrupts me I get angry, which is negative. They are both perfectly congruent with one another, but Ouspensky acts like it isn't.
Which brings me to why Ouspensky has no grasp on emotions. He basically says that there are "wrong emotions" and that there are "right emotions" and that the "wrong" ones need to be discarded. The wrong emotions are basically negative emotions: anger, sadness, anxiety etc. But anyone with a basic understanding of the human psyche knows that these emotions serve a useful purpose. When we are anxious it alerts us that our body is in a dangerous situation and that we need to deal with it appropriately.
There is nothing inherently wrong with negative emotions. But Ouspensky actually goes so far to call these emotions unreal. If he doesn't see these emotions in himself all he's doing is repressing them. And by telling other people to abandon their negative emotions, he is effectively telling them to repress theirs too. He said that you need to ignore negative emotions. Research suggests that repressing emotions actually make it harder for the emotions to go away. First of all, anyone who is in the daunting position of repressing thoughts knows that it is harder to ignore those thoughts than dealing with them. Usually the reverse of what you want happens: you end up thinking more about the thoughts you're trying to avoid. But even when you are able to put them off, because something else distracts you, the feelings don't go away, they just build up. And the more they build up the harder it is to deal with them.
When you examine Ouspensky's other ideas, they just come accross as completely ridiculous. In one chapter he says that the moon controls our behaviour and that we communicate with the moon. This is nothing more than pseudoscience. He says that when we die the moon eats us, because it is hungry. He goes on about how we consume "impressions" in this convoluted explanation that lack any parsimony. I don't see what benefit there is for believing in any of this nonsense.
It is no surprise to me that Ouspensky abandoned the system long after people already committed to following his outrageous ideas. I literally thought to myself "he probably abandoned the system" before having read it, because there's no way anyone could rationally live with such absurd beliefs. I realize that a lot of my criticisms don't just fall on Ouspensky, but Gurdjieff for postulating them. But I take it how it is. Whether or not these are Ouspensky's ideas, he still believed in them and should still be accountable for it. I probably wouldn't be so bothered by the system if it was actually clear on what the terminology means and how it should be practiced. Even though Ouspensky consistently says that the system is practical and not theoretical, there is really nothing that actually tells you how to self-remember or become conscious, so your guess is as good as mine how to actually practice this. Until then, I find the system and his teaching style discouraging and is not worth my time.
The problem is that Ouspensky hides behind words and fails to explore his ideas any further than what he wants to focus on. He doesn't explain why we lack consciousness and why we don't self-remember. If you take it by it's literal definition, we are conscious and we do self-remember. I am aware of myself, my surroundings and can remember it. So what does he mean by it? Its his own made up definition of these words. So if he has his own definitions then he should firstly call it something else, secondly explain what he means by those definitions and lastly provide evidence for the phenomenon behind the definitions.
But when you look at the dialogue between Ouspensky and the other person, they are insistently asking what Ouspensky means by some of his definitions, but he refuses to answer and repeatedly says "figure it out for yourself by practice and you will understand". The problem is there is no way to figure it out, because we don't know what to work on. If we try to 'self-remember' then we might think we're self-remembering when we're really not. And since we have no definitions or explanations for it then its pointless to tell us to do something that we don't know.
The vagueness of his terminology not only becomes a problem for practice, but also for validity. How do we know that we actually aren't conscious or able to self-remember? Ouspensky doesn't substantiate his claims. He just tells people to accept his ideas and practice it. This is what irritates me the most. He acts like some authority who has special knowledge over others without actually caring to explain why his knowledge is factually accurate. He just makes the assumption that people will believe whatever he says and that they should learn how to practice it on their own. Believing in his ideas without actually seeing results is blind faith. It is making people work toward something that isn't even a sure thing.
The responses to the questions are also quite disturbing. Usually the person who is asking the questions doesn't understand a shred of what he's saying, they ask for clarification and Ouspensky looks down on them for not understanding. Again, it is him acting like an authority who has special knowledge. He is an elitist and a false prophet, who again, hides behind his words. I can't put it any less harshly.
