Gurdjieff – Essence – Taoism

“And as for the totality of the spiritualized data localized in their presence
for the purpose of genuine being-consciousness, which they call the
‘subconscious,’ since it neither has nor acquires any ‘logicnestarian growths’
for confrontation and criticism, but from the very beginning has only the
possibility of engendering the sacred being-impulses called ‘Faith,’ ‘Love,’
‘Hope,’ and ‘Conscience,’ it always believes, always loves, and always hopes
in everything newly perceived.
“Well, my boy, by altering the tempo of their blood circulation, it is
possible to suspend for a time the action of the localization of their false
consciousness, now the ‘sovereign master’ of their common presence, thus
enabling the sacred data of their genuine consciousness to blend freely with
the general functioning of their planetary body during their waking state, and
if one then assists, in the required way, the crystallization of data which give
rise in this localization to an idea contrary to what is already fixed there, and
if one directs the action of this idea to a disharmonized part of the planetary
body, one can bring about in that part a rapid change in the blood circulation.
-GEORGE IVANOVICH GURDJIEFF, Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson

I wouldn’t try to find answer for this question in any more advanced form, but I think it’s worth noticing that Gurdjieff’s claims have to to with his experiments with hypnotism.

So to find answer for this practically one would need to have group which experiments with this kinds of things.

Anyway real nature of so called animal magnetism should be clear at least to certain degree for those who are familiar with Taoist energetic practices.

HOWDY

“This duality of their general psyche is produced because, on the one hand,
various what are called ‘individual initiatives’ issue from that localization in
their presence which is always predominant during their waking existence and
is nothing but the result of accidentally perceived impressions coming from
their abnormal environment, which taken as a whole make up their so-called
‘consciousness’, and on the other hand, various other ‘individual initiatives’
simultaneously issue from that normal localization existing in the presence of
every kind of being which they call the ‘subconscious.’
“And because these ‘individual initiatives’ issue from two different
localizations, each of your favorites in his daily waking existence is, as it
were, divided into two independent personalities.
“Here it must be remarked that this duality was also the reason why their
presence gradually lost that impulse, indispensable to three-brained beings,
called ‘sincerity.’
“Later, the practice even took root among them of inten
tionally suppressing this being-impulse called ‘sincerity’, and now, from the
day of their arising or, as they say, from the day of their !birth,’ these threebrained beings are accustomed by their producers—or, as they say, their
‘parents’— to an entirely contrary impulse, namely ‘deceit.’
“To teach and influence their children how to be insincere with others and
deceitful in everything has become so ingrained in the beings of the planet
Earth of the present time that they even consider this their duty toward their
children, and they describe this conduct by the famous word ‘education.’
-G.I. GURDJIEFF, Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson

