516

CHAPTER FORTY-SEVEN

GNOSTIC SENSIBILITY
IN GURDJIEFF’S “WORK”

Constance A. Jones

INTRODUCTIO N
This paper examines the legacy of George Ivanonich Gurdjieff (1866[?]‌–​1949), spe-
cifically the esoteric school he founded called the “Work,” as an embodiment of a
gnostic sensibility. The term “legacy” refers to both Gurdjieff and his teaching, an
integrated system of ideas that includes cosmology, metaphysics, science, psychology,
and a corpus of sacred music and dance. First, his biography and teaching demon-
strate how the Work addresses an inner search for development of consciousness.
After a comparison of Gurdjieff’s teaching and the gnostic paradigm, the activities
and organizations that comprise the Work today are delineated as elements in an eso-
teric school organized around the aim of self-​inquiry and eventual transformation. All
of these elements evoke the gnostic sensibility for understanding: for awakening to
the truth of human existence. A final section addresses the gnostic motive underlying
Gurdjieff’s legacy as a whole, and the Work in particular.

B IOGRA P HY
Gurdjieff was born in the town of Alexandropol, in what is now Armenia, the eldest
son of a Greek father and an Armenian mother, probably between 1866 and 1877. He
spent his childhood in the Caucasus, an area of great diversity in cultures, languages,
and religions, where he witnessed the meeting of East and West in both traditional
and modern ways of life. His father, a practitioner in the tradition of narrative recita-
tion, significantly influenced Gurdjieff by sharing his oral craft, which Gurdjieff felt
embodied an ancient wisdom lost to the contemporary world.
Gurdjieff relates how, even as a boy, he wished to understand the meaning of
human life and humanity’s position in the universe. These questions led him to
investigate many sources of wisdom, but in each he found contradictions, even
among accomplished practitioners and scholars. In search of a non-​contradictory
understanding, he read widely in science and religion, and studied formally both
medicine and Orthodox Christian theology, integrating humanistic and scientific

516
517

— G n o s t i c s e n s i b i l i t y i n G u r d j i e f f ’s   “ Wo r k ” —

concerns (Gurdjieff 1985). He became convinced that neither conventional religion

nor scientific knowledge alone adequately addressed his questions, but that he could
find understanding of his concerns among surviving traces of ancient traditions in
the Middle East and Asia. In Meetings with Remarkable Men (Gurdjieff 1985), an
interweaving of spiritual quest and allegorical teaching, he recounts his travels in the
Middle East, Egypt, Ethiopia, Tibet, Central Asia, and the Hindu Kush.
Details of his sojourns are described only in his writings; little historical evi-
dence exists to verify his accounts. Investigators of this period posit that he may
have assumed, in addition to role of researcher, other disparate roles, including occult
adviser to the Tsar, and the Russian agent in Tibet, adviser to the Dalai Lama, and
Buddhist monk (Webb 1980:  48–​73; Moore 1991:  24–​38). Some scholars of reli-
gion consider him a sort of shaman who withdrew from society to gain knowledge
and power and then returned to lead others, i.e., a “modern Western magus” who
displayed qualities of a trickster (Ellwood and Partin 1988: 134–​40).
Gurdjieff relates that his search revealed principles of esoteric wisdom, virtually
unknown in the contemporary west (Gurdjieff 1985: 30–​1; Ouspensky 1949: 202–​
4). After formulating a teaching from his discoveries, he began to teach a group of
pupils in Moscow and St Petersburg in 1913. Among these was Peter Demianovich
Ouspensky (1878–​ 1947), philosopher, mathematician, and journalist, who had
received recognition in intellectual and occult circles through publication of a treatise
on the nature of the universe, first published in Russia in 1911 (Ouspensky 1981).
Ouspensky’s later monograph on Gurdjieff’s teaching (1949) remains a major expos-
ition of the teaching.
Although a core of pupils, drawn mainly from the Russian intelligentsia, began
to collect around him, Gurdjieff rarely received public notice during the early years
(1912–​1923). Only after 1923, following the creation of his Institute outside Paris
and after he had made acquaintance with European and American luminaries, did
he meet acclaim and controversy (Moore 1991:  225–​41). He set out his teaching
in a series of books, written between 1924 and 1935. Throughout these years he
continued to teach pupils directly until his death in Paris in 1949.
Published accounts of Gurdjieff emphasize that his teaching could not be separated
from the man (Moore 1991); to many, he was an exemplar of traditional esoteric
wisdom and “a contemporary gnostic” (Lacarriere 1996: 156–​62). Gurdjieff relates
that he set two coherent and enduring aims. As a youth, he identified the first aim,
an “ ‘irrepressible striving’ to understand clearly the precise significance … of the life
process on earth of all outward forms of breathing creatures and, in particular, of the
aim of human life” (Gurdjieff 1933: 13). During his travels, he added a second aim,
“that I must discover, at all costs, some manner or means for destroying in people
the predilection which causes them to fall so easily under the influence of ‘mass hyp-
nosis’ ” (Gurdjieff 1981: 27).
Pursuit of these intentions and other stringent voluntary restrictions (Gurdjieff
1981:  13, 25, 45)  must have effected certain qualities  –​will, powerful attention,
unity of purpose, personal control, compassion for others, and an extraordinary
understanding of himself –​all of which are repeatedly attributed to him. These qual-
ities also constitute the aims of his teaching and the Work, the esoteric school he
founded.