But when I put my feelings aside and try to interpret the meaning of his ideas (without explicitly knowing), they still don't make sense. From what I gather, what he means by lacking consciousness is the fact that we are constantly doing things without knowing the reasons why we do it - which according to the system means that we are mechanical. To put it in psychological terms that actually make sense this is the distinction between automatic and controlled thinking. I agree that oftentimes we are more in the automatic state and seldom in the controlled state. But this doesn't mean we need to always be controlled. Automatic thinking serves a purpose. If we were always controlled in our thinking it would be impossible to filter out certain information and would result in information overload.
Self-remembering in the system really means that we often forget why we act in certain ways. Some ways we act contradict each other. We are also unable to remember a total self that is congruent with all sides of ourselves. Again, this is true. But he goes to the lengths to say that if we have positive emotions one minute and negative emotions another minute it is not self-remembering, because we're contradicting ourselves. This isn't true at all. For example, I could be trying to relax, which is positive, but when someone interrupts me I get angry, which is negative. They are both perfectly congruent with one another, but Ouspensky acts like it isn't.
Which brings me to why Ouspensky has no grasp on emotions. He basically says that there are "wrong emotions" and that there are "right emotions" and that the "wrong" ones need to be discarded. The wrong emotions are basically negative emotions: anger, sadness, anxiety etc. But anyone with a basic understanding of the human psyche knows that these emotions serve a useful purpose. When we are anxious it alerts us that our body is in a dangerous situation and that we need to deal with it appropriately.
There is nothing inherently wrong with negative emotions. But Ouspensky actually goes so far to call these emotions unreal. If he doesn't see these emotions in himself all he's doing is repressing them. And by telling other people to abandon their negative emotions, he is effectively telling them to repress theirs too. He said that you need to ignore negative emotions. Research suggests that repressing emotions actually make it harder for the emotions to go away. First of all, anyone who is in the daunting position of repressing thoughts knows that it is harder to ignore those thoughts than dealing with them. Usually the reverse of what you want happens: you end up thinking more about the thoughts you're trying to avoid. But even when you are able to put them off, because something else distracts you, the feelings don't go away, they just build up. And the more they build up the harder it is to deal with them.
When you examine Ouspensky's other ideas, they just come accross as completely ridiculous. In one chapter he says that the moon controls our behaviour and that we communicate with the moon. This is nothing more than pseudoscience. He says that when we die the moon eats us, because it is hungry. He goes on about how we consume "impressions" in this convoluted explanation that lack any parsimony. I don't see what benefit there is for believing in any of this nonsense.
It is no surprise to me that Ouspensky abandoned the system long after people already committed to following his outrageous ideas. I literally thought to myself "he probably abandoned the system" before having read it, because there's no way anyone could rationally live with such absurd beliefs. I realize that a lot of my criticisms don't just fall on Ouspensky, but Gurdjieff for postulating them. But I take it how it is. Whether or not these are Ouspensky's ideas, he still believed in them and should still be accountable for it. I probably wouldn't be so bothered by the system if it was actually clear on what the terminology means and how it should be practiced. Even though Ouspensky consistently says that the system is practical and not theoretical, there is really nothing that actually tells you how to self-remember or become conscious, so your guess is as good as mine how to actually practice this. Until then, I find the system and his teaching style discouraging and is not worth my time.
August 2, 2011
This book took me six months to crawl through and though painful at times was worth the effort. It mirrored in many ways my own journey in terms of timing and though I could not pretend to have initiated the level of effort the Ouspensky says that we need to wake up from our slumber, from time to time I catch glimpses and that reminder alone was worth the read. I would not recommend this book for anyone that is not naturally drawn toward it and would say if you are interested in the ideas of G.I. Gurdjieff there are many easier places to start. For me though this was an excellent place to begin because it mirrored the journey and was a reminder that no matter how complex and difficult life and the world can seem at times, patience, reflection, and effort are rewarded. If you are interested in digging in start with Toward Awakening by Jean Vaysse.