Conversations in groups continued as usual. Once G. said that he wanted to carry out an experiment on the separation of personality from essence. We were all very interested because he had promised “experiments” for a long time but till then we had seen nothing. I will not describe his methods, I will merely describe the people whom he chose that first evening for the experiment. One was no longer young and was a man who occupied a fairly prominent position in society. At our meetings he spoke much and often about himself, his family, about Christianity, and about the events of the moment connected with the war and with all possible kinds of “scandal” that had very much disgusted him. The other was younger. Many of us did not consider him to be a serious person. Very often he played what is called the fool; or, on the other hand, entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the system without any relation whatever to the whole. It was very difficult to understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view and words belonging to different categories and levels.
I pass over the beginning of the experiment.
We were sitting in the big drawing room.
The conversation went on as usual.
“Now observe,” G. whispered to us.
The older of the two who was speaking heatedly about something suddenly became silent in the middle of a sentence and seemed to sink into his chair looking straight in front of him. At a sign from G. we continued to talk without looking at him. The younger one began to listen to the talk and then spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple, and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances, and without buffoonery. Then he became silent; he smoked a cigarette and was obviously thinking of something. The first one sat still without moving, as though shrunken into a ball.
“Ask him what he is thinking about,” said G. quietly.
“I?” He lifted his head as though waking up when he was questioned. “About nothing.” He smiled weakly as though apologizing or as though he were surprised at anyone asking him what he was thinking about.
“Well, you were talking about the war just now,” said one of us, “about what would happen if we made peace with the Germans; do you still think as you did then?”
“I don’t know really,” he said in an uncertain voice. “Did I say that?”
“Yes, certainly, you just said that everyone was obliged to think about it, that no one had the right not to think about it, and that no one had the right to forget the war; everyone ought to have a definite opinion; yes or no—for or against the war.”
He listened as though he did not grasp what the questioner was saying.
“Yes?” he said. “How odd. I do not remember anything about it.”
“But aren’t you interested in it?”
“No, it does not interest me at all.”
“Are you not thinking of the consequences of all that is now taking place, of the results for Russia, for the whole of civilization?”
He shook his head as though with regret.
“I do not understand what you are talking about,” he said, “it does not interest me at all and I know nothing about it.”
“Well then, you spoke before of your family. Would it not be very much easier for you if they became interested in our ideas and joined the work?”
“Yes, perhaps,” again in an uncertain voice. “But why should I think about it?”
“Well, you said you were afraid of the gulf, as you expressed it, which was growing between you and them.”
No reply.
“But what do you think about it now?”
“I am not thinking about it at all.”
“If you were asked what you would like, what would you say?”
Again a wondering glance—”I do not want anything.”
“But think, what would you like?”
On the small table beside him there stood an unfinished glass of tea. He gazed at it for a long time as though considering something. He glanced around him twice, then again looked at the glass, and said in such a serious voice and with such serious intonations that we all looked at one another:
“I think I should like some raspberry jam.”
“Why are you questioning him?” said a voice from the corner which we hardly recognized.
This was the second “experiment.”
“Can you not see that he is asleep?”
“And you yourself?” asked one of us.
“I, on the contrary, have woken up.”
“Why has he gone to sleep while you have woken up?”
“I do not know.”
With this the experiment ended.
Neither of them remembered anything the next day. G. explained to us that with the first man everything that constituted the subject of his ordinary conversation, of his alarms and agitation, was in personality. And when his personality was asleep practically nothing remained. In the personality of the other there was also a great deal of undue talkativeness but behind the personality there was an essence which knew as much as the personality and knew it better, and when personality went to sleep essence took its place to which it had a much greater right.
“Note that contrary to his custom he spoke very little,” said G. “But he was observing all of you and everything that was taking place, and nothing escaped him.”
“But of what use is it to him if he also does not remember?” said one of us.
“Essence remembers,” said G., “personality has forgotten. And this was necessary because otherwise personality would have perverted everything and would have ascribed all this to itself.”
“But this is a kind of black magic,” said one of us. “Worse,” said G. “Wait and you will see worse than that”
-P.D. OUSPENSKY, In Search of the Miraculous

Here it’s better to be clear that Gurdjieff’s main method, to show that there is something like personality which is separated from something which he calls essence, is hypnotic suggestion which results subject’s personality switching off.

Notice that he would have been observing this also other ways can be understood knowing that this guy saw almost all in conventional society being abnormal and morbid. There method of observation is more indirect.

HOWDY

Ps. Is there any kind of Taoist equivalence?

Only he will deserve the name of man and can count upon anything prepared for him from Above, who has already acquired corresponding data for being able to preserve intact both the wolf and the sheep confided to his care.
A ‘psycho-associative philological analysis’ of this saying of our ancestors which was made by certain learned men of our times—of course not from among those breeding on the continent of Europe— clearly showed that the word ‘wolf’ symbolizes the whole of the fundamental and reflex functioning of the human organism and the word ‘sheep’ the whole of the functioning of a man’s feeling. As for the functioning of a man’s thinking, this is represented in the saying by the man himself, a man who, in the process of his responsible life, owing to his conscious labours and voluntary sufferings, has acquired in his common presence corresponding data for always being able to create conditions for a possible existence together of these two heterogeneous and mutually alien lives. Only such a man can count upon and become worthy to possess that which, as affirmed in this saying, is prepared from Above and is, in general, foreordained for man.
-G. GURDJIEFF, Meetings with Remarkable Men

Ipovlopsychophobia (ē-pōv′lo-sy-cho-fō′bē-ă, from Greek ὑποβλώψ – ypovló̱ps, “one who takes stolen glances”, ψυχή – psychí̱, “the soul”, and φόβος – phobos, “fear”) refers to a fear, aversion, or strong refusal to have one’s photograph taken. Although an uncommon phobia, it has been noted within minor religions as an experience to which one believes their spirit or essence is stolen by the photographer and the photographic equipment.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipovlopsychophobia

personality=1st attention (known)

essence=2nd attention (unknown which can become known)

3rd attention (unknowable)=????

HOWDY

Ps. If Gurdjieff was very very peculiar personality what about Castaneda? For example where does his camera shyness actually come from?