517
518

— C o n s t a n c e A .   Jo n e s —

OVERVIEW OF THE GURDJI E F F WO RK AND   G NO S IS

Gurdjieff’s teaching contains an esoteric system of ideas for inner awakening accom-
panied by a praxis for development of conscious intelligence. Consistent with the
gnostic impulse, Gurdjieff teaches that we ourselves and the outer “world” are not as
we take them to be. Humanity needs a new kind of knowledge, a gnosis, in his terms
an understanding that integrates all parts of oneself –​intellect, feeling, and body –​in
a harmonious whole.
Not a religious teacher in any conventional sense, Gurdjieff did not inculcate
beliefs, nor demand faith from his pupils; rather, he taught a practice that uses the
circumstances of everyday life to reveal laws of spiritual influence he detected at the
source of great religious traditions as well as esoteric teachings (Ouspensky 1949: 362–​
4). He cites the ideals and teachings of many spiritual adepts –​specifically Moses, Jesus
Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, and the unknown Saint Lama and Ashiata Shiemash. He
identifies each as a “saint” or “a genuine messenger from our Endlessness” (Gurdjieff
1993: 235–​6, 347–​9, 705–​6). Further, Gurdjieff identifies Pythagoras as an “initiate of
the first degree” and extolls his esoteric study of the monochord (Gurdjieff 1993: 455,
888–​90), which is consonant with Gurdjieff’s cosmological teaching and theory of
vibrations (Gurdjieff 1993: 859–​67). Behind these adepts, he taught, lies an esoteric
center of humanity that alone disseminates the conscious influences and objective
knowledge required for transformation (Gurdjieff 1973: 78–​9; Ouspensky 1949: 199–​
202). To realize gnosis, one must develop the capacity to discriminate these esoteric
influences from the ordinary ones of life and open oneself to penetration by these
influences. This inner search described by Gurdjieff is the essence of the gnostic quest.
Gurdjieff’s “Work” (also “work on oneself” and “work toward consciousness”) is
a practice that uses inquiry and disciplined effort to awaken to the goal of inner trans-
formation. Consistent with the Western esoteric, alchemical, and Hermetic traditions,
the practice follows the principle that the human birthright includes vast possibilities
for development of consciousness, beyond conceptions of ordinary consciousness.
In these characteristics, the Gurdjieff Work is properly considered an esoteric school
with gnostic sensibilities (Ouspensky 1949: 222–​31).
Although scholarship on ancient gnostic and esoteric schools is limited, remarkable
parallels exist between reports of the esoteric school of Pythagoras and Gurdjieff’s Work.
Both systems posit that humanity is a complete image of the entire cosmos, a microcosm,
situated in a unique position to integrate universal principles with the world of mani-
festation. Both agree that the task of humanity is not to become divine, but to awaken
to the divine, already within each individual. Integral to this task is study of the law
of vibrations, which Pythagoras demonstrated on the monochord and which Gurdjieff
called the most important branch of scientific knowledge that “gives the possibility …
of recognizing reality” (Gurdjieff 1993: 859). And finally, the esoteric schools of both
Pythagoras and Gurdjieff emphasize integration of theory and practice in requiring that
humans work within the world, not escape it, in order to find harmonious fulfillment of
the human soul and the unity that lies behind multiplicity (Fideler 1987: 30–​48).
Gurdjieff’s esoteric school embodies gnostic sensibilities in many ways, only three
of which are addressed here: the plight of humanity as illusion; humanity’s place in
the cosmos; and work for consciousness.