July 8, 2013
I understand that this book is out of fashion. That's a shame, but then Ouspensky said that the Fourth Way will never be popular because it demands effort. This book is of his lectures, with questions and answers.
Ouspensky, the teacher, was not very interested in inspiring his students with the mysteries of the higher worlds. But he was interested in outlining the practices and principles that give us the possibility of changing our 'being.' He doesn't entice; he says: this is what you need to do and these are the laws the govern the process.
If you are disappointed with belief and hope and want answers, this book is for you. Highly recommended.
Ouspensky, the teacher, was not very interested in inspiring his students with the mysteries of the higher worlds. But he was interested in outlining the practices and principles that give us the possibility of changing our 'being.' He doesn't entice; he says: this is what you need to do and these are the laws the govern the process.
If you are disappointed with belief and hope and want answers, this book is for you. Highly recommended.
Read
January 19, 2009I read this while living on the street years ago.What I learned was that there is no "I" but many "I"s sort of competing for supremacy,that there is such a thing as spiritual mechanics.Not that man is machine,but rather the machine is a functional expression of man's spiritual aim and as such remains an indwelling of human potential.
October 23, 2007
Classic Ouspensky, also try and read Gurdjieff if you can, it will blow your mind!
December 28, 2007
This is nuts, yeah. It's total mysticism masquerading as mathemtaics and philosophy. But it's fun. More poetry than a dozen poetry volumes will contain.
August 12, 2008
Interestingly exposed many facets of my personality and life that was until then hidden, What a slave I used to be to my false personality!!!
September 27, 2013
I don't think one can review this book. My suggestion is to read its first chapter: if one is "ready" for it, it will blow her/his mind. (There is one particular idea that is shocking and scary in its truthfulness, but everyone has to discover this for herself/himself.) If not stupefied, one might still find the ideas interesting enough and decide to continue.
In a few words, the first 3/4 of the collection of lectures is a psychology treaty of a very peculiar and non-traditional kind centered around one idea (the one mentioned right in the first chapter, namely, the lack of self-remembering). The last 1/4 of the book is of a more "esoteric" nature (i.e, the most motley amalgam of what is considered the traditional religions, and the antique religions, plus myths, legends, etc.) Some of these latter ideas are to say at least weird, but the authenticity and value of the psychological section is unquestionable (I should know, since I'm the poster child for exemplifying everything that is written in there.)
It is stated several times that one could understand this system of thought (or better said its value) only if one has made a terrible mistake, and I couldn't agree more.
Anyways, I intended to review this book is detail, but it won't do justice to its ideas.
P.S. You can find the whole book for free in PDF format online since it's public domain.
In a few words, the first 3/4 of the collection of lectures is a psychology treaty of a very peculiar and non-traditional kind centered around one idea (the one mentioned right in the first chapter, namely, the lack of self-remembering). The last 1/4 of the book is of a more "esoteric" nature (i.e, the most motley amalgam of what is considered the traditional religions, and the antique religions, plus myths, legends, etc.) Some of these latter ideas are to say at least weird, but the authenticity and value of the psychological section is unquestionable (I should know, since I'm the poster child for exemplifying everything that is written in there.)
It is stated several times that one could understand this system of thought (or better said its value) only if one has made a terrible mistake, and I couldn't agree more.
"We can understand what mechanicalness is and all the horror of mechanicalness only when we do something horrible and fully realize that it was mechanicalness in us that made us do it."
Anyways, I intended to review this book is detail, but it won't do justice to its ideas.
"We think we are what we are. Unfortunately we are not what we are but what we have become; we are not natural beings. We are too asleep, we lie too much, we live too much in imagination, we identify too much. We think we have to do with real beings, but in reality we have to do with imaginary beings. Almost all we know about ourselves is imaginary. Beneath all this agglomeration man is quite different. We have many imaginary things we must throw off before we can come to real things. So long as we live in imaginary things, we cannot see the value of the real; and only when we come to real things in ourselves can we see what is real outside us. We have too much accidental growth in us."