518
519

— G n o s t i c s e n s i b i l i t y i n G u r d j i e f f ’s   “ Wo r k ” —

T HE PLIGHT OF HUMANITY  – ​ IG NO RANCE

AND ILLU S IO N
Consistent with the gnostic impulse and Hermetism (Hermetica [Excerpts  1977],
pp. 80–​3), Gurdjieff teaches that the world as we see and feel it is not as it truly exists,
but, rather, is taken in as a fantastic representation, as an illusory world (Ouspensky
1949: 20–​1). In our perceptions, the real world is turned upside down and we do not
understand the truth of who we are or how we live. Moreover, we live in the wrong
part of ourselves. To Gurdjieff, our normal waking consciousness is mistaken for
real consciousness, when, in fact, the subconscious is the “real” human consciousness
(Gurdjieff 1993: 24–​7).
For Gnostics, Hermeticists, and Gurdjieff, ignorance of our plight is ensured
through a host of almost pervasive psychological and social processes. Essentially,
we are in prison and need to escape, but first, we must realize that we are imprisoned
and understand what freedom is. We need to awaken  –​to understand  –​that we
are asleep to our real nature and then, to escape the prison of illusion and ignor-
ance (Meyer 2003: 3; Gurdjieff 1993: 353). Gurdjieff’s Work is dedicated to striving
toward understanding and liberation to serve the process of evolution on both indi-
vidual and cosmic scales (Conge 1999: 5–​15).
Although Gurdjieff’s teaching aligns with Gnostic and Hermetic preconceptions
of human life in this world as “alienated” from our true nature, Gurdjieff and
Hermetic beliefs do not see this world as a place without value, to be escaped, as the
Gnostics held (Lachman 2011: 90–​1). Rather, Gurdjieff and the Hermeticists agree
that humanity’s task is one of responsibility and obligation (Lachman 2011:  90;
Ouspensky 1949: 20–​1) to a mission specific to its unique niche in the grand scheme
of things (Ouspensky 1949: 102, 305; Lachman 2013: 15–​16). Essentially, we live
unconsciously, below our legitimate level, but we can have consciousness and con-
sciousness belongs to us by right (Ouspensky 1968: 27).

HUMANITY’S P LACE IN THE   CO S M O S

The cosmologies of the gnostics (Lachman 2015:  106–​ 18), the Hermeticists
(Hermetica [1977], pp. 13–​14), and Gurdjieff agree that humanity is separated from
the most intelligent consciousness by many levels of creation (in Gurdjieff’s terms,
many “orders of mechanical laws”) (Ouspensky 1949:  82–​8), which severely con-
strain the freedom of humanity. At a great distance from this perfect and unitary
intelligence, our world is also a prison realm of falsity and oppression. The possibility
exists for humans to free themselves from these laws through long and persistent
efforts, which will convince them of the limitations of ordinary consciousness and the
truth of their imprisonment (Ouspensky 1949: 84).
The most intelligent consciousness is similarly identified by the Gnostics as the
“unknown God, beyond all that is visible or sensible” (Rudolph 1977:  58; Meyer
2003: 4), by the Hermeticists as the “source of all that is” ([1977], p. 13), and by
Gurdjieff as “His Endlessness” and “Actualizer of Everything Existing in the Whole
of the Universe” (Gurdjieff 1993: 24, 1120). These three systems also agree that a
spark of this highest One is contained within humans. To discover this hidden truth,

519
520

— C o n s t a n c e A .   Jo n e s —

humans must conduct a parallel study of the microcosm of self and the macrocosm of
all of creation, because the microcosm contains the macrocosm.
Although similar to the Gnostic emphasis on the remote and impersonal nature
of the Ultimate, Gurdjieff’s teaching differs from Gnosticism’s ontological dualism,
world-​ rejecting themes, and devaluation of the physical body. Instead, Gurdjieff
proffers a non-​dual cosmology, accepts this world as the venue for transformation,
and considers the body an ally in spiritual development. These differences aside,
Gurdjieff’s teaching embodies a gnostic sensibility in its diagnosis of the human need
to awaken to its true nature and to pursue transformation.

WORK F OR CON S CIO U S NE S S

Both Gnostic schools and Gurdjieff define the human condition as one of “sleep,” in
which we are unaware of the real nature of humanity –​that we contain a spark of
the divine fire, which must be sought and found within self. Our responsibility is to
awaken from this sleep, to expand consciousness, and to participate in a knowledge
of our situation that is integrated into our “being,” which Gurdjieff identifies as the
“only indestructible reality” (Gurdjieff 1973: 79).

They fail to see the galling emptiness hidden behind the highly painted façade
created by their self-​delusion … There do exist enquiring minds, which long for
the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to pene-
trate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves.
If a man reasons and thinks soundly … he must inevitably arrive back at himself
and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his
place is in the world … Socrates’ words ‘know thyself’ remain for all who seek
true knowledge and being.
(Gurdjieff 1973: 43)

Also consistent with some but not all Gnostic teaching (Lacarriere 1977: 49), Gurdjieff
taught that the soul is not immortal by nature, but must be developed. “Man is born
without a soul, but it is possible to make one” (Gurdjieff 1973: 191).

THE TEACHING
Gurdjieff’s teaching connects several sets of oppositions –​not only East and West,
but also traditional and modern, mythic and scientific, esoteric and exoteric –​and
demonstrates the instruction he gave to his pupils: to “take the understanding of the
East and the knowledge of the West—​and then seek” (Gurdjieff 1973: 274). Gurdjieff
claims that his ideas and practices stem from Antiquity, before duality brought degen-
eration and fragmentation into human life and thought. He returns repeatedly to the
many ways in which fragmentation and the lack of unity are basic to the problems of
human existence, stating his wish, “to speak about the overall unity of all that exists –​
about unity in multiplicity” (Gurdjieff 1973: 15).
Gurdjieff’s emphasis on personal effort can be compared to the occult systems
of Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Rosicrucianism (Webb 1980:  540–​1; Lacarriere

520
521

— G n o s t i c s e n s i b i l i t y i n G u r d j i e f f ’s   “ Wo r k ” —

1996: 156–​62), but expressed via modern scientific language (Nicolescu 1996: 37–​

69; Moore 1991: 345–​8).
These diverse strands of teaching and practice cohere in an integrated praxis, the
Work, that calls pupils to discover truth for themselves, as, according to Gurdjieff,
this is the only truth of any value. In this way, Gurdjieff intended the Work to embody
the parallel development of knowledge and being into an integrated wholeness (Finch
1996: 27).