P.S. You can find the whole book for free in PDF format online since it's public domain.
December 6, 2007
Shouldn't simplifying your life take up less than 300 or so pages? Why is it necessary to form your own groups and charge individuals money to sit around and listen to your philosophy, not to mention that someone actually takes charge over these groups formed under this philosophy? Gee....this sounds very familiar....
June 28, 2009
I am enjoying this book, but it is a lot of work. The premise of the book, is that humans are much like machines and that much of what we do, is done out of habit and unconsiously. Lots to think about and process!
April 20, 2011
Tricky reading, but this book really helped me to learn how to concentrate again. Not sure how many times I have read this, at least three, Perhaps four. Sounds funny it is, never thought i'd read a book four times or more. I have lost track the times now actually.
August 11, 2012
One of the hardest but most rewarding,mind food I have had the honor to read. A friend turned me on to this book and I will be forever thankful to him for it. It has helped me in so many ways. I am aware of myself in the grand scheme of this wonderfully chaotic universe. --Awake!
January 16, 2008
The general message of this Fourth Way is to not pass your life in a state of waking sleep. A good way to learn what Gurdjieff was all about.
February 23, 2009
I only just started this book, and I'm already blown away.
March 11, 2024
A collection of transcriptions from Ouspensky’s independent group meetings. They are organized in a way that this would make for a good and exhaustive introduction to the Fourth Way. Ouspensky has his own flavor he added to the work, outside of his ideas of eternal recurrence. He had a heavy emphasis on self-remembering and observation, with a very rational perspective. Other writers on the work don’t come across with such an intellectual attitude.
Much of the book is in the form of question and answer sessions from meetings, were students asking for clarifications or elaborations. This was the most useful, since it was the most practical and least theoretical.
“We can bear ourselves only because we do not know ourselves. If we knew ourselves as we are, it would be unbearable.�
Much of the book is in the form of question and answer sessions from meetings, were students asking for clarifications or elaborations. This was the most useful, since it was the most practical and least theoretical.
“We can bear ourselves only because we do not know ourselves. If we knew ourselves as we are, it would be unbearable.�
Read
December 8, 2021An operating system for the human machine... every time I read Ouspensky I see something new. He is able to pull the sublime through the mundane - a truly underrated genius of the twentieth century.
April 18, 2025
Quando il lettore è pronto il libro appare.
Libro impegnativo (per non dir difficile astruso, a tratti). Ripetitivo, e per fortuna, dal momento che permette di famigliarizzare meglio con i concetti (alcuni dei quali a dir poco scioccanti). Sarebbe stato bello leggere prima Gurdjieff, ma tant'è...per tacer di Jung e Hillman, per citarne solo due.
Libro impegnativo (per non dir difficile astruso, a tratti). Ripetitivo, e per fortuna, dal momento che permette di famigliarizzare meglio con i concetti (alcuni dei quali a dir poco scioccanti). Sarebbe stato bello leggere prima Gurdjieff, ma tant'è...per tacer di Jung e Hillman, per citarne solo due.
February 16, 2017
This is golden. Yet given information are limited by the reader's limits and because it's a teaching, a proper school and teacher required for work.
This is very practical teaching, there's no faith, believes, hope, prayer, imaginative lights or thoughts in it. But yet, the teaching is, probably most difficult thing in the world to reach. You just need to force stop how you upset yourself by analyzing routines and mechanical deeds.
The work is like a mechanical guide book of human consciousness. If you experienced 'self-remembering' once or twice in your life, you will immediately know what it is when you read the description. If you didn't experience it, it means you are not ready for it yet. And you will read the book by its words without knowing the knowledge what to expect. Like you will understand 'self-remembering' as 'remembering everything you have done at this moment' or something. Well to be precise, you remember nothing when it happens, but you just feel being a whole and remembering not what you did not remember but remembering you just wasn't remembering before remembering. It's confusing I know. It's like finding something it was lost that you forget it was lost, so until you find it, you will not know it was missing or you lost it. You find a whole piece of yourself which was lost but once you get it, you don't know what to do with it because it's too much to bear it. Because it's not easy to bear a whole part of your consciousness, we basically avoid to bear it. And it's basically why we don't sustain a state of self-remembering for a long time. It makes tension of joyness to limits. Sustaining it is hard. Like, fighting to self not to like a kitten or puppy, while its killing you by cuteness. Oh well, we humans are wicked ty very much.
I highly recommend this book since it's true knowledge for me and it's golden because its practical.
This is very practical teaching, there's no faith, believes, hope, prayer, imaginative lights or thoughts in it. But yet, the teaching is, probably most difficult thing in the world to reach. You just need to force stop how you upset yourself by analyzing routines and mechanical deeds.
The work is like a mechanical guide book of human consciousness. If you experienced 'self-remembering' once or twice in your life, you will immediately know what it is when you read the description. If you didn't experience it, it means you are not ready for it yet. And you will read the book by its words without knowing the knowledge what to expect. Like you will understand 'self-remembering' as 'remembering everything you have done at this moment' or something. Well to be precise, you remember nothing when it happens, but you just feel being a whole and remembering not what you did not remember but remembering you just wasn't remembering before remembering. It's confusing I know. It's like finding something it was lost that you forget it was lost, so until you find it, you will not know it was missing or you lost it. You find a whole piece of yourself which was lost but once you get it, you don't know what to do with it because it's too much to bear it. Because it's not easy to bear a whole part of your consciousness, we basically avoid to bear it. And it's basically why we don't sustain a state of self-remembering for a long time. It makes tension of joyness to limits. Sustaining it is hard. Like, fighting to self not to like a kitten or puppy, while its killing you by cuteness. Oh well, we humans are wicked ty very much.
I highly recommend this book since it's true knowledge for me and it's golden because its practical.
Read
June 16, 2021Ouspensky presents the teachings of George Gurdjieff, an early 20th century philosopher, which focuses on self-improvement. The starting point is that man is essentially a machine, living an unconscious life, responding to everyday stimuli with an inventory of conversation, behaviours, and actions, that we play and replay as needed. Gurdjieff presents a path to weed out the inauthentic from the authentic in ourselves to gradually reclaim our lives.
I unfortunately agree with many of his thoughts on man and find his plan to work towards an authentic life is clearly presented though difficult to implement. I like to reread parts of it every few years as I continue to find it relevant.
I unfortunately agree with many of his thoughts on man and find his plan to work towards an authentic life is clearly presented though difficult to implement. I like to reread parts of it every few years as I continue to find it relevant.
July 16, 2019
Not as good as In search of Miraculous. But still an amazing book explains a lot things. Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Collin understood thing like no one else ever could. These books have what we all are looking for however, it's not easy to attain it, these books make sense to person with higher level of being.
June 6, 2020
This book is a decent TLDR of Fourth Way teachings, however far from comprehensive. I recommend Boris Mouravieff's Gnosis series for the most comprehensive exposition (ignore his political leanings). I would start this book after the Gnosis series, but only if you're after supplementary information or an alternative perspective.
December 31, 2020
I read this book 50 years ago
After 50 years of “work�, I understand the Fourth Way much better. Even though 50 years seems like a long time, it becomes evident that 50 years is nothing in the real scheme. Just getting negative emotions under control has made my life completely different. I look forward to the next 50 years.
After 50 years of “work�, I understand the Fourth Way much better. Even though 50 years seems like a long time, it becomes evident that 50 years is nothing in the real scheme. Just getting negative emotions under control has made my life completely different. I look forward to the next 50 years.
January 25, 2019
Human, plight , redemption
Categorization of men into seven. self-remembering and non-identification can awake humans from asleep. Negative emotions and talking drain one's energy.
Categorization of men into seven. self-remembering and non-identification can awake humans from asleep. Negative emotions and talking drain one's energy.
January 4, 2018
Wisdom....
September 26, 2022
Great investigation into the human predicament from the point of view of a systemic thinker with full access to an enlightened human being (Gurdjieff).