THE HUMAN C O ND ITIO N

According to Gurdjieff, each person consists of two parts. One part, particularly
valued in the West, personality, derives from influences external to a person, such
as education, culture, and circumstance. The other, essence, derives from birth, not
external influences, and is the real nature of each person. The truth of the human
condition, especially under conditions of civilization and distance from nature, is that
personality grows, while essence remains undeveloped. Until essence is rediscovered
and nourished alongside personality, humans are not complete and life is not “real”
(Ouspensky 1949: 161–​5).
Gurdjieff distinguishes four states or levels of consciousness, although ordinarily
people live in only two of these states. The first state, he says, is sleep, the common
state of passivity in which we spend about one-​third of our life. The second state,
usually called waking state or ordinary consciousness, is the condition under which
the remainder of life occurs. But ordinary consciousness demonstrates neither clarity
of thought nor objective reason, but, rather, is a personal and subjective world of
“I like” and “I do not like,” in which people walk, talk, write books, and kill one
another (Ouspensky 1949: 141–​2). In this state of waking sleep, desires and imagin-
ation obscure any objective view of the real world.
In the third state of consciousness, self-​remembering or self-​consciousness, one is
able to be conscious of one’s actual state of being. Although possible for an ordinary
person, the third state is rarely achieved because of the dysfunctional conditions of
everyday life and because most people think that they already possess such a state of
consciousness. Obviously, individuals will not be inclined to make strenuous efforts
to achieve something they believe they already possess. Only in the fourth state,
objective consciousness, can a person see things as they are. Religions and systems of
spiritual understanding refer to this highest state of consciousness as “being awake”
or “enlightenment.” According to Gurdjieff, the fourth state is possible only as a result
of inner growth and work on oneself (Ouspensky 1949: 141–​2).
“A modern man,” says Gurdjieff, “lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he
dies … what knowledge can a sleeping man have?” (Ouspensky 1949: 66). Gurdjieff’s
answer to his own question is that a person can appreciate the state of waking sleep
by having, however fleetingly, an experience of an altogether different state in which
moving, feeling, and thinking functions are harmonious. This state offers the first
glimmer of real knowledge and a “view from the real world” (Gurdjieff 1973: v). But
when challenged to explain this experience, a person does not know how to repeat the
experience, make it last, or deepen it. Here, says Gurdjieff, a person encounters another
fact about the human condition –​that one does not know oneself. Yet overcoming

521
52

— C o n s t a n c e A .   Jo n e s —

ignorance is not simply gaining self-​knowledge. In Gurdjieff’s words, “to do you must
know; but to know you must find out how to know” (Ouspensky 1949: 105).
To refine the relationship between knowledge and being, Gurdjieff introduces a
third term, understanding (Ouspensky 1949: 68). The mind may know something,
but understanding occurs only when feeling and sensing are connected to what is
known. Understanding increases only when knowledge and being grow together.
A  prerequisite of this development is discovery of a capacity that brings order
among being, knowledge and understanding. Such a faculty is innate and already
exists, undiscovered, within the sub-​consciousness of each person. This is conscience
(Gurdjieff 1993: 372).

CONSCIENCE AND E VO L U TIO N

For Gurdjieff, genuine conscience is a faculty buried so deep inside each person that
it exerts virtually no force in everyday life. In its place, and to the detriment of each
person, personality acquires a mechanism called “morality,” which is relative and
varies by conditions of life, and whose purpose is largely to ensure obedience to cul-
tural norms (Gurdjieff 1993:  343). Genuine conscience, on the other hand, is not
part of personality, but is part of one’s innate makeup, deriving from a reality beyond
personal and cultural influences and serving an evolutionary and developmental pur-
pose. Because he considers conscience the most valuable thing in a person (Gurdjieff
1985: 115), he made its development central to the aim of his school:

The ideas upon which my Institute would be based: namely I wished to create

around myself conditions in which a man would be continually reminded of the
sense and aim of his existence by an unavoidable friction between his conscience
and the automatic manifestations of his nature.
(Gurdjieff 1985: 270)

Gurdjieff’s cosmology relates the larger processes operating in the universe to the
processes occurring within each person. Work toward evolution, thus, requires
observation of inner processes as well as study of external influences. Further,
maintenance of the universe needs something from humanity, particularly human
bodies that can accumulate and develop energies. This energy, “food” for planetary
growth, accumulates only through growth of consciousness among humans
(Gurdjieff 1993:  130). The inescapable purpose of human life, consequently, is
to develop consciousness to serve the process of evolution on an interplanetary
scale. Humanity’s role, then, involves responsibility, which increases as a function
of understanding the intricate correspondence between efforts for self-​awareness
and evolution on a universal scale. This responsibility resides within a hierarchy of
sacredness (Gurdjieff 1993: 759–​60), so that work for consciousness is also service
to the Divine.

COSMOL O G Y
Gurdjieff’s cosmology explains the universe from the largest scale of manifestation,
megalocosmos, through intermediate scales, to the smallest scale, microcosmos

522
523

— G n o s t i c s e n s i b i l i t y i n G u r d j i e f f ’s   “ Wo r k ” —

(Gurdjieff 1993:  759–​60). In Gurdjieff’s cosmology, the interrelated parts of the

universe, are all in movement, sustained by an ongoing undulation and transform-
ation of energies. The fundamental dynamic of this movement consists of two forces
working in complementary directions. A creative, involutionary force descends from
subtle levels of energy, and an evolutionary force ascends from dense levels of energy
(Gurdjieff 1993: 137–​8). All matter and energy in the universe undergoes transform-
ation at all times, either descending from finer to coarser (involution) or ascending
from coarser to finer (evolution) (Gurdjieff 1973: 209). In this living, transforming
universe, humanity plays a significant role as a bridge between the subtle world of
spiritual forces and the everyday world of experience. On the scale of human life, con-
scious efforts serve cosmic evolution by contributing a quality of energy that allows
the involutionary and evolutionary forces to proceed across the place where humanity
is located. Thus, humanity’s role is necessary for cosmic evolution, as it participates
in an organic relationship with cosmic forces according to two fundamental laws
that Gurdjieff calls the “law of seven” (Gurdjieff 1993: 813–​70) and the “the law of
three” (Gurdjieff 1993: 138–​9). Subsidiary laws, such as gravity, mutual attraction of
similars, and even psychological processes, derive from these fundamental laws.
In these ways, Gurdjieff’s teaching embodies esoteric principles and a gnostic sens-
ibility. Organized around systematic analysis of the human condition and recogni-
tion of humanity’s responsibility for awakening to its real nature, the Work provides
conditions for self-​study and the development of finer energies needed for conscious
evolution.

ASP ECTS OF T HE   WO RK
Movements and dances
Gurdjieff included in his teaching rhythmic exercises, called Movements; these
address the aims of self-​knowledge and development of a new quality of attention
that includes the whole person:  body, mind, and feeling. Movements are said to
express precise metaphysical laws and to allow a direct and personal experience
of different qualities of energy, and thus another dimension of reality (Gurdjieff
1973:  31; with Nott 1969:  240–​1; De Salzmann 2010:  122). The challenge of
Movements is that they require instantaneous coordination of body and mind (De
Dampierre 1996: 290–​5).

Music and the study of ideas

Gurdjieff maintains that music can transmit understanding of universal laws through
direct perception of the effect of vibrations on the organism. His theories invoke
the esoteric teaching of correspondences:  study of the microcosm of music as an
inquiry into universal laws and processes that also operate at the macrocosmic level
(Rosenthal 1996: 301–​10).
According to Gurdjieff, a fine energy from sources more intelligent than humanity
constitutes influences that can enter our lives, and expand our consciousness, both
directly from other realms and as living ideas in the teachings of messengers from
Above (Ouspensky 1949: 199–​200; Gurdjieff 1993: 293–​6). Study of ideas, alone and

523
524

— C o n s t a n c e A .   Jo n e s —

in groups, calls for an integration of the ideas of the teaching with personal experi-
ence. Gurdjieff stressed the need to study the ideas of his teaching at all levels, from
intra-​psychic to universal, and to spend time considering seriously the relationships
among these levels (Gurdjieff 1993: 386).

Practical work and work in life

Throughout his work with pupils, Gurdjieff assigned physical tasks to awaken
in each person an understanding of self and to demonstrate how laws operate in
everyday life. Working with craft materials or tools with a directed attention can pro-
vide impressions of how awareness, emotional attachment, and physical activity are
interrelated (Tchekhovitch 2006). Work groups regularly assemble for a period (day,
weekend, or week) to engage in team activities while also setting a common intention
to experiment with aspects of self-​observation during practical activities.
Essential to Gurdjieff’s teaching is the principle that the Work, begun as quiet,
inner observation of oneself, must eventually emerge into everyday life (Ouspensky
1949: 44–​52; Needleman 2006: 452).