October 10, 2022
A book? A guide? Pretty good but I could write it better.
The first time I read The Fourth Way, I felt curious, excited, and cynical. Later on, I noted that later on in the book it appears to make statements diametrically opposite to those earlier in the book.
The second time I learned that the first read hadn't been received wholly i.e., by 'all' of me. As a result, many times during the second read, I marvelled at what I hadn't noticed the first time around. There were also ideas that became vivified as I recognised them and looked again at them from a more familiar perspective.
Guided by my teacher/guru, I continued to read it. Time after time. I met features of myself that were bored, annoyed, judgemental. I wanted to read some other books I had seen, i.e., Maurice Nicholl's Commentaries - but my teacher insisted that I already had the only book that I needed.
At one point in time when my teacher saw that I felt irritated, he queried me, and I responded that I felt I knew the book after several reads and I wished to move on and read other books. He said, "So, you know The Fourth Way Now? Thinking he meant the methods, principles, laws, forces, enneagram and so on, I said, "Yes." My teacher then went on to say,
"Page 357, paragraph 3?"
I understood immediately that he did not mean to 'know' in the usual sense: he meant to truly know. 'To know something is to know 'all' ...........'
I mention this in response to some of the comments about the teachings in this book. Gurdjieff's Work looks at how man CAN be IF he made certain efforts to develop, in a very certain way. He talks of new 'functions' that are available to those who work on themselves in a very certain way and that arise from a reorganisation of our inner world dynamic - and he explains that certain methods and principles are necessary, as well as direct contact with a teacher of the Fourth Way. to be able to advance. As Ouspensky says in Chapter 1, the Work uses the same words we all use, however it attaches different meanings. And the ordinary mind will grasp the ideas in the book on an ordinary level, missing the magic, so to speak.
When I read it, I lived it, I mean that I acted on every opportunity contained in the writings, on the hoof, as I read, and that led me to develope along the way.
Nonetheless, the 7th read felt laborious. I put the book down for a moment and when I picked it up and was standing with it open in my hands *as if I was part of the book and the book was part of me, I had the experience of very specific inner parts of me moving around like a machine's parts would, a grand inner organisation - and the book was shrouded in a (yep!) golden light and felt lighter in my hands. Then I had this thought,
"Oh, that's why my teacher asked me to read it over and over - now it has saturated so many parts of my inner world, it is creating unity between them all. How clever!"
And it did. It fed me the same ideas again and again and as I worked with those ideas, actively, I transformed.
Note: Ideas such as these are taken on 'different levels' according to one's state of being at the time of encountering/examining/working with them.
It's generally recommended that those interested in these teachings, begin with The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution' by Ouspensky, which lays our the basic ideas and principles of the Fourth-Way Work.
The Fourth Way is not for the faint-hearted as we are creatures of habit and reel against change.
However, I realised that it is a map of us and of the World - and that's amazingly beautiful and truly useful.
The first time I read The Fourth Way, I felt curious, excited, and cynical. Later on, I noted that later on in the book it appears to make statements diametrically opposite to those earlier in the book.
The second time I learned that the first read hadn't been received wholly i.e., by 'all' of me. As a result, many times during the second read, I marvelled at what I hadn't noticed the first time around. There were also ideas that became vivified as I recognised them and looked again at them from a more familiar perspective.
Guided by my teacher/guru, I continued to read it. Time after time. I met features of myself that were bored, annoyed, judgemental. I wanted to read some other books I had seen, i.e., Maurice Nicholl's Commentaries - but my teacher insisted that I already had the only book that I needed.
At one point in time when my teacher saw that I felt irritated, he queried me, and I responded that I felt I knew the book after several reads and I wished to move on and read other books. He said, "So, you know The Fourth Way Now? Thinking he meant the methods, principles, laws, forces, enneagram and so on, I said, "Yes." My teacher then went on to say,
"Page 357, paragraph 3?"
I understood immediately that he did not mean to 'know' in the usual sense: he meant to truly know. 'To know something is to know 'all' ...........'