CONCLUSION: THE GNO S TIC  M OTIVE

The Gurdjieff Work and the gnostic quest embody similar paradigms, with parallel
ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies, and methodologies. Their ontologies attempt to
define the cosmos, the human situation, and relation between the two in similar terms.
Both call upon epistemologies of self-​inquiry through communal efforts to address the
illusion and “sleep” that envelop humanity. Methodologically both require self-study
and inner search toward the goals of awakening, transformation, and evolution.

REFERENCES
Borella, Jean 1995. “René Guénon and the Traditionalist School.” Antoine Faivre and Jacob
Needleman (eds.). Modern Esoteric Spirituality. New York: Crossroad: 330–​58.
Conge, Michel. 1999. A Study of the Ideas of G.I. Gurdjieff. Tusten, NY: Lake Press.
De Dampierre, Pauline. 1996. “The Role of Movements.” Jacob Needleman and
George Baker (eds.). Gurdjieff:  Essays and Reflections on the Man and his Teaching.
New York: Continuum: 290–​5.
De Salzmann, Michel. 1985. “Footnote to the Gurdjieff Literature.” J. Walter Driscoll
and the Gurdjieff Foundation of California. Gurdjieff:  An Annotated Bibliography.
New York: Garland.
De Salzmann, Jeanne. 2010. The Reality of Being: The Fourth Way of Gurdjieff. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.
Driscoll, Walter (ed.). 2002. “A Teacher of Dancing: Gurdjieff and his Movements.” Gurdjieff
International Review 5 (1). http://​www.gurdjieff.org/​.
Ellwood, Robert S., and Harry B. Partin. 1988. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern
America. 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Faivre, Antoine. 1992. “Introduction I.” Antoine Faivre and Jacob Needleman (eds.). Modern
Esoteric Spirituality. New York: Crossroad: xi–​xxii.
Fideler, David R. 1987. “Introduction.” Kenneth S. Guthrie (ed.). The Pythagorean Sourcebook
and Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes: 19–​54.

524
52

— G n o s t i c s e n s i b i l i t y i n G u r d j i e f f ’s   “ Wo r k ” —

Finch, Henry L. 1996. “The Sacred Cosmos: Teachings of Gurdjieff.” Jacob Needleman and
George Baker (eds.). Gurdjieff:  Essays and Reflections on the Man and his Teaching.
New York: Continuum: 8–​29.
Guénon, René. 1996. The Crisis of the Modern World. Ghent, NY:  Sophia Perennis et
Universalis.
Gurdjieff, George I. 1988 (1933). The Herald of the Coming Good:  First Appeal to
Contemporary Humanity. Edmonds, Washington: Sure Fire.
—​—​—​ 1993 (1950). Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson: An objectively impartial criticism of
the life of man. Aurora, Oregon: Two Rivers.
—​—​—​ 1973. Views from the Real World:  Early Talks in Moscow, Essentuki, Tiflis, Berlin,
London, Paris, New  York, Chicago, As Recollected by His Pupils. Foreword Jeanne de
Salzmann. New York: E.P. Dutton.
—​—​—​ 1981. Life is Real Only Then, When “I Am”. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
—​—​—​ 1985. Meetings with Remarkable Men. London: Penguin Arkana.
—​—​—​ 2009. Transcripts of Gurdjieff’s Meetings 1941–​1946. London: Book Studio.
Jones, Constance A. 2005. G.I. Gurdjieff e la sua eredità. Turin: Elledici.
Lacarriere, Jacques. 1977. The Gnostics. New York: E.P. Dutton.
—​—​—​1996. “Letter to a Contemporary Gnostic.” Jacob Needleman and George Baker (eds.).
Gurdjieff:  Essays and Reflections on the Man and his Teaching. New  York:  Continuum:
156–​62.
Lachman, Gary. 2011. The Quest for Hermes Trismegistus. Edinburgh: Floris.
—​—​—​ 2013. The Caretakers of the Cosmos:  Living Responsibly in an Unfinished World.
Edinburgh: Floris.
—​—​—​ 2015. The Secret Teachers of the Western World. New York: Tarcher.
Meyer, Marvin. 2003. “Gnosticism, Gnostics, and The Gnostic Bible.” Willis Barnstone and
Marvin Meyer (eds.). The Gnostic Bible. Boston, MA: Shambhala: 1–​19.
Moore, James. 1991. Gurdjieff:  The Anatomy of a Myth, A  Biography. Rockport, MA:
Element.
Needleman, Jacob, 1992. “G.I. Gurdjieff and His School.” Antoine Faivre and Jacob Needleman
(eds.). Modern Esoteric Spirituality. New York: Crossroad.
—​—​ —​1996. “Gurdjieff, or the Metaphysics of Energy.” Jacob Needleman and George
Baker (eds.). Gurdjieff: Essays and Reflections on the Man and His Teaching. New York:
Continuum: 70–​85.
—​—​—​2006. “The Gurdjieff Tradition.” Wouter J. Hanegraaff in collaboration with Jean-​
Pierre Brach, Roelof van den Broek, and Antoine Faivre (eds.). Dictionary of Gnosis and
Western Esotericism. Leiden: E.J. Brill: 450–​4.
Nicolescu, Basarab. 1996. “Gurdjieff’s Philosophy of Nature.” Jacob Needleman and
George Baker (eds.). Gurdjieff:  Essays and Reflections on the Man and His Teaching.
New York: Continuum: 37–​69.
Nott, Charles S. 1961. Teachings of Gurdjieff: The Journal of a Pupil. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
—​—​—​ 1969. Journey Through This World: The Second Journal of a Pupil. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Ouspensky, Piotr D. 1949. In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching.
New York: Harcourt Brace.
—​—​—​ 1968. The Fourth Way. New York: Knopf.
—​—​—​ 1974. The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution. New York: Vintage.
—​—​—​ 1986. A Further Record: Extracts from Meetings 1928–​1945. London: Arkana.
—​—​—​ 1981 (1911). Tertium Organum: The Third Canon of Thought, A Key to the Enigmas
of the World. New York: Random House.

525
526

— C o n s t a n c e A .   Jo n e s —

Pentland, John. 1997. Exchanges Within:  Questions from Everyday Life Selected from
Gurdjieff Group Meetings with John Pentland in California 1955–​1984. New  York:
Continuum.
Petsche, Johanna. 2015. Gurdjieff and Music: The Gurdjieff/​deHartmann Piano Music and its
Esoteric Significance. Leiden: Brill.
Rawlinson, Andrew. 1997. The Book of Enlightened Masters. Chicago: Open Court.
Rosenthal, L. 1996. “Gurdjieff and Music.” Jacob Needleman and George
Baker (eds.). Gurdjieff:  Essays and Reflections on the Man and His Teaching.
New York: Continuum: 301–​10.
Rudolph, Kurt. 1977. Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper.
Tchekhovitch, Tcheslaw. 2006. Gurdjieff:  A Master in Life:  Recollections of Tcheslaw
Tchekhovitch. Toronto: Dolmen Meadow.
Vaysse, Jean. 1980. Toward Awakening:  An Approach to the Teaching left by Gurdjieff.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Walker, Benjamin. 1983. Gnosticism: Its History and Influence. Wellingborough, Northampto
nshire: Aquarian Press.
Walker, Kenneth. 1951. Venture with Ideas. London: Jonathan Cape.
—​—​—​ 1957. A Study of Gurdjieff’s Teaching. London: Jonathan Cape.
Webb, James. 1980. The Harmonious Circle:  The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D.
Ouspensky and Their Followers. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Wilson, Colin. 1971. The Occult: A History. New York: Random House.

Printed music
Gurdjieff, George I., and Thomas de Hartmann. 1990. Music for the Gurdjieff Movements and
Exercises. 2 vols. New York: Triangle Editions.
Gurdjieff, George I., and Thomas de Hartmann. 1996. Music for the Piano. 4 vols. New York:
Schott.
De Hartmann, Thomas. 1989. Music of Gurdjieff–​de Hartmann. New York: Triangle Books.

526