I mention this in response to some of the comments about the teachings in this book. Gurdjieff's Work looks at how man CAN be IF he made certain efforts to develop, in a very certain way. He talks of new 'functions' that are available to those who work on themselves in a very certain way and that arise from a reorganisation of our inner world dynamic - and he explains that certain methods and principles are necessary, as well as direct contact with a teacher of the Fourth Way. to be able to advance. As Ouspensky says in Chapter 1, the Work uses the same words we all use, however it attaches different meanings. And the ordinary mind will grasp the ideas in the book on an ordinary level, missing the magic, so to speak.
When I read it, I lived it, I mean that I acted on every opportunity contained in the writings, on the hoof, as I read, and that led me to develope along the way.
Nonetheless, the 7th read felt laborious. I put the book down for a moment and when I picked it up and was standing with it open in my hands *as if I was part of the book and the book was part of me, I had the experience of very specific inner parts of me moving around like a machine's parts would, a grand inner organisation - and the book was shrouded in a (yep!) golden light and felt lighter in my hands. Then I had this thought,
"Oh, that's why my teacher asked me to read it over and over - now it has saturated so many parts of my inner world, it is creating unity between them all. How clever!"
And it did. It fed me the same ideas again and again and as I worked with those ideas, actively, I transformed.
Note: Ideas such as these are taken on 'different levels' according to one's state of being at the time of encountering/examining/working with them.
It's generally recommended that those interested in these teachings, begin with The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution' by Ouspensky, which lays our the basic ideas and principles of the Fourth-Way Work.
The Fourth Way is not for the faint-hearted as we are creatures of habit and reel against change.
However, I realised that it is a map of us and of the World - and that's amazingly beautiful and truly useful.
October 4, 2022
"The Fourth Way" wants to guide those who seek "not an easy but a true way of inner growth" by means of a new way of thinking. The sixteen chapters are based on real recordings, and are structured as a long Q&A between one (or more) student(s) and teacher Ouspensky.
Interestingly, Ouspensky doesn't use a Socratic dialogue to logically introduce knowledge (in a way that I often find "suffocating"); on the contrary, he gives the student(s) all the time in the world to doubt, to rephrase their questions, to ask for more clarification.
It is impossible to "rate" these transcriptions. The Fourth Way is a miraculous text - lectures of Gurdjieff encapsulated in time. As with all wise men/women, there is also a thin line between lucidity and lunacy. Gurdjieff definitely paints freestyle along the spectrum. I kindly skipped his explanations of the "Rays of Creation" and the "Octaves of Radiation", but rather focused on how he deals with questions (Q: Self-remembering seems to be a very sad and cheerless experience. Is it a sad system? A: There are no sad systems as far as I know; only sad people and sad attitudes, sad understanding.), his laconic humor (Q: When well-washed and carefully dressed I feel it is much easier to self-remember. A: It is not at all prohibited. This is not a fakir way.) and of course on the lucidity of his definitions ("Desire is when you do what you want; will is when you can do what you do not want").
Read it, be transported and feel the marvel. Try to consider the teachings of Gurdjieff as butterflies, let them fly through you like through the open windows of the soul, but don't identify too much with them, because if you do, they will lose their power - and you will lose your mind.
Interestingly, Ouspensky doesn't use a Socratic dialogue to logically introduce knowledge (in a way that I often find "suffocating"); on the contrary, he gives the student(s) all the time in the world to doubt, to rephrase their questions, to ask for more clarification.
It is impossible to "rate" these transcriptions. The Fourth Way is a miraculous text - lectures of Gurdjieff encapsulated in time. As with all wise men/women, there is also a thin line between lucidity and lunacy. Gurdjieff definitely paints freestyle along the spectrum. I kindly skipped his explanations of the "Rays of Creation" and the "Octaves of Radiation", but rather focused on how he deals with questions (Q: Self-remembering seems to be a very sad and cheerless experience. Is it a sad system? A: There are no sad systems as far as I know; only sad people and sad attitudes, sad understanding.), his laconic humor (Q: When well-washed and carefully dressed I feel it is much easier to self-remember. A: It is not at all prohibited. This is not a fakir way.) and of course on the lucidity of his definitions ("Desire is when you do what you want; will is when you can do what you do not want").
Read it, be transported and feel the marvel. Try to consider the teachings of Gurdjieff as butterflies, let them fly through you like through the open windows of the soul, but don't identify too much with them, because if you do, they will lose their power - and you will lose your mind.
Read
August 24, 2022In the ordinary meaning of imagination the most important factor is missed, but in
the terminology of this system we begin with what is most important. The most
important factor in every function is: 'Is it under our control or not?' So when
imagination is under our control we do not even call it imagination; we call it by
various names—visualization, creative thinking, inventive thinking—you can find a
name for each special case. But when it comes by itself and controls us so that we are
in its power, then we call it imagination.
Again, there is another side of imagination which we miss in ordinary
understanding. This is that we imagine non-existent things—non-existent capacities,
for instance. We ascribe to ourselves powers which we do not have; we imagine
ourselves to be self-conscious although we are not. We have imaginary powers and
imaginary self-consciousness and we imagine ourselves to be one, when really we are
many different 'I's. There are many such things that we imagine about ourselves and
other people. For instance, we imagine that we can 'do', that we have choice; we have
no choice, we cannot 'do', things just happen to us.
So we imagine ourselves, really. We are not what we imagine ourselves to be
the terminology of this system we begin with what is most important. The most
important factor in every function is: 'Is it under our control or not?' So when
imagination is under our control we do not even call it imagination; we call it by
various names—visualization, creative thinking, inventive thinking—you can find a
name for each special case. But when it comes by itself and controls us so that we are
in its power, then we call it imagination.
Again, there is another side of imagination which we miss in ordinary
understanding. This is that we imagine non-existent things—non-existent capacities,
for instance. We ascribe to ourselves powers which we do not have; we imagine
ourselves to be self-conscious although we are not. We have imaginary powers and
imaginary self-consciousness and we imagine ourselves to be one, when really we are
many different 'I's. There are many such things that we imagine about ourselves and
other people. For instance, we imagine that we can 'do', that we have choice; we have
no choice, we cannot 'do', things just happen to us.
So we imagine ourselves, really. We are not what we imagine ourselves to be
February 6, 2025
The next time someone suggests a book to me, let this be a reminder to me to ask "What's it about?" before buying it.
I wish I had read this book on an ayahuasca retreat in the jungles of Costa Rica. If I had, I feel like I would have had a different experience in reading it than the one I had.
As it stands, the one I had struck me like having a long conversation with a VERY drunk person at a bar who dropped out after one semester of college and now works at his dad's tractor dealership but wants to regale you with his expertise on the allegorical exegesis of Plato and cuts you off every time you have a question with "youjustdontunderstand".
But because he occasionally makes some insightful points (and the fact that mama didn't raise a quitter), the book kept me from heading to the jukebox and putting $20 in to play Nickelback on repeat to make sure everyone else in the bar suffers like I did.
If you're a philosophy major, I'm sure this book will scratch an itch for you as is suggested by most reviews here. If you're left brained like I am, Godspeed.
I wish I had read this book on an ayahuasca retreat in the jungles of Costa Rica. If I had, I feel like I would have had a different experience in reading it than the one I had.
As it stands, the one I had struck me like having a long conversation with a VERY drunk person at a bar who dropped out after one semester of college and now works at his dad's tractor dealership but wants to regale you with his expertise on the allegorical exegesis of Plato and cuts you off every time you have a question with "youjustdontunderstand".
But because he occasionally makes some insightful points (and the fact that mama didn't raise a quitter), the book kept me from heading to the jukebox and putting $20 in to play Nickelback on repeat to make sure everyone else in the bar suffers like I did.
If you're a philosophy major, I'm sure this book will scratch an itch for you as is suggested by most reviews here. If you're left brained like I am, Godspeed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.